RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:He's not gone yet.

Having said that, I can understand why he wouldn't want to be around when Brexit becomes real.

OK, he is gone now.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:He's not gone yet.

Having said that, I can understand why he wouldn't want to be around when Brexit becomes real.

OK, he is gone now.

If he was popular going in six weeks or so was a maybe, but once he was going there was no fear to keep people in line.

We can only hope he's able to find his way back to Barnard Castle

Just when you thought this government couldn't get more twisted and dysfunctional, a self-proclaimed racist and 'hostile environment' advocate, is appointed to the Equality & Human Rights Commission to oversee the investigation into The Windrush scandal. Yes you read that right.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ehrc ... nvironment

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... d-goodhart

Again it's just weird from them, there's just no need to take the grief they'll get for that decision. Though I don't know if they're simply tone deaf or are intentionally trying to offend. Not sure the chap quite says he's a racist, I think he says some of those closest to him ascribe that, whereas he doesn't quite see things that way and thinks his actions/views important.

Digby wrote:Again it's just weird from them, there's just no need to take the grief they'll get for that decision. Though I don't know if they're simply tone deaf or are intentionally trying to offend. Not sure the chap quite says he's a racist, I think he says some of those closest to him ascribe that, whereas he doesn't quite see things that way and thinks his actions/views important.

That's fair.
IIRC he's perfectly open that those who know him best consider him to be racist, whilst he sees himself as merely a proponent of white self-interest. Meaning that he doesn't think he's racist just that racist policies are good ones. He's got nothing against the BAME community, he just doesn't want them to be treated as being the equals of the WASP community.

Digby wrote:Again it's just weird from them, there's just no need to take the grief they'll get for that decision. Though I don't know if they're simply tone deaf or are intentionally trying to offend. Not sure the chap quite says he's a racist, I think he says some of those closest to him ascribe that, whereas he doesn't quite see things that way and thinks his actions/views important.

I don't think they care much about the reaction. They just want this kind of person in that position. They like his thinking on race.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Again it's just weird from them, there's just no need to take the grief they'll get for that decision. Though I don't know if they're simply tone deaf or are intentionally trying to offend. Not sure the chap quite says he's a racist, I think he says some of those closest to him ascribe that, whereas he doesn't quite see things that way and thinks his actions/views important.

That's fair.
IIRC he's perfectly open that those who know him best consider him to be racist, whilst he sees himself as merely a proponent of white self-interest. Meaning that he doesn't think he's racist just that racist policies are good ones. He's got nothing against the BAME community, he just doesn't want them to be treated as being the equals of the WASP community.

It's a weird sort of defence, that he thinks saying I'm not a racist but I know even my children have strong concerns that some of my policies are racist is a hill to march out on. What I worry about in that is how much is that a positive message to those who think strident action is required, showing himself to be some sort of strong man willing to act even under duress of his children's displeasure

All of which I say knowing I have no idea what the solution to all this is. I'm not concerned by our communities as they stand now on the basis of immigration, I'd not be concerned if whites continued to shrink as a % of the population. I would be concerned about any emergence of conservative religious dogma, and whilst we could take a lot more we as part of Europe and North American cannot possibly cope with all those who'd like to move here given the choice, and I'm not sold it's to our best advantage to take in those who run here rather than stay there, and that before climate change is somewhat likely to drive vast numbers to migrate in the coming decades

It would be interesting the read the article the Guardian quote from but it's behind the FT paywall. He's clearly bad news though.

Jesus. Four more years of this?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It would be interesting the read the article the Guardian quote from but it's behind the FT paywall. He's clearly bad news though.

Jesus. Four more years of this?

The dividing line between liberals and conservatives in the US and the UK increasingly hinges on different definitions of racism.
Liberals attack President Donald Trump’s proposal to erect a wall along the US border with Mexico, and his ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim countries, as racist. Many on the right defend them as necessary protections.
A recent survey by Birkbeck College and Policy Exchange found that 72 per cent of Hillary Clinton voters in November’s presidential election consider Mr Trump’s proposed wall to be racist compared with just 4 per cent of Trump voters. But when the views of white and non-white Americans are contrasted, the gap shrinks. So political partisanship, not race, determines whether the wall is seen as racist.
The argument is not just about physical or economic protection, but cultural protection too. Modern liberals tend to believe that preference for your own ethnic group or even your own nation is a form of racism. Conservatives regard it as common sense and resent being labelled as racist.
The challenge here is to distinguish between white racism and white identity politics, or what Muslim-American writer Shadi Hamid terms white “racial self-interest”. The latter may be clannish and insular, but it is not the same as irrational hatred, fear or contempt for another group — the normal definition of racism.
The question of legitimate ethnic interest is complex. Multiculturalism is premised on the rights of minorities to maintain certain traditions and ways of life. But liberals have usually been reluctant to extend such group rights to majorities.
They have justified this reluctance on two grounds. First, the white majority in the US and Europe is itself so diverse it makes little sense to talk of a culturally homogenous majority (though the same might be said for most minorities too). Second, majorities have been so numerically dominant that their ways of life have felt threatened only in a few small pockets.
The latter is clearly no longer the case, especially in the US where the non-Hispanic white population is now only a little over 60 per cent. In several cities in the UK, the white British are now a minority too.
When YouGov asked 2,600 Americans whether it is racist or “just racial self-interest, which is not racist” for a white person to want less immigration to “maintain his or her group’s share of the population,” 73 per cent of Clinton voters but just 11 per cent of Trump voters called this racist. In a companion survey of 1,600 Britons, 46 per cent of Remain voters in last June’s EU referendum but only 3 per cent of Leave voters agreed this was racist. When respondents were asked whether a Hispanic who wants more immigration to increase his or her group’s share was being racist or racially self-interested, only 18 per cent of Clinton voters called this racist. By contrast, 39 per cent of Trump voters now saw this as racist.
When Trump and Clinton voters were made to explain their reasoning, the gap on whether whites and Hispanics were being racist or racially self-interested closed markedly in the direction of racial self-interest. This points to a possible “third way” on immigration between whites and minorities, liberals and conservatives. As Eric Kaufman argues in a forthcoming Policy Exchange paper, accepting that all groups, including whites, have legitimate cultural interests is the first step toward mutual understanding.
Majority rights are uncharted territory for liberal democracies and it is not always clear what distinguishes legitimate group interest from racism. Hardly anyone wants to abolish anti-discrimination laws that ban majorities from favouring “their own”. But while few people from the white majority think in explicitly ethnic terms, many feel a discomfort about their group no longer setting the tone in a neighbourhood. Labelling that feeling racist risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, driving white resentment.
Minorities often have real grievances requiring group-specific policy solutions. White grievances are more subtle. For instance, lower-income whites sometimes lack the mutual support that minority communities often enjoy — this can translate into a sense of loss and insecurity. This, too, should be recognised and factored into the policy calculus.
The liberal reflex to tar legitimate majority grievances with the brush of racism risks deepening western societies’ cultural divides.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It would be interesting the read the article the Guardian quote from but it's behind the FT paywall. He's clearly bad news though.

Jesus. Four more years of this?

The dividing line between liberals and conservatives in the US and the UK increasingly hinges on different definitions of racism.
Liberals attack President Donald Trump’s proposal to erect a wall along the US border with Mexico, and his ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim countries, as racist. Many on the right defend them as necessary protections.
A recent survey by Birkbeck College and Policy Exchange found that 72 per cent of Hillary Clinton voters in November’s presidential election consider Mr Trump’s proposed wall to be racist compared with just 4 per cent of Trump voters. But when the views of white and non-white Americans are contrasted, the gap shrinks. So political partisanship, not race, determines whether the wall is seen as racist.
The argument is not just about physical or economic protection, but cultural protection too. Modern liberals tend to believe that preference for your own ethnic group or even your own nation is a form of racism. Conservatives regard it as common sense and resent being labelled as racist.
The challenge here is to distinguish between white racism and white identity politics, or what Muslim-American writer Shadi Hamid terms white “racial self-interest”. The latter may be clannish and insular, but it is not the same as irrational hatred, fear or contempt for another group — the normal definition of racism.
The question of legitimate ethnic interest is complex. Multiculturalism is premised on the rights of minorities to maintain certain traditions and ways of life. But liberals have usually been reluctant to extend such group rights to majorities.
They have justified this reluctance on two grounds. First, the white majority in the US and Europe is itself so diverse it makes little sense to talk of a culturally homogenous majority (though the same might be said for most minorities too). Second, majorities have been so numerically dominant that their ways of life have felt threatened only in a few small pockets.
The latter is clearly no longer the case, especially in the US where the non-Hispanic white population is now only a little over 60 per cent. In several cities in the UK, the white British are now a minority too.
When YouGov asked 2,600 Americans whether it is racist or “just racial self-interest, which is not racist” for a white person to want less immigration to “maintain his or her group’s share of the population,” 73 per cent of Clinton voters but just 11 per cent of Trump voters called this racist. In a companion survey of 1,600 Britons, 46 per cent of Remain voters in last June’s EU referendum but only 3 per cent of Leave voters agreed this was racist. When respondents were asked whether a Hispanic who wants more immigration to increase his or her group’s share was being racist or racially self-interested, only 18 per cent of Clinton voters called this racist. By contrast, 39 per cent of Trump voters now saw this as racist.
When Trump and Clinton voters were made to explain their reasoning, the gap on whether whites and Hispanics were being racist or racially self-interested closed markedly in the direction of racial self-interest. This points to a possible “third way” on immigration between whites and minorities, liberals and conservatives. As Eric Kaufman argues in a forthcoming Policy Exchange paper, accepting that all groups, including whites, have legitimate cultural interests is the first step toward mutual understanding.
Majority rights are uncharted territory for liberal democracies and it is not always clear what distinguishes legitimate group interest from racism. Hardly anyone wants to abolish anti-discrimination laws that ban majorities from favouring “their own”. But while few people from the white majority think in explicitly ethnic terms, many feel a discomfort about their group no longer setting the tone in a neighbourhood. Labelling that feeling racist risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, driving white resentment.
Minorities often have real grievances requiring group-specific policy solutions. White grievances are more subtle. For instance, lower-income whites sometimes lack the mutual support that minority communities often enjoy — this can translate into a sense of loss and insecurity. This, too, should be recognised and factored into the policy calculus.
The liberal reflex to tar legitimate majority grievances with the brush of racism risks deepening western societies’ cultural divides.

Thanks for pasting that.

Difficult to be entirely sure of the guy's own views here since he just speaks of what 'conservatives' think etc. But if he does agree with them that 'preference for your own ethnic group' is common sense, then he is indeed racist.

The problem with this article is that he doesn't clearly define 'racial self-interest' nor explain how to distinguish it from racism. So it does feel like he's attempting to push the term as an euphemism for racism, so he and like-minded people can stop feeling guilty and/or 'victimised' for their racist ideas.

Love the straw man from the 'forthcoming Policy Exchange paper'. Who is arguing that white people don't have legitimate cultural interests?

NB there is a some truth in the piece. Clearly Trump's wall is not in itself a racist endeavour. Although it may attract support of racists, it is at most a nationalist project, and it doesn't help to call it racist.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:NB there is a some truth in the piece. Clearly Trump's wall is not in itself a racist endeavour. Although it may attract support of racists, it is at most a nationalist project, and it doesn't help to call it racist.

I don't know about that. It has little to no practical value in terms of curbing immigration or drug trafficking, so its purpose is a statement. That statement isn't "Fuck off foreigners" to my mind (given that little to no action has been taken at any other entry point), it's "Fuck off Hispanic foreigners."

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:NB there is a some truth in the piece. Clearly Trump's wall is not in itself a racist endeavour. Although it may attract support of racists, it is at most a nationalist project, and it doesn't help to call it racist.

I don't know about that. It has little to no practical value in terms of curbing immigration or drug trafficking, so its purpose is a statement. That statement isn't "Fuck off foreigners" to my mind (given that little to no action has been taken at any other entry point), it's "Fuck off Hispanic foreigners."

Puja

I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:NB there is a some truth in the piece. Clearly Trump's wall is not in itself a racist endeavour. Although it may attract support of racists, it is at most a nationalist project, and it doesn't help to call it racist.

I don't know about that. It has little to no practical value in terms of curbing immigration or drug trafficking, so its purpose is a statement. That statement isn't "Fuck off foreigners" to my mind (given that little to no action has been taken at any other entry point), it's "Fuck off Hispanic foreigners."

Puja

I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote: I don't know about that. It has little to no practical value in terms of curbing immigration or drug trafficking, so its purpose is a statement. That statement isn't "Fuck off foreigners" to my mind (given that little to no action has been taken at any other entry point), it's "Fuck off Hispanic foreigners."

Puja

I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

Bitch pleeze....

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote: I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

morepork wrote:Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

Am I though?

The "can't you play nice with racists?" personification of the ineffectual decorum-lib of a mod can still go eat a fuck.

THE TRIUMPHANT RETURN!

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote: I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

Doesn't matter if the building of the wall is, in and of itself, not racist if the reason for building the wall is racist.

The fence in Hungary, despite many people calling racism, was clearly not built for racist reasons. In fact, it was built for a single purpose and it served that purpose absolutely perfectly (sending a message to the EU about the inequities of their migrant redistribution system), resulting in a change of system.

The two things were built for the same visual purpose - keeping out brown people - but one was a monument built by a racist to keep out brown people and the other was a symbol built by a fascist to send a message to an organisation who weren't actually playing fair.

I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

Digby wrote:I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

In part because the EU has little power in this area. And those countries without or with less of a problem would prefer not to engage on the issue

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

Am I though?

The "can't you play nice with racists?" personification of the ineffectual decorum-lib of a mod can still go eat a fuck.

C’mon baby, stay around this time. You’ve got good things to say without getting in a FITE.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

In part because the EU has little power in this area. And those countries without or with less of a problem would prefer not to engage on the issue

The do, and they changed the regulations now.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

In part because the EU has little power in this area. And those countries without or with less of a problem would prefer not to engage on the issue

The do, and they changed the regulations now.

The EU often changes regs. Which is not quite the same thing as having power