[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 83112)
Message
File  []
close
3712[1].jpg
831128311283112
>> No. 83112 Anonymous
11th July 2017
Tuesday 9:15 pm
83112 The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked
Not sure if I should have put this in /boo/ but:

>A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum

>This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy. Paid for by a US billionaire. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent. This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.

So it seems a British defense contractor helped the Leave campaign. Cambridge Analytica exploited the system for Vote Leave to get away with funding that would have normally broken electoral rules. All bankrolled by a billionaire hedge fund manager. Welcome to plutocracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
19 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 83135 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 9:55 am
83135 spacer
>>83132
>calling people with concerns over immigration bigots and racists
I'm sorry if the truth hurts you so.

Of course the irony of people pretending their bigotry is somehow "legitimate concern about immigration" is that normally it's the left that people associate with hurt feelings, which is ultimately what the anti-immigration argument is about. There's never any actual evidence to support their arguments.
>> No. 83136 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 11:42 am
83136 spacer
>>83135

There's a very useful Sanskrit term, upaya-kaushalya, that loosely translates to "skillful means" or "expedient means". It's a very important concept in Buddhist pedagogy. A teaching that reflects the literal truth of the dharma may well be the wrong teaching if it doesn't communicate that truth in a way that will be understood and internalised by the listener; conversely, an inaccurate metaphor or an outright falsehood may be correct if it assists someone in developing a deeper understanding of the dharma.

Saying that opponents of immigration are racist may or may not be factually correct, but it's undoubtedly unskillful. The left has been saying the same things in response to anti-immigrant sentiment for decades and persuaded precisely nobody; if anything, the pendulum has swung the other way, hence Brexit.

Is calling someone a bigot compassionate? Is it skillful? Is it likely to open a dialogue? Is it likely to assuage the fears people have about demographic change? Is it likely to persuade them to rethink their opinion?
>> No. 83137 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 11:56 am
83137 spacer
>>83136
On the other hand, there's none so blind as well not see. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's entirely another to reject reality out of hand as surveys have repeatedly found people to do.
>> No. 83138 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 12:52 pm
83138 spacer
>>83136
I'm not entirely sure how the falsehood "your concerns about immigration while not grounded in reality are nonetheless legitimate" helps anyone understand anything. On the contrary, it only serves to legitimise their ignorance. In many cases, those people are like creationists in that there's no reasoning with them because of all the escape hatches. "The numbers must be wrong. Are Dave's boy can't get a job for all the filthy forriners. Are Shirley can't get an appointment at the doctor's this month. Look at them muslamic rayguns and bulgmanian gangsters." No amount of evidence to the contrary (which is abundant and overwhelming) will convince these idiots otherwise. They'll say "that's not the reality I'm living in", except that what they think isn't the reality they're living in either - the correlation between anti-immigrant sentiment and actual immigration is negative.

The failure to engage isn't because people aren't trying to engage them. It's because they won't allow themselves to be engaged with.
>> No. 83139 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 1:28 pm
83139 spacer
>>83135
Whether people's concerns about immigration are valid or not is largely immaterial.

The simple fact is that if you refuse to engage with people and instead resort to sneering and insults then what will happen is you will either create a vacuum or actively push people in the other direction. Who will exploit this vacuum? Are Nige, that's who. Who will take advantage of this to pull people with moderate concerns further to the right? Are Nige, that's who. Who will make these further right views deeply entrenched? Are Nige, that's who.

If the left are completely correct on immigration since the turn of the century then they must be really fucking dense if they managed to lose the argument, to the point that Brexit actually won.

The NatCen Social Attitudes survey has had 70-80% of the population wanting immigration reduced for many years, but by the time the left tried pulling their heads of the sand it was too late. The damage had been done.
>> No. 83140 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 1:38 pm
83140 spacer
>>83118
You'll be delighted to know that that's just one of Peter Thiel's many companies, alongside others like Mithril Capital and Valar Ventures.
>> No. 83141 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 1:48 pm
83141 spacer
>>83138

>The failure to engage isn't because people aren't trying to engage them.

When someone says "Are Dave's boy can't get a job for all the filthy forriners" and you reply that the foreigners are actually fine, you're completely overlooking the fact that Dave's boy is still on the dole. You're doing nothing to acknowledge or address the pain and suffering that created the anti-immigrant sentiment in the first place.

Immigration is a totemic symbol, representing the divide between an educated urban elite and the people who society has decided to ignore and marginalise. When people say "that's not the reality I'm living in", they're not really talking about immigration - they're talking about the reality of living in somewhere like Hartlepool or Boston or Thanet. They're talking about the fact that large parts of the left will readily empathise with gay teenagers or Syrian immigrants, but have no sympathy whatsoever for a middle-aged white bloke who was made redundant in 2008 and hasn't had a job interview since. They're talking about the fact that most of the power and influence in this country is hoarded in cosmopolitan, multicultural enclaves from which they are completely excluded.

Anger is just pain projected outwards. It's a substitute emotion that gives you some sense of control. You bang your shin on the coffee table, so you call the coffee table a cunt. Being told that the coffee table isn't really a cunt doesn't make your shin hurt any less.
>> No. 83142 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 2:33 pm
83142 spacer
>>83139
>The simple fact is that if you refuse to engage with people and instead resort to sneering and insults then what will happen is you will either create a vacuum or actively push people in the other direction.
Well, no, lad. That's not a fact. If you refuse to engage and refuse to be engaged, you just retreat into your own ignorance while the rest of society tries in vain to advance while your dead weight staffs them down.
>> No. 83143 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 2:47 pm
83143 spacer
>>83142
>If you refuse to engage and refuse to be engaged, you just retreat into your own ignorance while the rest of society tries in vain to advance while your dead weight staffs them down.

This applies the other way too.
>> No. 83144 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 3:16 pm
83144 spacer
>>83143
What, people who don't refuse to engage retreat into their own ignorance?
>> No. 83145 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 4:17 pm
83145 spacer
>>83140
I suppose at least his naming policy is transparent.
>> No. 83146 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 5:30 pm
83146 spacer
>>83142
The BBC didn't acknowledge even that people had concerns over immigration until the BNP won seats in the European elections in 2009.

By that point it was too late. If you're going to be happy to stick your head in the sand and make large swathes of the population feel marginalised because you're going to ignore them and not listen to their concerns, all for the sake of convenience, or, even worse, belittle and insult them then don't be surprised if their resentment festers and mistrust grows. Why would they believe you want to listen to them now all of a sudden?

The failure in this country to have a sensible debate over immigration well over a decade ago led to Brexit. The left not only failed to engage people, they actively pushed people to the right. It's all well and good after the event bemoaning people's ignorance and how these people don't want to engage, but the left played a not insignificant part in the reasons for this.
>> No. 83147 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 6:48 pm
83147 spacer
>>83146
>The BBC didn't acknowledge even that people had concerns over immigration until the BNP won seats in the European elections in 2009.
But people don't have "concerns over immigration". It's a cosy pretence they could use to justify their ignorance over the things they do have concerns about. Can't get a job? Immigrants took them all. Can't get a pay rise? Immigrants undercutting the natives. Can't get a GP appointment? Immigrants taking up all their time. Can't get your child into school? Immigrants flooding the place. Can't get a council house? They gave them all to the immigrants. Don't feel safe on the streets? All those immigrants turning to crime. No statistical evidence to back you up? Immigrants rigged the numbers. Bake Off moving to Channel 4? Immigrants winning it. OK, maybe that one's a bit silly. They obviously don't watch Bake Off.

>If you're going to be happy to stick your head in the sand and make large swathes of the population feel marginalised because you're going to ignore them and not listen to their concerns
Nobody marginalised them. They're marginalising themselves by refusing to engage. I'll say it again, because it appears you're having trouble with this fact, but they are the ones who are refusing to engage and they are the ones who are sneering. If you think they're the victims, you really have no idea of the levels of anti-intellectualism we're talking about here.

>Why would they believe you want to listen to them now all of a sudden?
Absolutely. Why would we in civilised society ever want to listen to them when they outright refuse to listen to anyone else?

>The failure in this country to have a sensible debate over immigration well over a decade ago led to Brexit.
Right, and this is, again, because the idiots refused to listen and refused to participate. They just dismissed anything that didn't accord with their worldview and the anecdotes they heard as "a load of posh wankers talking bollocks". (Actual quote, BTW.) How do you have a sensible debate with someone who can't even recognise that it needs to be had? How do you have a sensible debate with someone who's stock answer to all their problems is "immigrants did it"? It can't be done. Anything you would care to raise will be countered with BUT IMMIGRANTS INNIT.

The most pernicious myth of our time is that modern society has left whole swathes of the population behind. They didn't get left behind, they chose to stay behind. They chose to put their head in the sand and just blame everything on the people who look a little dark and sound a little funny that they don't like, rather than doing any sort of thinking, or engaging, or even letting themselves be engaged.

The big question of our time isn't why some notional "metropolitan elite" or "the left" or whatever monster of the week you want to invent engaged these people. We know exactly why they weren't engaged - they refused to let themselves be engaged. The question is why those people are so insistent on not being engaged. Why they choose to remain ignorant. That's why the debate has failed.
>> No. 83148 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 6:50 pm
83148 spacer
>>83146

It's difficult to overstate just how taboo the issue of immigration was during the Blair-Brown years. The issue was just allowed to fester, I suspect in large part because New Labour weren't particularly concerned about losing the working class vote. In a climate where "respectable" people didn't even want to discuss immigration, the issue is inevitably going to be monopolised by the far right.

I wholeheartedly agree that we scored a massive own goal through smug, snobbish complacency. The ostensibly meritocratic rhetoric of Blair gave liberals the license to sneer at the working class. Much more than any particular policy, the cosmopolitan and consumerist rhetoric of Blairism created a profound disconnect between Labour and their traditional base.

There's a peculiar irony to Corbyn's rise - Islington used to be synonymous with ivory tower champagne socialism, but now the MP for Islington North is being portrayed as a great man of the people. I suppose it's an indication of how low the bar has been set.

https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/interview/how-hampstead-socialist-lost-out-islington-socialist

Side note - Corbyn was privately educated, but only earned two E grades at A-level. I wonder how he'd be portrayed if he sat on the other side of the aisle.
>> No. 83149 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 7:13 pm
83149 spacer
>>83147

The attitudes you're talking about were already deeply entrenched a decade ago, because of exactly the issues described by >>83146. Immigration expanded substantially during the Blair years, but anyone who raised concerns was just called a racist and told to shut up. By the mid-to-late noughties, it was already far too late - legitimate concerns had been shut down time and time again, so any trust that might have existed had been shattered. Policy after policy had been steamrollered through without any real debate or acknowledgement of opposition, most significantly the botched A8 accession.

You can't insult someone again and again for years, then expect them to engage in an open-minded discussion. Blair ignored concerns over the A8 accession and chose not to employ transitional controls, leading Britain to receive the highest rates of intra-EU immigration of any member state. He failed to properly invest in infrastructure in areas that received disproportionate levels of immigration. Most of all, he failed to do anything significant to address the decades-old social and economic problems in de-industrialised communities, focusing instead on photogenic "regeneration" of urban areas. The cladding on Grenfell tower is totemic of Blair's legacy - put a shiny but shoddy facade on the same old slum and hang the consequences.

>They didn't get left behind, they chose to stay behind.

Oh, so my home town has 18% unemployment because people chose to stay behind. All those middle-aged colliers and steelworkers chose to be made redundant with no offer of alternative employment or retraining. We chose to have the worst schools in the country, the lowest levels of inbound investment, the highest rates of chronic physical and mental illness. I wish someone had told me sooner, it would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
>> No. 83150 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 7:15 pm
83150 spacer
>>83147

You're being similarly dismissive about anything that doesn't fit according to your worldview of smug social superiority.

I'm sympathetic to people that are worried about immigration because community & identity are important, something that mass migration can greatly damage or distort. For some reason the identity politics obsessed left don't like to engage this as a legitimate concern and just seem to like throwing vitriolic insults about bigotry and dolphin rape around.
>> No. 83151 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 7:31 pm
83151 spacer
>>83147
>The most pernicious myth of our time is that modern society has left whole swathes of the population behind. They didn't get left behind, they chose to stay behind. They chose to put their head in the sand and just blame everything on the people who look a little dark and sound a little funny that they don't like, rather than doing any sort of thinking, or engaging, or even letting themselves be engaged.
Outside immigration, people were outright left behind. Unless you actually believe all that Blairite meritocracy shite was a huge success* and the only reason people fail is that they didn't try hard enough. Even then, in the good years, a good chunk of the Labour voting base were basically looked at as scum to be policed and prodded into being good little empowered market participants. Just apply for everything your work coach tells you to, it's in your contract - there's a good little future Tesco manager...

I am sick of people talking about "the left" though. Mostly because I'm increasingly irritated by the grouping of (broadly speaking) liberals with social-democrats, outright socialists, and people who still go out in public with big banners of Stalin, but there are other little pieces to it. It's usually just the sign of wankish commentary more generally.

*I know that probably didn't make much sense - I'm currently reading quite a bit into New Labour and I'm more interested in conveying an attitude than a coherent policy set.

>>83148
People were whining about Asylum Seekers on question time back in the years when George Galloway was being invited on to talk about what a shitty idea Iraq was and nobody could quite remember why all those fucking Kosovans were flocking here in the first place.
The perception of a taboo seems much stronger than the reality. It's very irritating, it's just one of those little received wisdom things that ooh this is so shocking and unacceptable.

Actually I'll raise a slightly daring hypothesis: The whole immigration thing has been raised because no respectable people dare discuss alternatives to present social/economic organisation. Can't get a job? Well we can't talk about a Post-Keynesian jobs guarantee (Not centrist enough) so it was the laplanders. Poor wages? Undercut by poles. Can't blame shit public services on austerity and the legacy of underinvestment and malinvestment, blame refugees. You get the idea. Now, this isn't necessarily a conspiracy - nothing is more fucking boring than economic policy. It's much easier to argue about who Labour will kill with an axe vs who the Tories will kill with an axe, rather than bring on the Bank of England guy to tell everyone about how money is created endogenously.

Which is actually subtly me slipping some optimism into my own point: If the BoE has accepted endogenous money, perhaps - without discussion - the economic attitudes of "reasonable people" are shifting under the feet of the parties. Perhaps we'll move immediately from avoiding discussing an alternative to threatening that one party or another will take us "Back to the 2010s" by investing too little... (I must hope, really, that this is delayed until the 2020s - "Take us back to the '20s" sounds much better.)
>> No. 83152 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 8:12 pm
83152 spacer
>>83149
>Immigration expanded substantially during the Blair years, but anyone who raised concerns was just called a racist and told to shut up.
That was because they were, in fact, racist and their "concerns" were not, in fact, legitimate. They were no more legitimate then than they are now. If you disagree, I invite you to suggest some genuine, legitimate concern about immigration that is actually about immigration, and not about how society is structured and how government operates.

>By the mid-to-late noughties, it was already far too late - legitimate concerns had been shut down time and time again, so any trust that might have existed had been shattered.
Again, I invite you to suggest any such concerns. I contend that there were none really, and they were concocted to avoid thinking about other things. While people are focused on immigration, they're not talking about why we let large companies and the wealthiest individuals haggle over their taxes, or why we allow public services to be plundered for private gain, or why housebuilders aren't building anywhere near as many homes as we need, or why local authorities are letting their own run-down properties remain empty and in disrepair, or why many provincial towns that have lost their industries aren't regenerating properly, or why after a brief recessionary blip inequality is on the rise, or why in an age of increasing automation and productivity we're not all doing 10-hour weeks and living a life of leisure. You know, all the little things.

>Policy after policy had been steamrollered through without any real debate or acknowledgement of opposition, most significantly the botched A8 accession.
What exactly about the A8 accession do you believe was botched? Do you have any other examples of relevant policies? Remember, we're specifically talking about immigration here, not the general ramming through of legislation by Blair's unassailable majority.

>You can't insult someone again and again for years, then expect them to engage in an open-minded discussion.
Thankfully, nobody's done that. You can, however, invite someone again and again to engage in an open-minded discussion, and carry on without them when they refuse again and again.

>Blair ignored concerns over the A8 accession
That's because there weren't any really.

>and chose not to employ transitional controls
That's because none were necessary. Before the accession, there wasn't any indication that large numbers would settle here, and that's been borne out in practice. A large proportion of the Polish contingent in particular when asked said they weren't coming to settle, and while some have stayed longer than they initially expected, the majority of those who said they were coming temporarily did indeed return home.

>leading Britain to receive the highest rates of intra-EU immigration of any member state
... and consequently the highest rate of improvement to the support ratio and the highest potential expansion of the tax base. I mean, people do still want to be able to retire at some point, right?

>He failed to properly invest in infrastructure in areas that received disproportionate levels of immigration.
Do you have any evidence for this, or is this yet another rant against immigration/Blair/politics in general/all of the above?

>Most of all, he failed to do anything significant to address the decades-old social and economic problems in de-industrialised communities, focusing instead on photogenic "regeneration" of urban areas.
What's this got to do with immigration? I suspect you're trying to change the subject away from ignorance towards the genuine non-immigration-related concerns of the poorer half of the country as a way to slip in "immigration was a concern" through the back door.

>Oh, so my home town has 18% unemployment because people chose to stay behind.
I'm talking specifically about the immigration debate. Though if you want to address that, then ask yourself a couple of questions. Why aren't they going where the jobs are? More importantly, why aren't new jobs coming to the area?
>> No. 83153 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 8:16 pm
83153 spacer
>>83151
>Outside immigration
You mean, outside the one thing we're discussing?
>> No. 83154 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 8:55 pm
83154 spacer
>>83153
I stuck it on because I read it as possibly being there to imply that not only is immigration not a problem, but that people aren't being left behind at all by our current society, they're just not taking opportunities they've graciously been given to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Mostly because "left behind" was left open ended. (i.e. compared to "left behind on immigration" or even "left behind on this")

Keep in mind I'm reading this through the eyes of someone who's spending an unreasonable amount of time going back over New Labour while holding their attempts to contract, target and sanction the underclass into functional examples of homo economicus with total contempt.
>> No. 83155 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 9:59 pm
83155 spacer
>>83154
To be clear, when I referred to "left behind", I was referring specifically to the debate on immigration rather than in general terms. There's a particular perception that, on top of everything else that happened in the last 50 years, white working-class people (particularly older men) have somehow been ignored or even persecuted in favour of minorities.

Sorry for not making that clearer.
>> No. 83156 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 11:02 pm
83156 spacer
>>83152
>What exactly about the A8 accession do you believe was botched? Do you have any other examples of relevant policies? Remember, we're specifically talking about immigration here, not the general ramming through of legislation by Blair's unassailable majority.

Didn't every other major European economy apply a temporary block on this?

Didn't Labour state they expected only a few thousand would come across rather than the million or so people who actually did?

When there's such a huge disparity in wages between here and the Slav lands it's obvious what would happen.
>> No. 83157 Anonymous
14th July 2017
Friday 11:34 pm
83157 spacer
>>83156
>Didn't every other major European economy apply a temporary block on this?
Didn't we apply temporary restrictions to them too? ISTR we required them to register before working and limited their access to benefits.

>When there's such a huge disparity in wages between here and the Slav lands it's obvious what would happen.
They'd come over here and address our shortage of skilled labour?
>> No. 83158 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 12:19 am
83158 spacer
>>83157
We don't have a shortage of unskilled labour, exemplified by the pennies you earn for being an engineer, chemist, whatever.
>> No. 83159 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 12:33 am
83159 spacer
>>83158
Nice memes, m1.
>> No. 83160 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 1:32 am
83160 spacer
>>83158
-un*
>> No. 83161 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 3:16 am
83161 spacer
>>83159
Good rebuttal there m8 you sure showed him.
>> No. 83162 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 12:02 pm
83162 spacer
>>83161
Poor show, lad. You need better memes. Maybe >>83158 could help you out.
>> No. 83163 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 7:06 pm
83163 spacer
>>83127
I meant Remain not leave.

>>83138
One of the only ways you can convince these types of people is to have one of their spokesman come out and change tact. Though seeing something like that happen is unlikely.

>>83147
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown called that voter a "bigoted woman".

>>83151
>Post-Keynesian jobs guarantee
What's that then?

>>83152
>their "concerns" were not, in fact, legitimate
The right seems to make a big song and dance about how the laplanderstanis raped all those girls in Rotherham.

This is quite an interesting read about EU history. Really puts us in an embarrassing light. https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/884474494512975872
>> No. 83164 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 7:32 pm
83164 spacer
>>83163
>What's that then?
Rather than having the dole, you have the state garuntee jobs to people as an employer of last resort, since there's always stuff that needs doing, public services that need improving, etc.
Because you're just giving people minimum wage jobs, you can avoid a lot of the social costs and stigma of unemployment. Unlike fiddling with trying to increase demand in the economy (i.e. trying to push up private sector employment, hoping they expand their business instead of just lifting prices), it shouldn't pose any real inflationary risks. Unlike workfare, you pay people properly to do jobs that genuinely need done rather than browbeating people into picking up tins for below the minimum wage while continuing to call them a skiving lazy arse doley. Finally for students, etc, it ensures that when you leave school there will always be work available for you - so you don't have people leaving school only to find they've got no opportunities ahead, and you can set people down a path of developing various skills in real-world work that will come in useful if they move to private sector employment.

Truthfully I'm not particularly well read on the mechanics of jobs guarantees, just interested in the general idea as an alternative to the nightmare of "full-employability" (where the government makes a token effort to help you become an appealing candidate for a job, but doesn't make sure the jobs actually exist.) we've got now. America passed legislation empowering the president to do something along job-guarantee lines in the 70s, but Carter never used it and Reagan let it lapse.
>> No. 83165 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 8:47 pm
83165 spacer
>>83163
>The right seems to make a big song and dance about how the laplanderstanis raped all those girls in Rotherham.
Yeah, funny that. They make a big deal over Rotherham, and Oxford, and Rochdale, but they never seem to mention those in Westminster, or Crewe, or Wrexham, or Jersey, or literally everywhere Jimmy Savile ever went.

>This is quite an interesting read about EU history. Really puts us in an embarrassing light.
Looks like the people pushing for us to leave (even before the referendum) were up to some 1984-level shit. He makes an important point that exposes a major hypocrisy on the result of those who campaigned for Leave, and a good many who voted for it. It's all about democracy and sovereignty, except for the bit involving the democratic and sovereign governments for the last 40 years, they don't count because They Said It Was Only A Common Market®.
>> No. 83166 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 9:04 pm
83166 spacer
>>83165
>They make a big deal over Rotherham, and Oxford, and Rochdale, but they never seem to mention those in Westminster, or Crewe, or Wrexham, or Jersey, or literally everywhere Jimmy Savile ever went.

As has been pointed out many times here over the years, street grooming is almost exclusively the preserve of people of laplanderstani origin whereas we're used to the good old fashioned paedophile ring. Even when they're diddling kids they've got to do it their own way instead of integrating.

Anyway, bringing up white carpet-baggers whenever someone mentions the likes of Rotherham is repugnant whataboutery.
>> No. 83167 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 9:16 pm
83167 spacer
>>83166
4/10 POOR EFFORT SEE ME
>> No. 83170 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 10:30 pm
83170 spacer
>>83167
Ah, yes. You're completely correct.

I've never heard of a right winger saying that paedos should either face the death penalty or have their genitals removed. Right wingers would also pass up the opportunity to criticise how Jimmy Savile was able to keep getting away with it because they love institutions such as the BBC so dearly.
>> No. 83171 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 11:12 pm
83171 spacer
>>83166
>As has been pointed out many times here over the years, street grooming is almost exclusively the preserve of people of laplanderstani origin
OK, but any time you want to point out the relevance of this to the thread just go ahead.
>> No. 83175 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 11:56 pm
83175 spacer
>>83171
Keep those goalposts where they are, lad.

You can't have someone mention places getting Rotherhammed whilst pointing out the completely fabricated hypocrisy of not mentioning Jimmy Savile and then say "ah, yes, but that's not relevant to the thread" when someone else points out what they've said is absolute bollocks.
>> No. 83176 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 12:09 am
83176 spacer
>>83175
>Keep those goalposts where they are, lad.
He said, goalposts firmly in hand.

>You can't have someone mention places getting Rotherhammed whilst pointing out the completely fabricated hypocrisy of not mentioning Jimmy Savile and then say "ah, yes, but that's not relevant to the thread" when someone else points out what they've said is absolute bollocks.
I can and just did. Now, again, if you could point out what Rotherham has got to do with this thread, there's a good lad.
>> No. 83177 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 2:24 pm
83177 spacer
>>83176
The common element is: immigrants - which leads to Brexit.
>> No. 83178 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 2:40 pm
83178 spacer
>>83176
Read the thread again. Slowly.

The wall of silence the left created around immigration, to the point that people who had the temerity to raise any concerns thy had were branded racist. This enabled men of laplanderstani origin to diddle thousands of girls with impunity.

Some chucklefuck in this thread thinks that concerns people have over certain communities having backwards views towards women, sexual consent and also homosexuality for that matter are not a legitimate concern and thinks they can be simplistically dismissed by referencing Jimmy Savile.

It's thanks to the likes of Rotherham that no person of sound mind would trust the left when it comes to immigration. You can see the way the left cosies up to these backwards views by Labour being happy to hold gender segregated meetings in these communities.
>> No. 83179 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 2:43 pm
83179 spacer
>>83178
>the left
*yawn*
>> No. 83180 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 3:11 pm
83180 spacer
>>83178
>Some chucklefuck in this thread thinks that concerns people have over certain communities having backwards views towards women, sexual consent and also homosexuality for that matter are not a legitimate concern
And he'd be right. Most of that is no worse than you'll hear from the natives, and they've no greater propensity for it than the natives. Saying some Asians are rapists is like saying some Mexicans are drug gangsters or some Americans are fascist gun nuts. Yet nobody is saying we should stop the Yanks from coming in our else they'll gun us all down. Apparently if an American goes on a rampage he's a wrong'un, but if an Asian commits a sexual offence it's typical Asian behaviour and all Asians need to answer for it.

Of course, I bet this is the part where you unironically complain of someone branding you as other because they don't agree with you, when that's exactly what you've just done.
>> No. 83181 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 3:14 pm
83181 spacer
>>83178
How many times do you use "the left" on a daily basis? But I suppose it's much easier to group everyone together under one simple issue than to face the complexity of a situation.
>> No. 83182 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 4:36 pm
83182 spacer
>>83178
>They're brainwashed into thinking their beliefs are absolute truths and when someone has a different opinion to them they can't comprehend it and are completely incapable of having a debate with them, so they resort to parroting slogans and throwing baseless insults around because it's all they can do.
The alt-right kids definitely never do that, do they?

>are't taught to think critically or to try and understand opposing viewpoints; they're simply just wrong.
There might be truth here. When people decide the mainstream narrative false they often seem to latch onto the first alternative and start defending that as the absolute truth instead.
>> No. 83183 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 5:31 pm
83183 spacer
>>83179
Well, people who were concerned about immigration were certainly branded as far right extremists and racists rather than lefties. Slight immigration concerns? You're on par with the EDL, mate.

>>83180
Stereotypes exist for a reason. The whole Indian subcontinent have far more backwards views than we do of women. The likes of Rotherham was perpetuated predominantly by men of laplanderstani origin.

If they'd stop having a propensity towards diddling kids then people would stop calling them kiddie fiddlers.

It's the same reason their backwards views on cousin marriage result in so many disabled kids and a high infant mortality rate. They deserve to be derided for this in the same way we look down on Norfolk.

>>83181
The retreating ice-shelves enabled Rotherham. The retreating ice-shelves's sneering attitudes towards immigration resulted in Brexit.

>>83182
>The alt-right kids definitely never do that, do they?

Of course they do, but they haven't managed to spectacularly shoot themselves in the foot yet.
>> No. 83184 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 6:37 pm
83184 spacer
>>83183
>Well, people who were concerned about immigration were certainly branded as far right extremists and racists rather than lefties.
Keep trying to justify your delusions, lad. Best sleep with the light on tonight so the lefty metropolitan elites under the bed don't get you.

>>83180
>Stereotypes exist for a reason. The whole Indian subcontinent have far more backwards views than we do of women.
You evidently have far more backwards views than some of us do of the Indian subcontinent, yet you don't see anyone calling for you to be deported.

>The likes of Rotherham was perpetuated predominantly by men of laplanderstani origin.
And the likes of the BBC abuses were perpetrated predominanelty by men of British origin. What's your point? "We should stop Asians from immigrating because they're all kiddy-fiddlers" makes no more sense than saying "We should stop old white men from entering the country because they're all rapists". You're taking the actions of a vanishingly small proportion of the population and using them to tar everyone of the same origin.

>If they'd stop having a propensity towards diddling kids then people would stop calling them kiddie fiddlers.
But they don't have any more propensity towards diddling kids than the locals. See, if you'd stop having a propensity towards making bigoted statements like that then people would stop calling the likes of you bigots.
>> No. 83185 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 6:55 pm
83185 spacer
>>83184
Don't be fucking ridiculous. Why are you even on about deporting Asians? Nobody except you is claiming the Asians who diddled in the likes of Rotherham are representative of all Joe's.

The simple fact is that the climate the lefties created enabled the likes of Rotherham to happen for so long. It's part of the reason why lefties are their own worst enemies and their actions were a major contributor to Brexit happening.
>> No. 83186 Anonymous
16th July 2017
Sunday 7:05 pm
83186 spacer

JVC-projector.jpg
831868318683186
>>83185
>Nobody except you is claiming the Asians who diddled in the likes of Rotherham are representative of all Joe's.
No, I'm not the one claiming that. You're the one claiming that.
>> No. 83189 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 12:22 am
83189 spacer
>>83184

>But they don't have any more propensity towards diddling kids than the locals

With regards to grooming cases Asian males are disproportionately over represented. And the incest thing is an unpleasant, inarguable fact too.
>> No. 83190 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 1:26 am
83190 spacer
>>83189
That's not necessarily true. The numbers that normally go with this claim come from a report that specifically deals with street grooming.

>The data submitted refers only to the ‘localised grooming’ model of child sexual exploitation and does not include online
grooming, trafficking of children into the UK, peer-on-peer abuse or other forms of sexual exploitation.
>This assessment cannot be seen as fully representative of the nature and scale of child sexual exploitation in the U.K., or, indeed, of the 'localised grooming' model.

http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_101409-2.pdf

>In particular, the report raises concerns over its ethnic representation:
>"Caution should be taken in drawing conclusions about ethnicity due to the relatively small number of areas where agencies have been proactive around this particular type of crime. We do not draw national conclusions about ethnicity from the data available at this time because it is too inconsistent."

>We therefore need to be cautious about Keith Vaz's claim, as the source he uses explicitly warns against drawing any nationwide conclusions on the basis of its research.
>While both the HM Prison Service and CEOP datasets have problems associated with them, there is nevertheless some evidence to suggest that sex offenders are 'overwhelmingly white' in terms of the raw numbers.

https://fullfact.org/news/are-asians-disproportionately-represented-prosecutions-sex-offences/
>> No. 83191 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 3:27 am
83191 spacer
>>83190
Yeah yeah, spout facts, nerd.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password