Corbynomics: A Dystopia

pop_gun

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So you think that splitting people up into groups by skin colour, religion, gender, sexuality, etc... is helping to foster relations between people, or is it giving them an excuse to identify as different and a victim? This is the logic of the left.

Being culturally sensitive, is that helping people to assimilate into the culture of this country, it's laws, customs and values? Telling bikers that they need to remove helmets in banks, but Burkas, no problem! Common sense has been lost. Rules differing depending on who you identify as. Madness.

Clamping down on speech that minority groups say they find offensive is OK? The way to defeat that type of prejudice is to discuss it and out it as stupid, not to ban it! That just drives prejudice underground and entrenches it until you end up with a mass of people that have awful views of the minorities for removing the liberties of others, see Britain First, EDL for examples of that. Yet ironically the minority groups did it with the assistance of "liberal" left, who are losing their voters in droves. The pendulum has swung too far, the weaponisation of prejudice legislation will end up breeding hate, if it hasn't already. I don't subscribe to the views of Britain First or the EDL, they're awful, but I don't subscribe to the views of the politically correct either.

The Stephen Lawrence inquiries are examples of what we should be doing to root out prejudice, we should not be engaging in any type of positive discrimination at all.

Every one assimilates with a country's laws or they'll find themselves in jail.

Britain first and EDL didn't require legislation addressing prejudice against minorities, to incubate their hate. They harboured those views already and next to nothing will change them either.

It seems to me you're trying to whip yourself into a hate fuelled lather about every perceived slight that sets you off.
Whether it effects you or not.
How does a woman wearing a burka in a bank affect your everyday life? Has there been a spate of bank robberies involving burka wearing individuals?
Can the helmet wearing biker, with the sawed off shotgun, claim cultural sensitivity when entering a bank?

Your faux moral indignation and implied superiority blinds you to everything. I can imagine in the 1950's - 1980's (with low immigration) you would've been the local granny basher, petty thief stealing sweets from the mouths of children. The 2000's version of you likes to rant and rave about the good old days. When you could just be yourself.

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Tricky....I don't think we are on the same page mate....perhaps we are not even reading the same book! I've tried to explain but it's not worked. I don't think anyone is attempting to control anyone else and what they can say. I am able to say whatever I think so long as I don't incite hatred or violence and surely that is right and civilised! I also think you know underneath some of your views are pretty extreme and 'off the dial' and your stridency and straw men arguments are attempts to cover this up.

Not at all.

If I wanted to say that women in these communities are oppressed, is that inciting hate and violence towards the Islamic community?

If I say that Muslim men patrolling the streets telling those they believe to be the kafir that they're not welcome there is horrendous and wrong, am I right to do so?

If I say that our institutions have become afraid to castigate the Islamic community where required under law, am I inciting hatred towards the Islamic community?

The Islamic community will tell you I am inciting hatred and they have a right to say what they want to people. And I would be the villain.

The same can be said across sections of the black community.

Interestingly there are examples of minority groups in this country who do not react in the same way as the black community and the Islamic community. Sikhs and Hindus for example get along extremely well with the people they live with, except for the exception of a few genuinely racist people. What is it that they do differently?

My views are not extreme, they're not 'off the dial', I simply believe that free speech should not just be tolerated but an inalienable right of everyone who lives here regardless of your minority or majority status. Freedom of thought should also be tolerated in the same way. Combating racism is a noble cause, and just. But combating it by being prejudice against others because the minority group is offended is absolutely wrong.

Do you seriously think that the LGBT community is OK with the hardline views of minority groups that are perversely protected by the state these days?

Take a look at this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-!!!!!exuality-sharia-law

More than half want to ban !!!!!exuality. Should we not confront Islamic attitudes to liberal western democracy? They cannot expect to enjoy the freedoms of our country whilst wanting to deny others the same courtesy.

Lets look at other questions asked by survation...

31% think it's acceptable for a man to have more than one wife.

39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”.

32% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet.

23% support the introduction of Sharia Law.

47% do not believe that it is acceptable for a school teacher to be !!!!!exual.

52% do not believe that !!!!!exuality should be legal in Britain.

4% sympathise with people who commit terrorist actions as a form of political protest.

4% sympathise with people who take part in suicide bombings.

No, no, no, no, no. I will refuse to accept the views of a political ideology that seeks to stifle my criticism of a culture that holds these beliefs. You can screw your political correctness, if something is wrong we must, we have a duty, to say it is wrong. If those who hold these views complain about being marginalised, so what. When did we stop caring about women, !!!!!exuality and secularism? The left has become tolerant of intolerance. A spade is a spade and political correctness needs to stop.

@pop_gun, sod off branding me all of that nonsense above. Trying to raise awareness of the hypocrisy of defending groups based on their religious or ethnic background when they have faults that need to be discussed and dealt with is not a bad trait harping back to any period in history. It's simply stating that we should not be tolerant of intolerance. That we should not be scared to state the blindingly obvious (Derby, Rotherham, Cologne, etc...). By castigating me for wanting openness and honesty you're showing yourself to be precisely one of the "liberal" social justice warriors who doesn't like to hear the truth. Part of the problem.

JimmyTheWig

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

47% do not believe that it is acceptable for a school teacher to be !!!!!exual.

52% do not believe that !!!!!exuality should be legal in Britain.

So 5% believe that !!!!!exuality should be illegal in Britain, unless you're a school teacher?

TrickyTree83

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

So 5% believe that !!!!!exuality should be illegal in Britain, unless you're a school teacher?

According to the survey that would appear to be the case. Although it's more likely answers were tempered to not seem quite so hostile towards !!!!!exuals.

What are your thoughts on the rest of the survey?

JimmyTheWig

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What are your thoughts on the rest of the survey?

I pay it very little heed, based on the discrepancy I pointed out.

TrickyTree83

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I pay it very little heed, based on the discrepancy I pointed out.

Which is the answer I expected but didn't hope for.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

pop_gun wrote: »

Every one assimilates with a country's laws or they'll find themselves in jail.

But you have to steel yourself against shrill cries of RACISM if you wish the country's laws to be applied. How many years had that charming Mr Rahman been running Tower Hamlets along the lines of a medieval Bengali fiefdom before a Labour councillor had the balls to call him out? The official report into the Rotherham scandal explicitly stated that fear of racism accusations prevented officials from looking into the victims' allegations.

Also, what do you think happens if you report abuse of horses in a traveller camp? I'll give you a clue, it doesn't involve the removal of suffering animals, fines and ownership bans.

TrickyTree83

All I'm advocating for is openness, honesty, evidence and truth, applying the law in a secular society favouring none above another.

It's not racist, it's not islamophobic, it's not xenophobic, it's not homophobic, it's not misogynistic, it's not bigoted.

The liberal movement, which used to be liberal is no longer liberal. It has lost its way, and as a consequence lost its voters, here, in America, in France, in Holland, in Italy, in Austria, in Sweden, in Hungary, etc... and you will still not engage in any introspection to see what a liberal conservative voter is trying to tell you, and in fact what some liberal left wing commentators have been trying to tell you for certainly over a year now.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

I find your post and link quite meaningless.......... that article just says the Muslim Council want to set up their own strategy....so what? I think the Home Office strategy is a good one one and I back it....do you prefer the Muslim Council approach?

Here we are again talking about minorities - the only ground on which the left feel comfortable.....

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And in fact what some liberal left wing commentators have been trying to tell you for certainly over a year now.

Michael Moore for one.....