That is not what the thread title means. You can find out what the thread title means by reading the OP. Please, give it a go. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
In the meantime, you can go and excoriate this guy for being an unreconstructed sexist:
I mean, what else could that thread title possibly mean? And how would you find out?
But really - I’ve said exactly what I think about the motivations of Leave voters at length. If you’re going to continue to ignore everything I post on that in favour of the reading only the thread title, there really is nowhere for this conversation to go.
So here’s a question instead. Given the cited evidence of a rise in racially motivated hate crimes, do you think the racist campaigning techniques used by the major Leave campaigns have emboldened racists?
A vote for border security, a vote for more closely monitoring or even stemming the flow of immigrants, doesn’t have to be bigotry. Sure, some of those positions attract fanatics, but a lot of people get painted unfairly with a broad brush to try to sweep away real concerns. Going even further, why can’t a country want to maintain its demographic or economic makeup? I feel for Africa’s plight, for instance, but I wouldn’t want to open up America’s borders to a billion Africans. I want to help them build up their part of the world. Immigration isn’t a solution in and of itself and if done wrong it can put an undue strain on both countries.
A lot of people are trying to require that immigration be celebrated lest the people who might want to figure out if the move actually makes sense for their country be branded racists. These tactics never work long-term. It’s how you get Brexits and Trumps.
You really should go back and read the exchange. Your exasperation is self-inflicted. You asked me what you wrote could give the impression I shared. I pointed to your thread title. Afterwards, you felt the need to get snippy.
To recap: you wrote words. I read them and asked a question based on them. You expressed dismay how I could have gotten the impression I did and asked that I point out what you wrote that gave me that impression. I QUOTED back your words, which clearly do that. You then bristle that I ignore those words and look at your other words. :rolleyes:
You then try to put words in my mouth. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
You also then determine that I feel that the thread title is a complete summation of what you wrote. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
And then you repeatedly feel the need to get snippy and refuse to acknowledge that YOUR thread title does exactly what I suggested and try to shrug off responsibility for your own words. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’m sorry, but we’re not allowed to call these people “racists” or “bigots” or “xenophobic” anymore, because I have been assured that the vast majority of the time we call people “bigots” it’s just to shut down dissenting views.
So when families in Huntingdon are being sent messages reading “Leave the EU - No More Polish Vermin”, do not say that this behaviour is reprehensible. Instead, known that this is just the locals’ way of expressing legitimate concerns about whether an undue strain is being placed on the economy.
When brown-skinned people are having the word “Paki!” shouted at them in the streets - including a BBC television presenter - this is just civic-minded citizens looking to have a civil dialogue about British culture.
When protesters in Newcastle hold up a banner reading “STOP IMMIGRATION AND START REPATRIATION”, they’re merely expressing a desire to maintain their demographic makeup.
When minorities born and bred in this country are being driven off the road or assaulted on the pavements and told to “go back where they came from”, these are examples of proud Brits expressing their deep, passionate love for their country.
No, let us not call these people “bigots”. Let us instead call them “patriots”, for clearly they love their country so much they want to keep it all to themselves. The man standing in the middle of the Gloucester Tesco shouting “This is England! Foreigners have 48 hours to fuck right off! Who is foreign here? Anyone foreign?” should not be condemned; Nay - he should be admired! Random Shouty Man, I salute you!
Can you please point to those posters who think that there are no racists, no racist acts, or that’s it’s wrong to call the people you describe as racists…or any combination of the aforementioned?
Exactly! And most important of all - this has nothing to do with the Leave campaign. Nothing to do with the poster of refugees captioned Breaking Point, nothing do with the claims that 75 million Turks were coming here and that they were disproportionately criminals. Nothing to do with the assertion that immigration led to rape. When senior politicians went on national TV to make these claims and repeat a far-right slogan about “Taking our country back” it did nothing whatsoever to embolden racists or make them feel that their views widely shared.
And when the Leave campaign won on the back of promoting this fear and hatred of immigrants, you can bet your bottom dollar that had no effect whatsoever on whether racists felt their views had support from the majority. The 57% increase in racially motivated crime since the referendum is just one of these weird coincidences.
This might be the root of it. Do you mean: I wrote many, many words of which the thread title is just a small fraction, and that you read all those words and then asked a question based on all of them?
Or do you mean that I wrote many, many words of which the thread title was just a small fraction, and you only read the thread title and asked a question based on it and it alone?
Because I still contend that if you’ve read everything I’ve written in this thread, you have no basis for believing that I think Leave voters are largely racist. Mainly because I’ve explicitly said in words that I believe no such thing. Have you read those words? Did they make any kind of impression?
I mean, obviously this argument is a silly distraction - everyone can read what I actually wrote about Leave voters, if they care to take the time. But it’s instructive in many ways. Because it seems a lot easier to complain that people with Very Real Concerns About Immigration are being labelled racism than to confront the actual racism which masquerades as concern about local school funding levels.
So, magellan01: There’s been a 57% increase in racially motivated crime in England since the referendum, including many incidents where the assailant directly references the referendum. Do you think this just one of those inexplicable rolls of the dice, or do you think there might be a connection?
To keep some perspective on things, the numbers go from 54 to 85. Not good, and definitely a strong increase. But I’m not sure how big the problem is from a percentage of the population standpoint. From here:
Also, it should be kept in mind that not all these are based on biases toward nationalities, race or religion.
So, some number of them are crimes against persons with disabilities or are based on sexual orientation or transgender identity.
Not true. As I have cited. I asked a question based on your entire OP. The title was part of it. I’d also say that it deserves more weight than the more number of words it contained because you created it as a summation of sorts.
And this is where you present more evidence to show that my question was a legitimate one. For you, the important thing is to point to the racism. Whether you exaggerate it or otherwise create the impression that it is the root or main cause for Brexit is unimportant to you. As long as you can point and scream 'Racist!" all is well.
I’d bet strongly that it there is a connection. But see my previous post to keep things in perspective.
Perhaps you will sometime chose to go back and answer the question I asked of you. Though I’m less than optimistic.
OP, your thread title directly contradicts virtually everything you say in your OP post. This is a fact, and the constant bickering of other posters is because you won’t acknowledge that fact.
You have put me in a position of agreeing with magellan01 and I really hate that.
No, all is not well. All is very far from well. Major national politicians, two of whom have been mentioned as potential future Prime Ministers, ran a campaign that whipped up fear and hatred of immigrants. Immediately after there has been a spike in racial violence and hate crime which you and I would strongly bet is connected to that racist campaign.
The only weird thing about this is that you think I shouldn’t be talking about it, for some reason.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I don’t believe that at all.
Since it appears too much trouble for you to go back to Page 1 and look it up (God forbid you take responsibility for anything), here is my very reasonable first post, which includes the question. You can tell by the little squiggly thing at the end. Hell, I’ll even bold it for you:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The problem is the rate of influx. America used to be described to un in schools, with a sense of pride, as a melting pot. But now that idea is “RACIST!”, as it’s suggesting that people give up some of their identity and assimilate into the new home they’ve chosen.
And I still can’t see how you seem to KNOW the motivations of the people who want to break with the EU. Why is it ugly racism and not the more palatable explanation that octopus offered?
[/QUOTE]
Many people, non-racistly, think that the immigration is a major problem for Britain and that if it is reduced massively then their lives will materially improve. There’s a problem with this analysis. The problem is that it’s flat wrong. The reason people in England’s ex-industrial towns/fishing ports/agricultural centres are finding life hard is because of the “ex-”. Their local economies are in decline, regional investment has been falling for decades, young people have no option but to move away to get decent jobs and so the decline spirals. At the edges, there may be a small number of immigrants, some doing doing seasonal work. But as poll after poll has shown, concern about immigration is consistently greatest in areas of low immigration and consistently lowest in areas of high immigration. A lot of people are facing some very hard problems. Immigration is not one of them.
But various people are happy to say that it is. Some are out and out racists - far right orgs like Britain First or the EDL who use discontent to find an audience for their crap. Others, more worryingly, are not but are happy to let immigrants be the scapegoats. Centrist parties in the UK have been too happy to duck the hard questions of how to revive areas in severe economic and popular decline in favour of letting people think it’s all down to immigration - while, of course, having no plans whatsoever to reduce immigration because they know it’s not the problem.
This failure to have an honest conversation with people along the lines of: “Your old jobs have gone, you suck at graphic design, accountancy or systems analysis so you’re basically fucked, you’re kids can do these so they’ll be fucking off to the big city. What can we do about that?” is the root cause of a lot of the discontent both with immigration and with, basically, politics, that fuelled the Brexit vote.
Come on, man, seriously? The answer is, I don’t think people who who want to leave the EU are ugly racists. Even if you thought that at one point, you must have come round by now to the idea that I don’t, right?
Shall I say it one more time: I don’t believe that the people who voted Leave are ugly racists.
As it happens, my explanation for what underlies the Leave vote is above.
Okay. How do you square the above with this (bolding mine):
At the very least I think you ascribe WAY too much of the reason to racism. As can be seen here:
[QUOTE=Stanislaus]
But it’s instructive in many ways. Because it seems a lot easier to complain that people with Very Real Concerns About Immigration are being labelled racism than to confront the actual racism which masquerades as concern about local school funding levels.
[/QUOTE]
Now, imagine a world in which you simply answered my very reasonable question. one in which, perhaps, you would have taken responsibility for what you wrote and acknowledged it as such, especially after I answered your question as to how I got the impression I did. And perhaps this world would be a place where when another poster comes in a points to your words as being in contradiction, you acknowledge your role in this protracted exchange and own up to it.