Dubstepforum.com

Forum wrote:

rickyarbino wrote:

wub wrote:Gerard Batten, MEP & party immigration spokesman - said Muslims should sign a special code of conduct if they wanted to live in Britain Surely too ridiculous to be a direct quote

I'm not sure all of those are legitimately racist tbh.

Google his name, it comes up on the first page. He also warned about an "explosion of mosques".


This is a man who once stood as UKIPs candidate for Mayor Of London

I'm sure he'd like nothing better than the explosion of mosques

I think wub's forgetting that Islam isn't a race.

It isn't, but it is associated with certain ethnicities and cultures, and a lot of people who defend their statements with "islam isn't a race" actually do make very prejudiced and sometimes racist comments about those people.

rickyarbino wrote:I think wub's forgetting that Islam isn't a race.

Try harder

Harkat wrote:It isn't, but it is associated with certain ethnicities and cultures, and a lot of people who defend their statements with "islam isn't a race" actually do make very prejudiced and sometimes racist comments about those people.

Imo, treating that as racism is racist because you're actually rationalizing that someone's views are racist in spite of having no real reason to draw the conclusion in the first place. It's projective, but it's still your thoughts justifying the measures. He's a politician, in a party which is known to have some racist members, but he's still a person. Perhaps I'm an idealist to think that not everyone who works with with/for UKIP is racist.

Aside from that though, the first one was indefensibly racist, so far as I could see tbf, so he's got that much right.

wub wrote:

rickyarbino wrote:I think wub's forgetting that Islam isn't a race.

Try harder

This got me thinking actually.

I understand that a state's government is, at least generally speaking, under some kind of moral oath which requires it to act in accordance with the rights of its citizens.

If these rights aren't being met, should a country's government be allowed to take on more citizens? Should existing citizens be morally justified in asking for this?
I recognize that this has some shocking ramifications, restrictions on child birthing for one, but could you not justify a lot of what comes off as racism on these grounds? If that's not too unsettling, given the consequences of having this kind of a 'sense of identity', is a modern government even worth having?

rickyarbino wrote:

Harkat wrote:It isn't, but it is associated with certain ethnicities and cultures, and a lot of people who defend their statements with "islam isn't a race" actually do make very prejudiced and sometimes racist comments about those people.

Imo, treating that as racism is racist because you're actually rationalizing that someone's views are racist in spite of having no real reason to draw the conclusion in the first place. It's projective, but it's still your thoughts justifying the measures. He's a politician, in a party which is known to have some racist members, but he's still a person. Perhaps I'm an idealist to think that not everyone who works with with/for UKIP is racist.

I was speaking generally and trying to say that OFTEN, of course not necessarily, when people use the "Islam isn't a race, thus I can say XYZ", XYZ actually isn't a criticism of Islam the ideology but a (possibly racist) stereotyping of what muslim immigrants do and how they are. I seem to see a lot of arguments that go something like this:

"Muslim immigrants are genitally mutilating young girls and trying to exercise Sharia law in europe! This is an outrage, why are you defending that?"

*gets called out for painting a certain stereotyped picture of muslims that doesn't correspond to reality, possibly using the word "racist"*

"It's not racist to criticize and ideology!"

but fuck it man, I don't really know anything about this specific debate. I was taking a generalized statement about this discussion based on what I've seen in the past.

When you say "he's a politician" I don't even know who you're talking about, I just caught onto that specific thing you said btw.

Yeah, but that's just insofar as the people of that race are muslims. Why would you assume that he'd be racist when he's explicitly critizing the ideology associated with people who just happen to be muslim. There's no genetic aspect to islam, you're essentially just implanting the notion of racism.

First of all, I don't know who "he" is and what he's saying in this case, like I said.

Neither do I, but I'm not the one who called him racist. Just saying that's no reason to call someone racist.

The Green party also want a referendum on EU membership, have all the pro-social policies of UKIP and more, and are actually nice and reasonable. The problem is, the media ignore them and UKIP voters obviously aren't paying enough attention to listen beyond the biggest loud mouth idiot who happens to mention one thing they like.

To be honest, I blame the media more for making out it's immigration that's the problem when really it's the right wing bastards in government. I notice a trend where British people will happily vote their livelihood away for people shouting their patriotism for inequality and authoritarianism as long as it's dressed in the Union Jack...

Test, If I've rread you correctly, that's a consequence of the nation state, which is what I was getting at with:

rickyarbino wrote: This got me thinking actually.

I understand that a state's government is, at least generally speaking, under some kind of moral oath which requires it to act in accordance with the rights of its citizens.

If these rights aren't being met, should a country's government be allowed to take on more citizens? Should existing citizens be morally justified in asking for this?
I recognize that this has some shocking ramifications, restrictions on child birthing for one, but could you not justify a lot of what comes off as racism on these grounds? If that's not too unsettling, given the consequences of having this kind of a 'sense of identity', is a modern government even worth having?

Forum wrote:Wonder if there'll ever be a political discussion where Stewart Lee videos don't get posted

sorry , I think some standups are the smartest not boring people that take up issues we have. like there isn't room or time for actual satire so the ones that shit on specific bits effectively takes that spot... need some more Chappelles around tho.

rickyarbino wrote:Test, If I've rread you correctly, that's a consequence of the nation state, which is what I was getting at with:

rickyarbino wrote: This got me thinking actually.

I understand that a state's government is, at least generally speaking, under some kind of moral oath which requires it to act in accordance with the rights of its citizens.

If these rights aren't being met, should a country's government be allowed to take on more citizens? Should existing citizens be morally justified in asking for this?
I recognize that this has some shocking ramifications, restrictions on child birthing for one, but could you not justify a lot of what comes off as racism on these grounds? If that's not too unsettling, given the consequences of having this kind of a 'sense of identity', is a modern government even worth having?

I agree with this, but I don't think it's a direct consequence of the nation state as such. It's more of a consequence of people being lazy and not looking for the facts or even attempting to make the government do something good for them. I think a nation state can do good for its citizens, but the citizens need to participate for it to work. Living somewhere with minimal state assistance is a proper bitch; I can't claim any kind of welfare even if I'm married, lived here for decades and contributed continuously where I am...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

More Facts and Logic for cloth-eared isolationists to ignore.

Immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 contributed more to the UK than they took out in benefits, according to a new study.

They added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services, the report produced by University College London (UCL) found.

magma wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

More Facts and Logic for cloth-eared isolationists to ignore.

Immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 contributed more to the UK than they took out in benefits, according to a new study.

They added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services, the report produced by University College London (UCL) found.

yeah was interesting this, it also doesn't count the extra economic activity that those earnings tax and spending generates.

We should be thanking them for migrating for work

magma wrote:
More Facts and Logic for cloth-eared isolationists to ignore.

Decus et tutamen

Forum wrote:

magma wrote:
More Facts and Logic for cloth-eared isolationists to ignore.

Decus et tutamen

What's he got to do with it?