|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 21, 2019 19:16:29 GMT
The result was that people on the trial were happier Well we can't be having that can we?! Only the rich are allowed to be happy in life... Just like they're the only ones allowed to fly around on their private jets & drive their Rolls Royce while the rest of us are told we're killing the planet, they're the only ones allowed to eat their 20oz steak with a bottle of fine brandy while the rest of us eat our lettuce leaf & drink our soy milk.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 21, 2019 19:31:30 GMT
everyone ? even millionaires ? how much would you give everyone ? a grand a month ? wouldn't this just cause a moral hazard ? There's recently been a large national trial of this in Finland. The result was that people on the trial were happier but much more likely to be jobless. If it had been rolled out to all Finns I think moral hazard would be a big understatement. pretty much what you'd expect, people would just opt out of the rat race, content to draw their UBI and live a semi comfortable life. If it was rolled out on a larger scale surely it would encounter other problems such as rising prices ? landlords would put the rent up for a kick off.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Dec 21, 2019 19:32:50 GMT
The result was that people on the trial were happier Well we can't be having that can we?! Only the rich are allowed to be happy in life... Just like they're the only ones allowed to fly around on their private jets & drive their Rolls Royce while the rest of us are told we're killing the planet, they're the only ones allowed to eat their 20oz steak with a bottle of fine brandy while the rest of us eat our lettuce leaf & drink our soy milk. The crucial point is that if it was rolled out nationally to all Finns, the evidence suggests their economy would be in trouble fairly quickly. Money is just bits of paper or digits on your computer screen. If you give everyone so much of the paper or so many of the digits as a start point it becomes worth less. Productive work is what creates value and drives an economy. Giving everyone free money would be ultimately counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 21, 2019 19:43:10 GMT
Well we can't be having that can we?! Only the rich are allowed to be happy in life... Just like they're the only ones allowed to fly around on their private jets & drive their Rolls Royce while the rest of us are told we're killing the planet, they're the only ones allowed to eat their 20oz steak with a bottle of fine brandy while the rest of us eat our lettuce leaf & drink our soy milk. The crucial point is that if it was rolled out nationally to all Finns, the evidence suggests their economy would be in trouble fairly quickly. Money is just bits of paper or digits on your computer screen. If you give everyone so much of the paper or so many of the digits as a start point it becomes worth less. Productive work is what creates value and drives an economy. Giving everyone free money would be ultimately counter productive. "ultimately counter productive" ... makes sense that lefties would see it as a good idea then
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Dec 21, 2019 19:44:31 GMT
The crucial point is that if it was rolled out nationally to all Finns, the evidence suggests their economy would be in trouble fairly quickly. Money is just bits of paper or digits on your computer screen. If you give everyone so much of the paper or so many of the digits as a start point it becomes worth less. Productive work is what creates value and drives an economy. Giving everyone free money would be ultimately counter productive. "ultimately counter productive" ... makes sense that lefties would see it as a good idea then I'm a lefty 😊 but this is just a daft idea.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 21, 2019 20:40:02 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-36454060In our current thinking if we disconnect work From pay it would probably not work. That was the main argument against in the Swiss referendum. In the constantly changing world of work what happens in the future if logistically there really is not enough work yo go round......or would that never happen , or would we create social/ service type work. But in actuality I wonder what the figures are if all the unemployment and disability , universal credit, child benefit.... EVERY BENEFIT...was added up...PLUS all the time, staff salaries, building overheads ( possibly include pensions) to administer it ...and the amount divided amongst all over 18s... and that was the basic amount you get... do one or two days work if you want to top it up....and it was ALL that each person got .. no more money/ no assessments...How much would each person get? Not advocating it , just wondering how the figures pan out
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Dec 21, 2019 20:58:23 GMT
I'm think the word "joyless" applies to a lot of the Labour heirarchy. They're a joyless miserable lot no wonder voters left them in droves. This after three years of tying a Conservative minority government in knots and there are people who want PR and the misery of coalition governments limping along for a couple of years at a time. I agree with half of that Fel...i think the proportional representation argument will emerge..... eventually, perhaps in 10 years! Well to twist statistics which seems to in favour here when things don't go the way posters want there was a 76% vote for parties that don't want PR, down slightly on the previous election so PR is not going to happen any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 21:01:50 GMT
I think he got the tone wrong, yes. I do see what you mean, and I think it comes alongside the fact that a lot of working class people do not see themselves as such nowadays. Not saying that's a bad thing but that is how it is. Maybe one way to get around that and the fact people tend to have poor perceptions of those 'below' them is to change that tone to a positive one and look at things like UBI. 'We will give everyone a basic income of £x, this will be less bureaucratic than the welfare state, will be enough to ensure everyone can get a leg up to push themselves to become as successful as they wish, and reduce strain on welfare services, alongside things like the NHS etc.' Using it as a 'leg up' rather than a 'safety net'? everyone ? even millionaires ? how much would you give everyone ? a grand a month ? wouldn't this just cause a moral hazard ? Yep, everyone. It worked very well in America under Reagan until divorce rates in Seattle meant people said it would be 'the death of traditional christian values' No idea, that would have to be worked out by someone higher up than me, but in trials it has worked generally very well. It would, but it's far better than the so-called 'nanny state' which keeps people encircled in the cycle of constant benefits. Hopefully someone can sell it well!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 21, 2019 21:13:22 GMT
I agree with half of that Fel...i think the proportional representation argument will emerge..... eventually, perhaps in 10 years! Well to twist statistics which seems to in favour here when things don't go the way posters want there was a 76% vote for parties that don't want PR, down slightly on the previous election so PR is not going to happen any time soon. I think that is the problem...the parties who have influence are either in power or think that they can get in power under the current system.....turkeys don't vote for Christmas
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 21, 2019 21:24:36 GMT
everyone ? even millionaires ? how much would you give everyone ? a grand a month ? wouldn't this just cause a moral hazard ? Yep, everyone. It worked very well in America under Reagan until divorce rates in Seattle meant people said it would be 'the death of traditional christian values' No idea, that would have to be worked out by someone higher up than me, but in trials it has worked generally very well. It would, but it's far better than the so-called 'nanny state' which keeps people encircled in the cycle of constant benefits. Hopefully someone can sell it well! andrew yang is currently pushing UBI in the democrat presidential debates, i'm open to all ideas but to me it seems like it would cause all kinds of problems.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 21:37:57 GMT
Yep, everyone. It worked very well in America under Reagan until divorce rates in Seattle meant people said it would be 'the death of traditional christian values' No idea, that would have to be worked out by someone higher up than me, but in trials it has worked generally very well. It would, but it's far better than the so-called 'nanny state' which keeps people encircled in the cycle of constant benefits. Hopefully someone can sell it well! andrew yang is currently pushing UBI in the democrat presidential debates, i'm open to all ideas but to me it seems like it would cause all kinds of problems. It possibly would, but that would be a perception problem for me more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 19:22:26 GMT
Boris derangement syndrome is real
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 19:27:58 GMT
Boris derangement syndrome is real I see why it seems a bit over the top, but the fact that we've elected a man to the highest office in the UK when he boasts quotes such as: "crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles." "it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes," adding that any female student who appeared at school or in a lecture "looking like a bank robber" should be asked to remove it. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," "That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem." And writing a novel including these comments www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.htmlIt might sound daft, but it's normalising comments that are both untrue and prejudiced. You may not see them as racist, but they are, and they're making it seem okay for people to say them. If the PM faces no consequences for it, why should anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 19:43:33 GMT
Boris derangement syndrome is real I see why it seems a bit over the top, but the fact that we've elected a man to the highest office in the UK when he boasts quotes such as: "crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles." "it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes," adding that any female student who appeared at school or in a lecture "looking like a bank robber" should be asked to remove it. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," "That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem." And writing a novel including these comments www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.htmlIt might sound daft, but it's normalising comments that are both untrue and prejudiced. You may not see them as racist, but they are, and they're making it seem okay for people to say them. If the PM faces no consequences for it, why should anyone else? Have you even read the original 17 year old article in which Johnson used those terms ? He was taking the piss out of tony Blair and his trip to Africa in the early 2000s, it was actually an anti imperialist article! People have taken those words out of all their context to show what a racist Johnson is, it’s bull crap, go and read the article! The stuff about Islam is, imo, fair enough, Islam does have a problem, why is it so terrible to say so ? Why are lefties so protective of Islam but hate Christianity ? It’s just weird.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 19:59:29 GMT
I see why it seems a bit over the top, but the fact that we've elected a man to the highest office in the UK when he boasts quotes such as: "crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles." "it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes," adding that any female student who appeared at school or in a lecture "looking like a bank robber" should be asked to remove it. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," "That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem." And writing a novel including these comments www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-book-jews-control-media-general-election-a9239346.htmlIt might sound daft, but it's normalising comments that are both untrue and prejudiced. You may not see them as racist, but they are, and they're making it seem okay for people to say them. If the PM faces no consequences for it, why should anyone else? Have you even read the original 17 year old article in which Johnson used those terms ? He was taking the piss out of tony Blair and his trip to Africa in the early 2000s, it was actually an anti imperialist article! People have taken those words out of all their context to show what a racist Johnson is, it’s bull crap, go and read the article! The stuff about Islam is, imo, fair enough, Islam does have a problem, why is it so terrible to say so ? Why are lefties so protective of Islam but hate Christianity ? It’s just weird. I have, yes. Those words still shouldn't be used, whether he's being anti-imperialist or not. And it has the same problem Christianity does, with a very tiny minority of extremist individuals. I'm 'protective' of Islam for the same reason I don't think Christianity is the problem with regards to white nationalist terrorism, despite the several horrific connotations of its teachings and the apparent connection between white nationalists and the christian religion.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 20:07:08 GMT
Have you even read the original 17 year old article in which Johnson used those terms ? He was taking the piss out of tony Blair and his trip to Africa in the early 2000s, it was actually an anti imperialist article! People have taken those words out of all their context to show what a racist Johnson is, it’s bull crap, go and read the article! The stuff about Islam is, imo, fair enough, Islam does have a problem, why is it so terrible to say so ? Why are lefties so protective of Islam but hate Christianity ? It’s just weird. I have, yes. Those words still shouldn't be used, whether he's being anti-imperialist or not. And it has the same problem Christianity does, with a very tiny minority of extremist individuals. I'm 'protective' of Islam for the same reason I don't think Christianity is the problem with regards to white nationalist terrorism, despite the several horrific connotations of its teachings and the apparent connection between white nationalists and the christian religion. He was using those terms as kind of cliches in a satirical way, it wasn’t racist in any way, shape or form, he was taking the piss out of Blair being the “big white chief” jetting in on his “big white jet” It’s not a minority of Muslims, for instance have you seen the surveys of attitudes towards gay people within the Islamic communities ?... Let’s just say they’re not very tolerant of the gays! There’s no comparison between the intolerance in Islam and modern day Christianity, Islam is way less tolerant, it’s just a fact, it doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad people, but Islam certainly has its big problems.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 20:09:45 GMT
I have, yes. Those words still shouldn't be used, whether he's being anti-imperialist or not. And it has the same problem Christianity does, with a very tiny minority of extremist individuals. I'm 'protective' of Islam for the same reason I don't think Christianity is the problem with regards to white nationalist terrorism, despite the several horrific connotations of its teachings and the apparent connection between white nationalists and the christian religion. He was using those terms as kind of cliches in a satirical way, it wasn’t racist in any way, shape or form, he was taking the piss out of Blair being the “big white chief” jetting in on his “big white jet” It’s not a minority of Muslims, for instance have you seen the surveys of attitudes towards gay people within the Islamic communities ?... Let’s just say they’re not very tolerant of the gays! There’s no comparison between the intolerance in Islam and modern day Christianity, Islam is way less tolerant, it’s just a fact, it doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad people, but Islam certainly has its big problems. So it'd be fine for someone to say the 'n' word if they were just being satirical? Bollocks. Neither are Christians, weirdly enough! There are problems in all communities, Islam is not the issue, a very tiny minority of people are. The same as Christianity. It is not 'way less tolerant' at all. But that's not the argument, what BJ is saying is making people think it is more and more okay to say prejudiced things.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 20:17:17 GMT
He was using those terms as kind of cliches in a satirical way, it wasn’t racist in any way, shape or form, he was taking the piss out of Blair being the “big white chief” jetting in on his “big white jet” It’s not a minority of Muslims, for instance have you seen the surveys of attitudes towards gay people within the Islamic communities ?... Let’s just say they’re not very tolerant of the gays! There’s no comparison between the intolerance in Islam and modern day Christianity, Islam is way less tolerant, it’s just a fact, it doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad people, but Islam certainly has its big problems. So it'd be fine for someone to say the 'n' word if they were just being satirical? Bollocks. Neither are Christians, weirdly enough! There are problems in all communities, Islam is not the issue, a very tiny minority of people are. The same as Christianity. It is not 'way less tolerant' at all. But that's not the argument, what BJ is saying is making people think it is more and more okay to say prejudiced things. Im saying context matters, yes. Johnson was clearly using those terms not in a derogatory way aimed at the Africans, he was taking the piss out of tony Blair for being the “big white chief” and the coverage his trip to the Congo got.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 20:19:21 GMT
So it'd be fine for someone to say the 'n' word if they were just being satirical? Bollocks. Neither are Christians, weirdly enough! There are problems in all communities, Islam is not the issue, a very tiny minority of people are. The same as Christianity. It is not 'way less tolerant' at all. But that's not the argument, what BJ is saying is making people think it is more and more okay to say prejudiced things. Im saying context matters, yes. Johnson was clearly using those terms not in a derogatory way aimed at the Africans, he was taking the piss out of tony Blair for being the “big white chief” and the coverage his trip to the Congo got. Contest matters when it’s Johnson. But not Corbyn. Quelle surprise.......
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 20:23:50 GMT
face It, if that’s all you have to prove Johnson is racist then he’s not racist, is he ? he’s not to blame for what some probable pissed up football fan did at Chelsea today, it’s deranged to make every bad thing that happens all about Johnson but this seems to be the way the left handle defeats these days... just sore losers trying to claim some kind of moral victory from defeat by hyping this type up into something it’s not, pretty pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 20:28:46 GMT
Im saying context matters, yes. Johnson was clearly using those terms not in a derogatory way aimed at the Africans, he was taking the piss out of tony Blair for being the “big white chief” and the coverage his trip to the Congo got. Contest matters when it’s Johnson. But not Corbyn. Quelle surprise....... Who said that ? Not me, I don’t think Corbyn was the one who actually said the anti Semitic things, that was other Labour members, he was criticised for his handling of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 20:30:26 GMT
face It, if that’s all you have to prove Johnson is racist then he’s not racist, is he ? he’s not to blame for what some probable pissed up football fan did at Chelsea today, it’s deranged to make every bad thing that happens all about Johnson but this seems to be the way the left handle defeats these days... just sore losers trying to claim some kind of moral victory from defeat by hyping this type up into something it’s not, pretty pathetic. I never said he was racist. Even though he is. The problem is that his rhetoric and words empowers and allows people to feel that can say things that are more and more prejudiced. Hate crimes are rising and it is of no surprise that that is happening in an age where the last PM sends out vans that say 'go home' and the current PM calls people with burqas 'letterboxes'. He is normalising the devaluing of specific parts of society.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 22, 2019 20:42:25 GMT
I have, yes. Those words still shouldn't be used, whether he's being anti-imperialist or not. And it has the same problem Christianity does, with a very tiny minority of extremist individuals. I'm 'protective' of Islam for the same reason I don't think Christianity is the problem with regards to white nationalist terrorism, despite the several horrific connotations of its teachings and the apparent connection between white nationalists and the christian religion. What I've gathered from your 'anti-racist' viewpoint so far is that... 1) Islam is a race of brown people, and 2) Christian's are a race of white people. How come you 'anti-racists' always seem to share this same view? Shaqiri was a white Muslim, so why is having a problem with Islam 'racist'? (The answer, it isn't, unless you're an 'anti-racist' who instantly thinks of 'brown people' when they hear the word Islam.) Why is Christianity & White Nationalism so linked? Half of Africa would completely disagree with 'Christian = White', but of course again those 'anti-racists' can't help but link a religion to a race.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 20:44:25 GMT
face It, if that’s all you have to prove Johnson is racist then he’s not racist, is he ? he’s not to blame for what some probable pissed up football fan did at Chelsea today, it’s deranged to make every bad thing that happens all about Johnson but this seems to be the way the left handle defeats these days... just sore losers trying to claim some kind of moral victory from defeat by hyping this type up into something it’s not, pretty pathetic. I never said he was racist. Even though he is. The problem is that his rhetoric and words empowers and allows people to feel that can say things that are more and more prejudiced. Hate crimes are rising and it is of no surprise that that is happening in an age where the last PM sends out vans that say 'go home' and the current PM calls people with burqas 'letterboxes'. He is normalising the devaluing of specific parts of society. He’s not racist at all, if he’s racist why would he have people from different ethnicities in his cabinet ? Surely a racist would have a White only cabinet ? Isn’t that what a racist is ? Someone who excludes non whites Because he thinks they’re inferior ? What would be the point of being racist if you didn’t actually implement racist policies ? Seems now wouldn’t be the ideal time for him to roll out segregation but I didn’t hear that in the queens speech, did you ? Or is he only just a little bit racist ? Drop the racist bollocks, it only makes you look silly and lose you support, any fair person knows Johnson isn’t racist and this is all about political point scoring.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 20:55:38 GMT
I have, yes. Those words still shouldn't be used, whether he's being anti-imperialist or not. And it has the same problem Christianity does, with a very tiny minority of extremist individuals. I'm 'protective' of Islam for the same reason I don't think Christianity is the problem with regards to white nationalist terrorism, despite the several horrific connotations of its teachings and the apparent connection between white nationalists and the christian religion. What I've gathered from your 'anti-racist' viewpoint so far is that... 1) Islam is a race of brown people, and 2) Christian's are a race of white people. How come you 'anti-racists' always seem to share this same view? Shaqiri was a white Muslim, so why is having a problem with Islam 'racist'? (The answer, it isn't, unless you're an 'anti-racist' who instantly thinks of 'brown people' when they hear the word Islam.) Why is Christianity & White Nationalism so linked? Half of Africa would completely disagree with 'Christian = White', but of course again those 'anti-racists' can't help but link a religion to a race. That's not the case at all. My point is that having a problem with Islam is prejudiced and wrong, you are right to point out that 'racist' may not be the technically correct word, but it tends to come down to that in practice, Shaqiri does not receive threats for being Muslim, but black people who aren't Muslim often do. Having a problem with extremist terrorists is not an issue, but to pretend it is the fault of the religion of Islam is prejudiced. My very point is that Islam is not the issue, the same way Christianity is not the issue with white nationalism, even though a significant fraction of white nationalist groups are strongly Christian.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 20:57:49 GMT
face It, if that’s all you have to prove Johnson is racist then he’s not racist, is he ? he’s not to blame for what some probable pissed up football fan did at Chelsea today, it’s deranged to make every bad thing that happens all about Johnson but this seems to be the way the left handle defeats these days... just sore losers trying to claim some kind of moral victory from defeat by hyping this type up into something it’s not, pretty pathetic. I never said he was racist. Even though he is. The problem is that his rhetoric and words empowers and allows people to feel that can say things that are more and more prejudiced. Hate crimes are rising and it is of no surprise that that is happening in an age where the last PM sends out vans that say 'go home' and the current PM calls people with burqas 'letterboxes'. He is normalising the devaluing of specific parts of society. So these racists that are being empowered by the words of a 17 year old article aren’t aware that Johnson has many people from different ethnic backgrounds working in high profile positions in his cabinet ? How does that empower racists when they see him flanked by these people ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 20:57:53 GMT
I never said he was racist. Even though he is. The problem is that his rhetoric and words empowers and allows people to feel that can say things that are more and more prejudiced. Hate crimes are rising and it is of no surprise that that is happening in an age where the last PM sends out vans that say 'go home' and the current PM calls people with burqas 'letterboxes'. He is normalising the devaluing of specific parts of society. He’s not racist at all, if he’s racist why would he have people from different ethnicities in his cabinet ? Surely a racist would have a White only cabinet ? Isn’t that what a racist is ? Someone who excludes non whites Because he thinks they’re inferior ? What would be the point of being racist if you didn’t actually implement racist policies ? Seems now wouldn’t be the ideal time for him to roll out segregation but I didn’t hear that in the queens speech, did you ? Or is he only just a little bit racist ? Drop the racist bollocks, it only makes you look silly and lose you support, any fair person knows Johnson isn’t racist and this is all about political point scoring. 'I'm not racist because I have black friends.' He uses racist rhetoric and goads people into xenophobia and prejudice against immigrants. He's a racist. I'm not point scoring because I know I will not convince those who disagree with me that my point is correct, much like most arguments on both sides for anything political nowadays. I am simply stating it, because I believe it to be true. There are no points to be scored.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 21:00:08 GMT
I never said he was racist. Even though he is. The problem is that his rhetoric and words empowers and allows people to feel that can say things that are more and more prejudiced. Hate crimes are rising and it is of no surprise that that is happening in an age where the last PM sends out vans that say 'go home' and the current PM calls people with burqas 'letterboxes'. He is normalising the devaluing of specific parts of society. So these racists that are being empowered by the words of a 17 year old article aren’t aware that Johnson has many people from different ethnic backgrounds working in high profile positions in his cabinet ? How does that empower racists when they see him flanked by these people ? They are empowered by a man who uses xenophobic rhetoric to (directly or indirectly) condone anti-immigrant beliefs. You are right in that I'm not sure Johnson does it with any hatred of immigrants so much as he does it to get votes, knowing that it will galvanise many into that position.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 21:03:39 GMT
He’s not racist at all, if he’s racist why would he have people from different ethnicities in his cabinet ? Surely a racist would have a White only cabinet ? Isn’t that what a racist is ? Someone who excludes non whites Because he thinks they’re inferior ? What would be the point of being racist if you didn’t actually implement racist policies ? Seems now wouldn’t be the ideal time for him to roll out segregation but I didn’t hear that in the queens speech, did you ? Or is he only just a little bit racist ? Drop the racist bollocks, it only makes you look silly and lose you support, any fair person knows Johnson isn’t racist and this is all about political point scoring. 'I'm not racist because I have black friends.' He uses racist rhetoric and goads people into xenophobia and prejudice against immigrants. He's a racist. I'm not point scoring because I know I will not convince those who disagree with me that my point is correct, much like most arguments on both sides for anything political nowadays. I am simply stating it, because I believe it to be true. There are no points to be scored. the definition of a racist is someone who thinks their race is superior to all others, why would Johnson, if he’s as racist as you claim, put non white people into very important positions of power if he thinks they’re inferior ? ... you think they’re there just as a cover and not for their attributes ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 21:10:26 GMT
'I'm not racist because I have black friends.' He uses racist rhetoric and goads people into xenophobia and prejudice against immigrants. He's a racist. I'm not point scoring because I know I will not convince those who disagree with me that my point is correct, much like most arguments on both sides for anything political nowadays. I am simply stating it, because I believe it to be true. There are no points to be scored. the definition of a racist is someone who thinks their race is superior to all others, why would Johnson, if he’s as racist as you claim, put non white people into very important positions of power if he thinks they’re inferior ? ... you think they’re there just as a cover and not for their attributes ? The same reason people call Corbyn a racist, he's accepting racist rhetoric and making it normalised.
|
|