UK Referendum Thread [Moderator Sanctioned]

[Souseiseki]

i mean, anti-semitism makes perfect sense from an anti-semetic perspective. that doesn't mean i'm not going to call it a bunch of ignorant shite.

If all you do is call them names without addressing the problems that lead them to these conclusions, you have ceded the issue to them, and are effectively conceding they are right, but it makes you mad.

tell us the issues

note: don't go on a big stupid rant about le muslims XD because poles are generally not muslims

[Soldati Senza Confini]

so they actually are racist and they became racists probably because of their own ignorance or people actively lying to them but it's also our fault for not pretending their racist ignorance based on lies was really a legitimate concern of immigwation all along?

Some of the leave supporters are racists yes.
You're calling them ignorant, but it isn't so. Rather, you're ignorant of their perspective and why it makes sense to them.
Yes, the demonization of people who support immgiration reform as racists has been one reason for the rise of racism.

I was being perfectly clear in my statements.

The more issues you cede for racists to have a monopoly on, the stronger their faction will get.

The problem is that they are ignorant.

I understand that people are scared about their future economies and the violence they see around the world. Honestly, anyone who has to see violence day to day or week to week would be concerned too. But, the problem with racist rhetoric is that, while it has some basis in fact, most of it is ignorant.

It is ignorant because it is misinformed, and racists paint a poor picture on the issue.

People with more knowledge will call what is ignorant ignorant. It doesn't mean that dialogue can't exist, but at the same time it's pretty fucking hard having a dialogue with someone who comes with preconceived notions about the world that are often wrong. It then becomes a task not so much of open dialogue, but of education.

[Souseiseki]

hard mode: make the issue something we haven't already been trying to tell them for years to little to no effect

[Ifreann]

So we're trying to say it's not racist to scream GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY while smashing someone's face in?

Of course. It's just like "Muslim isn't a race!" 'Foreign' isn't a race, and this is somehow a valid, meaningful response and not just wank semantics.

[Cymrea]

"Racist" is more impactful than "discriminatory".

[Ostroeuropa]

*shouts go home to anyone that looks vaguely brown on bus*
*complains about liberal elites calling them racist*

I think the problem Ostro is pointing out is that racism is not an inherent condition of people.

Of which I agree with him, even though I don't agree with how he worded his comment.

You're not born being racist, you learn how to be a racist.

Not only that, but the "Learn how to be a racist" thing is made magnitudes easier when you cede political issues to people who will frame them in such a way as to explain the problems these people experience through the context of racism.

[Souseiseki]

I think the problem Ostro is pointing out is that racism is not an inherent condition of people.

Of which I agree with him, even though I don't agree with how he worded his comment.

You're not born being racist, you learn how to be a racist.

Not only that, but the "Learn how to be a racist" thing is made magnitudes easier when you cede political issues to people who will frame them in such a way as to explain the problems these people experience through the context of racism.

let's use another issue, scaremongering over benefit scroungers. the answer is flat out "you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about". how the fuck do you deal with that?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I have to say, besides keeping some cultural traditions and holidays, along with unfortunate ghettoization, it appears most of these immigrants have assimilated into civil society

It seems that way to you because if you join the middle or upper classes and get a position where you can be a part of the image we present to the world and such, you're often more bourgeoisie than actually cultured anyway. The middle class of any nation often have more in common with eachother than the working classes of their own nation.

If you were to get down on the street level and compare the ghettos of white workers versus minority migrants and their descendents, there is a vast gulf between them culturally, and it often spills over into violence or high tensions like rotherham. (Which has now basically become a quiet warzone where hate crime is rampant.)
This isn't explored partially because our media and our elites don't want to acknowledge the failure of their policy, and just say everyone who brings it up is a racist, same as they refuse to engage with the failure of their economic policies.

There is a reason the tabloids resonate with so much of the public.

I'm beginning to see why some of the leave voters were fixated on the immigration issues after staring at statistics for over an hour.

With no government answer to the problems these crimes will only continue, so the public saw the vote as a chance to remove the problem.

Just looking through the crime statistics page "hate crime England and Wales 2014-15".
Of the hate crimes

The most commonly reported motivating factor in these hate crime incidents was race, with an average of 106,000 incidents a year according to the 2012/13 to 2014/15 surveys. The second most common motivating factor was disability(70,000 incidents per year).

Hate crime victims were less likely to be satisfied by the police handling of the incident, 52 per cent being very or fairly satisfied compared with 73 per cent for crime overall.

*page 6
Which supports Ostroeuropa's claims that race crime victims are not happy with the police handling of the offence.

Hate crime is on the rise. With race hate crime increasing by 15% from 2013/14 to 2014/15 with religious hate crime increasing by 43%. *page 10

Several spikes in hate crime have a correlation with public events,
Lee Rigby's murder 2013, Conflict in Gaza and Israel 2014, Publication of the Jay report 2014, Charlie Hebdo shooting 2015.

The report states

Likely factors in the increase in hate crimes recorded by the police include:

Improved recording of crime over the last year, especially for violence against the person offences.
A greater awareness of hate crime
and improved willingness of victims to come forward.

However it doesn't seem to correlate an increase in immigration as a contributing factor to the crime which seems a bit odd.
Nor does it seem to think that population density or "ghettoization" is a contributing factor either and yet England has a significantly denser population than Scotland per km.
England with 413
Scotland at 68
*national archives

Given these statistics it's easy for the public to focus quite heavily on immigration, and I'm beginning to understand why the average English/Welsh voter did vote for leave and why UKIP have seen an increase in support.

Curiously going through the Scottish statistics for hate crime they show a decrease from 4322 in 2008/2009 down to 3785 in 2014/2015.

So the reduction in hate crime would correlate with a vote for remain.

I'm not suggesting Scotland is better than England in regard to dealing with hate crime but there could be a correlation with population density being so high that the crime rate will continue to rise in England/Wales. Not helped by the public hate crime "events" which may gather more attention in England/Wales than in Scotland due to the significantly higher immigration populations in England/Wales.

Of course there could be a variety of other factors at work. I'm no expert in crime stats in any form so i'm immediately noticing the high population density differences when there could be a great deal of other factors I haven't looked at.

I mean look at the differences with 3785 race crime charges in Scotland compared to 42930 in England/Wales in 2014/15.
It's just not an issue in Scotland and it's even having a reduction in race crime while England/Wales is dealing with an opposite trend of race crime on the rise.

Regardless of which groups are doing it this is a much larger issue for England and Wales which explains the vast differences in voting outcomes at the referendum. Of course there will be more at work than race crime statistics but I thought it more useful than just throwing opinions around about leave voters being silly. It's certainly eye opening for me.

Thank you for reading your daily wall of text per day hopefully I won't make a habit of it. Apologies in advance for any mistakes i've made as i'm not an expert in crime or politics in any form, I just want to make that abundantly clear.

[Ostroeuropa]

If all you do is call them names without addressing the problems that lead them to these conclusions, you have ceded the issue to them, and are effectively conceding they are right, but it makes you mad.

tell us the issues

note: don't go on a big stupid rant about le muslims XD because poles are generally not muslims

Economic deprivation, disenfranchisement of the working class, neoliberal economics, and an arrogant elite that constantly belittles them, combined with cultural shock and an identity under threat and perceived to be under attack by that elite.

When you throw in ghettoization and receding "territory" for the tribe you've just launched into full panic mode, it's obvious this would happen.

[The Alma Mater]

So we're trying to say it's not racist to scream GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY while smashing someone's face in?

Most victims sofar seem to be Polish. White and catholic.
So. Xenophobic ? Yes. Racist ? Maybe not.

[Vassenor]

So we're trying to say it's not racist to scream GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY while smashing someone's face in?

Most victims sofar seem to be Polish. White and catholic.
So. Xenophobic ? Yes. Racist ? Maybe not.

Apparently all the incidents that happened to individuals of Pakistani or similar descent never happened then.

[Minoa]

Hi,

Things have been very worrying for all of us and my friends who are no ethnically British, especially in light of the recent events, and I have become determined to develop an escape plan if things get much worse. Today I have found out that I can resume the nationality of my mother because of a change to nationality law back in 2000. According to the IMF, this country only has public debt of 38.246% of the GDP, and a base interest rate of 1.5%.

Do that.

Or maybe go to Scotland? Most people there voted for remain, after all. Maybe friendlier too.

It is envisaged that my nationality workflow will be:

• before 2016: United Kingdom
• after 2016: United Kingdom and Taiwan
• around 2022: Taiwan and Switzerland/Netherlands/Norway
• 2024: Taiwan and Switzerland/Netherlands/Norway and Minoa (I have an idea about giving Greece a fresh start by moving the bad debt to a asset firm).

Although press freedom is open for improvement, Taiwan's debt is currently 38.246% of GDP in 2016 in contrast to 89.140% in the UK, so Taiwanese nationality is an economic matter for me in case the British economy sours further. Fortunately further, Taiwan only conscripts males for military service, and I am a female.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not only that, but the "Learn how to be a racist" thing is made magnitudes easier when you cede political issues to people who will frame them in such a way as to explain the problems these people experience through the context of racism.

let's use another issue, scaremongering over benefit scroungers. the answer is flat out "you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about". how the fuck do you deal with that?

That isn't the answer. It's
"You feel like you're being ripped off by people not working? Okay. We can work around that. How about we make it so benefit recipients are required to do a day of charity work a week as a sign of good faith on their part. We can't rent them out to businesses, because they'd exploit them and it'd drive down wages. But charity work would be good, and it will keep their skills going and provide them with connections in the community. If we put the focus towards charities which focus on the local area, it will also do more to regenerate communities with high unemployment. It'd also chase away scroungers, does that make you more comfortable?"

Because you've misunderstood the sentiment. It's not that they care about the amount of money, it's the principle of the thing. They feel ripped off. Telling them their feelings are wrong is going to accomplish precisely jack shit, and they aren't "Wrong" to feel that way.

This is another example of leftist elitism meaning they've been consistently losing these arguments and the country, because what you just did is what our elites tried too. You should start realizing that they are absolutely shit at understanding and framing issues. Pretty much all of their arguments against the UK conservatives are shit, and have always been shit. That's why we're in this mess.

If you talk to conservatives more often as people and stop just calling them names, it's really simple to come up with solutions that benefit all parties involved. But if you act like a know it all then fuck all is going to be accomplished.
The left have been culturally toxic for years, and it's led to a situation where as you saw in the other thread, we're in a situation of total wipeout. UKIP-Tory Nation.

[The Alma Mater]

Most victims sofar seem to be Polish. White and catholic.
So. Xenophobic ? Yes. Racist ? Maybe not.

Apparently all the incidents that happened to individuals of Pakistani or similar descent never happened then.

I said most. THOSE attacks are probably racist, yes.
But hate for foreigners is not by definition the same as racism. Several Dutchies have also been molested. Calling that an act of racism tseem very silly.

[Souseiseki]

Because you've misunderstood the sentiment. It's not that they care about the amount of money, it's the principle of the thing. They feel ripped off. Telling them their feelings are wrong is going to accomplish precisely jack shit, and they aren't "Wrong" to feel that way.

"Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34."

feels do not make them not wrong.

it is possible to be objectively wrong and they are.

this is what i meant. how do you deal with this without telling them they're wrong?

you can call me a liberal elite but your solution is also fundamentally premised on the idea that "they don't know why the welfare state exists or what it actually does"

[Ostroeuropa]

Because you've misunderstood the sentiment. It's not that they care about the amount of money, it's the principle of the thing. They feel ripped off. Telling them their feelings are wrong is going to accomplish precisely jack shit, and they aren't "Wrong" to feel that way.

"Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34."

feels do not make them not wrong.

it is possible to be objectively wrong and they are.

this is what i meant. how do you deal with this without telling them they're wrong?

you can call me a liberal elite but your solution is also fundamentally premised on the idea that "they don't know why the welfare state exists or what it actually does"

The welfare state is shit in the first place compared to the solution I offered, especially when you consider the studies on long term unemployment, and that as we've seen, it's demonstrably unstable due to resentment.

In order to even get them to be open to the idea they are factually wrong, you have to deal with the feeling first. All that study shows in effect is how intensely they feel about it. You're asking them to guess, they don't know, they just know it happens.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It seems that way to you because if you join the middle or upper classes and get a position where you can be a part of the image we present to the world and such, you're often more bourgeoisie than actually cultured anyway. The middle class of any nation often have more in common with eachother than the working classes of their own nation.

If you were to get down on the street level and compare the ghettos of white workers versus minority migrants and their descendents, there is a vast gulf between them culturally, and it often spills over into violence or high tensions like rotherham. (Which has now basically become a quiet warzone where hate crime is rampant.)
This isn't explored partially because our media and our elites don't want to acknowledge the failure of their policy, and just say everyone who brings it up is a racist, same as they refuse to engage with the failure of their economic policies.

There is a reason the tabloids resonate with so much of the public.

I'm beginning to see why some of the leave voters were fixated on the immigration issues after staring at statistics for over an hour.

With no government answer to the problems these crimes will only continue, so the public saw the vote as a chance to remove the problem.

Just looking through the crime statistics page "hate crime England and Wales 2014-15".
Of the hate crimes

The most commonly reported motivating factor in these hate crime incidents was race, with an average of 106,000 incidents a year according to the 2012/13 to 2014/15 surveys. The second most common motivating factor was disability(70,000 incidents per year).

Hate crime victims were less likely to be satisfied by the police handling of the incident, 52 per cent being very or fairly satisfied compared with 73 per cent for crime overall.

*page 6
Which supports Ostroeuropa's claims that race crime victims are not happy with the police handling of the offence.

Hate crime is on the rise. With race hate crime increasing by 15% from 2013/14 to 2014/15 with religious hate crime increasing by 43%. *page 10

Several spikes in hate crime have a correlation with public events,
Lee Rigby's murder 2013, Conflict in Gaza and Israel 2014, Publication of the Jay report 2014, Charlie Hebdo shooting 2015.

The report states

Likely factors in the increase in hate crimes recorded by the police include:

Improved recording of crime over the last year, especially for violence against the person offences.
A greater awareness of hate crime
and improved willingness of victims to come forward.

However it doesn't seem to correlate an increase in immigration as a contributing factor to the crime which seems a bit odd.
Nor does it seem to think that population density or "ghettoization" is a contributing factor either and yet England has a significantly denser population than Scotland per km.
England with 413
Scotland at 68
*national archives

Given these statistics it's easy for the public to focus quite heavily on immigration, and I'm beginning to understand why the average English/Welsh voter did vote for leave and why UKIP have seen an increase in support.

Curiously going through the Scottish statistics for hate crime they show a decrease from 4322 in 2008/2009 down to 3785 in 2014/2015.

So the reduction in hate crime would correlate with a vote for remain.

I'm not suggesting Scotland is better than England in regard to dealing with hate crime but there could be a correlation with population density being so high that the crime rate will continue to rise in England/Wales. Not helped by the public hate crime "events" which may gather more attention in England/Wales than in Scotland due to the significantly higher immigration populations in England/Wales.

Of course there could be a variety of other factors at work. I'm no expert in crime stats in any form so i'm immediately noticing the high population density differences when there could be a great deal of other factors I haven't looked at.

I mean look at the differences with 3785 race crime charges in Scotland compared to 42930 in England/Wales in 2014/15.
It's just not an issue in Scotland and it's even having a reduction in race crime while England/Wales is dealing with an opposite trend of race crime on the rise.

Regardless of which groups are doing it this is a much larger issue for England and Wales which explains the vast differences in voting outcomes at the referendum. Of course there will be more at work than race crime statistics but I thought it more useful than just throwing opinions around about leave voters being silly. It's certainly eye opening for me.

Thank you for reading your daily wall of text per day hopefully I won't make a habit of it. Apologies in advance for any mistakes i've made as i'm not an expert in crime or politics in any form, I just want to make that abundantly clear.

I'm not an expert on UK Criminal Justice, but here in the United States the same rippling crime/discrimination effect happens.

Down here it is more of an issue around what the media chooses to portray than actual statistics though.

Americans love sensationalism, it's the way media has found the most profits, and so the most extraordinary cases happen to be noticed by the media, and on both sides, it paints a picture about demographics which is false in its wide generalization of populations.

For instance, illegal immigrants are accused here in the U.S. of being tax leeches and criminals. The statistics show soundly that while some illegal immigrants are tax leeches and criminals, these are the rare exceptions rather than the norm, criminal behavior is underrepresented among illegal immigrants in comparison to the rest of the country's demographics, so the obvious conclusion is "okay, we should kick out the criminals, just not every single illegal immigrant because we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot for no fucking reason" which, when people tell me this is what they think and what I am arguing for, and they get it, I know they are educated about the issue 9 times out of 10.

The media, however, interprets the data in ways that are sensationalistic depending on which channel you choose to believe, which does nothing but rift the dialogue between people who are pro-immigration reform and people who are against it.

Given your analysis I am inclined to assume something similar is happening in the UK, but I might be wrong. Like I said, not an expert on UK Criminal Justice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34."

feels do not make them not wrong.

it is possible to be objectively wrong and they are.

this is what i meant. how do you deal with this without telling them they're wrong?

you can call me a liberal elite but your solution is also fundamentally premised on the idea that "they don't know why the welfare state exists or what it actually does"

The welfare state is shit in the first place compared to the solution I offered, especially when you consider the studies on long term unemployment, and that as we've seen, it's demonstrably unstable due to resentment.

In order to even get them to be open to the idea they are factually wrong, you have to deal with the feeling first. All that study shows in effect is how intensely they feel about it. You're asking them to guess, they don't know, they just know it happens.

Just one problem there.

In your line of logic, you're presuming that they're right. I wouldn't go about validating people's fears.

I would tell them "I understand you're upset, and it's understandable after hearing that scroungers are ripping off the system, but here's the thing, that is the exception rather than the rule" and then show them statistics.

The media paints it as it being the rule, because it sells more.

[Ostroeuropa]

The welfare state is shit in the first place compared to the solution I offered, especially when you consider the studies on long term unemployment, and that as we've seen, it's demonstrably unstable due to resentment.

In order to even get them to be open to the idea they are factually wrong, you have to deal with the feeling first. All that study shows in effect is how intensely they feel about it. You're asking them to guess, they don't know, they just know it happens.

Just one problem there.

In your line of logic, you're presuming that they're right. I wouldn't go about validating people's fears.

I would tell them "I understand you're upset, and it's understandable after hearing that scroungers are ripping off the system, but here's the thing, that is the exception rather than the rule" and then show them statistics.

The media paints it as it being the rule, because it sells more.

The approach hasn't worked without providing solutions to those fears, which while overblown, are reacting to real things.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just one problem there.

In your line of logic, you're presuming that they're right. I wouldn't go about validating people's fears.

I would tell them "I understand you're upset, and it's understandable after hearing that scroungers are ripping off the system, but here's the thing, that is the exception rather than the rule" and then show them statistics.

The media paints it as it being the rule, because it sells more.

The approach hasn't worked without providing solutions to those fears, which while overblown, are reacting to real things.

You can't start providing solutions without painting the situation as is though. How can you start talking about a solution when they don't even understand the problem to begin with?

Some of us have spent considerable years of our lives studying the issue. So we understand what the issues are, people who just get confronted with the issue can't wrap around their heads what the actual issue is because the first thing the media does is polarize the narrative against a demographic.

[Ostroeuropa]

The approach hasn't worked without providing solutions to those fears, which while overblown, are reacting to real things.

You can't start providing solutions without painting the situation as is though. How can you start talking about a solution when they don't even understand the problem to begin with?

You don't really need to do that.
You just provide a solution and sound like a badass when a year later you come out and say it's declined to the new level as a result of the policy, and they'll think you're a magic man. Then they'll wander off, satisfied at the new numbers and content that the solution has worked, provided it has worked to some extent, to solve that problem.

You'll notice that the example I used also addresses multiple issues the left cares about. That's how to properly do this shit, instead of winner take all scorched earth insanity started by thatcher.

Some of us have spent considerable years of our lives studying the issue. So we understand what the issues are, people who just get confronted with the issue can't wrap around their heads what the actual issue is because the first thing the media does is polarize the narrative against a demographic.

*shrug*
People who feel upset about that should get over it. Our side has been getting butthurt about people thinking their ignorance is equal to an education for decades, and as a result the country has been going to shit. You know what i'm saying is right. This approach we've been using isn't working, we need to change it.

[Valaran]

I don't agree with Ostro, but

I think people who are pro-immigration (I count myself amongst this number) have to accept two things:

a) they either need to do a better job of explaining the benefits of immigration to people who might be concerned by it, and how they can be supported. This may include greater financial assistance to the working class/lower middle class.

b) and/or they need to accept that large surges in migration (as opposed to steady levels of migration) will cause a political backlash they won't like. It is also worth stressing that different levels of migration, specifically concerning the rate of migration, will affect integration, and thus result in variable level sof political backlash. This, for instance is why the Turkey deal or something similar is important, as it controls the rate of migration.

I think we have failed on both counts. We have failed to influence public perception or deal with concerns, and we are now forced to deal with the backlash in unadedifying ways. This is not a successful strategy for any movement that is pro-immigration.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can't start providing solutions without painting the situation as is though. How can you start talking about a solution when they don't even understand the problem to begin with?

You don't really need to do that.
You just provide a solution and sound like a badass when a year later you come out and say it's declined to the new level as a result of the policy, and they'll think you're a magic man. Then they'll wander off, satisfied at the new numbers and content that the solution has worked, provided it has worked to some extent, to solve that problem.

You'll notice that the example I used also addresses multiple issues the left cares about. That's how to properly do this shit, instead of winner take all scorched earth insanity started by thatcher.

So, in a way, be a benevolent elitist?

Because that's what it sounds like to me. I'm not trying to be adversarial when I ask, either.

[Ostroeuropa]

You don't really need to do that.
You just provide a solution and sound like a badass when a year later you come out and say it's declined to the new level as a result of the policy, and they'll think you're a magic man. Then they'll wander off, satisfied at the new numbers and content that the solution has worked, provided it has worked to some extent, to solve that problem.

You'll notice that the example I used also addresses multiple issues the left cares about. That's how to properly do this shit, instead of winner take all scorched earth insanity started by thatcher.

So, in a way, be a benevolent elitist?

Because that's what it sounds like to me. I'm not trying to be adversarial when I ask, either.

Kind of yeh, but I wouldn't be caught without a mile of the term. Going around making people feel insecure and inferior has led to massive backlash. It doesn't help that all of this gets obfuscated by legitimate classism and snobbery either.

[Ifreann]

"Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34."

feels do not make them not wrong.

it is possible to be objectively wrong and they are.

this is what i meant. how do you deal with this without telling them they're wrong?

you can call me a liberal elite but your solution is also fundamentally premised on the idea that "they don't know why the welfare state exists or what it actually does"

The welfare state is shit in the first place compared to the solution I offered, especially when you consider the studies on long term unemployment, and that as we've seen, it's demonstrably unstable due to resentment.

In order to even get them to be open to the idea they are factually wrong, you have to deal with the feeling first. All that study shows in effect is how intensely they feel about it. You're asking them to guess, they don't know, they just know it happens.

I'm a little surprised that you want to address people's feelings rather than the factual reality of the situation.