UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-scotland

They do attract their attention, when it's committed against certain demographics.

Again, its a statistical game. Its just objectively true that white people Tweeting or posting about refugees and immigrants is just far more likely and happens in greater frequency that a refugee going onto a computer and tweeting that all Brits should be deported. So obviously, if something happens more often, then its more likely to catch prosecutorial attention. Its just a numbers game, I don't really see evidence of active discrimination.

Are you pretending to be ignorant of "punching-up" and "racism = prejudice plus power" as justifications for ignoring discrimination or prejudicial speech against whites and males?

[Ifreann]

benefits street, benefits britain: life on the dole, the great british benefits handout, the big benefits handout, on benefits, the saga of octomom, etc.

(in case it's not clear i consider the rising hate crimes against immigrants (or people that look like immigrants, i wonder how they judge that?) and the previous rising hate crimes against the disabled to be the same root cause, so things will blend together a bit, into one big pile of shit)

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

If?

[Great Nepal]

Why? There was no harm caused by the speech itself (assuming of course speech is made in a way that doesn't cause the group distress for example in private setting).

Actually, there is, because when you're a vulnerable minority who is always under the threat of harassment and intimidating violence from others having a prominent politician or activist shout racist slurs or demonise your community is not exactly what you need to hear to feel psychologically safe. And hate speech actually has proven scientific and psychological health harms.

Hence the note; if there is a person who they caused significant distress to and they should've known that then sure prosecute for crime relating to that; otherwise there's no harm so no crime.

[Divitaen]

Actually, there is, because when you're a vulnerable minority who is always under the threat of harassment and intimidating violence from others having a prominent politician or activist shout racist slurs or demonise your community is not exactly what you need to hear to feel psychologically safe. And hate speech actually has proven scientific and psychological health harms.

Hence the note; if there is a person who they caused significant distress to and they should've known that then sure prosecute for crime relating to that; otherwise there's no harm so no crime.

Its possible to cause psychological distress on a mass scale in a public setting, it doesn't have to be in a private setting as you suggest. Also you realise this criteria basically includes most hate crimes anyway.

[Philjia]

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

since when did stop and frisk disproportionately target whites

this is the kind of thing that legit makes me feel like we're living in completely different worlds

We live on the planet where the Tories, egged on by their populist rivals, accelerates the country towards the gates of hell in a handcart, or at least they will until the handcart is privatised and the wheels fall off. Meanwhile, Labour sits on the sidelines shoving it's head up it's arse.

Osteo lives on a planet where the only thing that can save us from the liberal and feminist conspiracy destroying the left is to join up with the most appalling Tory government since Thatcher.

[Ostroeuropa]

since when did stop and frisk disproportionately target whites

this is the kind of thing that legit makes me feel like we're living in completely different worlds

We live on the planet where the Tories, egged on by their populist rivals, accelerates the country towards the gates of hell in a handcart, or at least they will until the handcart is privatised and the wheels fall off. Meanwhile, Labour sits on the sidelines shoving it's head up it's arse.

Osteo lives on a planet where the only thing that can save us from the liberal and feminist conspiracy destroying the left is to join up with the most appalling Tory government since Thatcher.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
I don't seem to be alone on that, just saying.

Beyond that, it was a literal conspiracy by Blair to troll the right wing by flooding the country with immigrants. But nevermind that, do you think the tories are conspiring to destroy the country?
No?

Then why do you think I think the left is? Because you've outgrouped your opponents to the point its causing you this:
/wiki/Naïve_realism_(psychology)

[Vassenor]

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

since when did stop and frisk disproportionately target whites

this is the kind of thing that legit makes me feel like we're living in completely different worlds

Haven't you heard? A policy that is six times more likely to target black people and four times more likely to target Asian people is disproportionately targeting white people.

[Souseiseki]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
I don't seem to be alone on that, just saying.

yes. the british public are generally misinformed and consistently vote against their own interests. nothing new.

["""elitism""" intensifies]

[Philjia]

We live on the planet where the Tories, egged on by their populist rivals, accelerates the country towards the gates of hell in a handcart, or at least they will until the handcart is privatised and the wheels fall off. Meanwhile, Labour sits on the sidelines shoving it's head up it's arse.

Osteo lives on a planet where the only thing that can save us from the liberal and feminist conspiracy destroying the left is to join up with the most appalling Tory government since Thatcher.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
I don't seem to be alone on that, just saying.

Beyond that, it was a literal conspiracy by Blair to troll the right wing by flooding the country with immigrants. But nevermind that, do you think the tories are conspiring to destroy the country?
No?

I don't think the Tories are conspiring to destroy the country. I think they're destroying the country because they're idiots who've also been given a completely impossible task in the form of Brexit.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
I don't seem to be alone on that, just saying.

Beyond that, it was a literal conspiracy by Blair to troll the right wing by flooding the country with immigrants. But nevermind that, do you think the tories are conspiring to destroy the country?
No?

I don't think the Tories are conspiring to destroy the country. I think they're destroying the country because they're idiots who've also been given a completely impossible task in the form of Brexit.

Right.
So why do you think I think the left wing are conspiring, rather than just idiots or wrong or something?
Because you're caught in an echo chamber that pathologizes your opponents and refuses to countenance opposition as legitimate.

You know full well it would be ridiculous to allege conspiracy the other way, but you did it here, because you never bothered to self-reflect on it. So you said something absurd and stupid, and your ideology made you do it. Will you bother considering this further, or do you just want to reject arguments and data from outside your echo chamber some more as inherently tainted somehow?

[Great Nepal]

Hence the note; if there is a person who they caused significant distress to and they should've known that then sure prosecute for crime relating to that; otherwise there's no harm so no crime.

Its possible to cause psychological distress on a mass scale in a public setting, it doesn't have to be in a private setting as you suggest. Also you realise this criteria basically includes most hate crimes anyway.

If there was mass scale (significant) psychological distress, then sure - of course someone who was actually distressed needs to give evidence to that effect. And nope, hate speech law currently is much broader - it merely requires someone to have said something which could be racially hateful regardless of whether anyone was actually distressed by the speech or whether it was even intended to cause distress; in any event 'hate crimes' are silly as a concept - if someone kills someone because they looked at them funny is just as much of a murder as if they kill someone because they are black. Latter might be more despicable, but that's why we have judges who can change sentences based on circumstances of the case.

[Divitaen]

I don't think the Tories are conspiring to destroy the country. I think they're destroying the country because they're idiots who've also been given a completely impossible task in the form of Brexit.

Right.
So why do you think I think the left wing are conspiring, rather than just idiots or wrong or something?
Because you're caught in an echo chamber that pathologizes your opponents and refuses to countenance opposition as legitimate. The whole "Conspiracy" meme the left throws out whenever people point out they are fucking up the country is tedious.

Wait, wait, wait, since when is it left wingers who throw out unsubstantiated claims about conspiracies? Seems to me in real life that its always the right-wing conservatives throwing out claims of "socialist" plots and the "gay agenda" and the attempted "Muslim takeover" of the Western world.

[Souseiseki]

tbf sometimes the tories are conspiring to make things worse and i have seen people say blair was deliberately trying to exterminate the white race so i'm not sure what's even going on here except

>blair
>left

[Divitaen]

Its possible to cause psychological distress on a mass scale in a public setting, it doesn't have to be in a private setting as you suggest. Also you realise this criteria basically includes most hate crimes anyway.

If there was mass scale (significant) psychological distress, then sure - of course someone who was actually distressed needs to give evidence to that effect. And nope, hate speech law currently is much broader - it merely requires someone to have said something which could be racially hateful regardless of whether anyone was actually distressed by the speech or whether it was even intended to cause distress; in any event 'hate crimes' are silly as a concept - if someone kills someone because they looked at them funny is just as much of a murder as if they kill someone because they are black. Latter might be more despicable, but that's why we have judges who can change sentences based on circumstances of the case.

You don't think comments that homogenous and dehumanise a vulnerable minority would psychologically distress them? I think we can safely assume that.

[Fartsniffage]

benefits street, benefits britain: life on the dole, the great british benefits handout, the big benefits handout, on benefits, the saga of octomom, etc.

(in case it's not clear i consider the rising hate crimes against immigrants (or people that look like immigrants, i wonder how they judge that?) and the previous rising hate crimes against the disabled to be the same root cause, so things will blend together a bit, into one big pile of shit)

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

We didn't call them Chinese, we called them Hongkongers.

[Ostroeuropa]

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

We didn't call them Chinese, we called them Hongkongers.

Right. So Lutonists, not British.

[Fartsniffage]

We didn't call them Chinese, we called them Hongkongers.

Right. So Lutonists, not British.

To be fair, you'd have to go with Isle of Wighters to make it more accurate....

[Great Nepal]

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

So what are these complete set of behavior which are required of someone before they are British?

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

Did I miss the memo about Pakistan buying 10 mile of UK? Because in that case people born there would be Pakistani too; because you know Pakistani soil. If however British people moved to China, and naturalized to be Chinese citizen they'd be Chinese; regardless of if they live in a gated community of only Brits or if they live in a Chinese only village; says so right in their citizenship papers.

[Great Nepal]

If there was mass scale (significant) psychological distress, then sure - of course someone who was actually distressed needs to give evidence to that effect. And nope, hate speech law currently is much broader - it merely requires someone to have said something which could be racially hateful regardless of whether anyone was actually distressed by the speech or whether it was even intended to cause distress; in any event 'hate crimes' are silly as a concept - if someone kills someone because they looked at them funny is just as much of a murder as if they kill someone because they are black. Latter might be more despicable, but that's why we have judges who can change sentences based on circumstances of the case.

You don't think comments that homogenous and dehumanise a vulnerable minority would psychologically distress them? I think we can safely assume that.

Not if they never head the said comments, or if the person who heard is just thinks the person who made those comments is an arsehole sucking idiot. There are many situations hwere the comments may not actually cause distress.

[Ostroeuropa]

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

So what are these complete set of behavior which are required of someone before they are British?

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

Did I miss the memo about Pakistan buying 10 mile of UK? Because in that case people born there would be Pakistani too; because you know Pakistani soil. If however British people moved to China, and naturalized to be Chinese citizen they'd be Chinese; regardless of if they live in a gated community of only Brits or if they live in a Chinese only village; says so right in their citizenship papers.

It's a subtle thing, but noticeable.

That's a legalistic dodge, not a cultural one. I''m not denying they have a legal right to reside here, and are legally british. Merely that they are not culturally so, and should not be called as such for census data.

[Ifreann]

So what are these complete set of behavior which are required of someone before they are British?


Did I miss the memo about Pakistan buying 10 mile of UK? Because in that case people born there would be Pakistani too; because you know Pakistani soil. If however British people moved to China, and naturalized to be Chinese citizen they'd be Chinese; regardless of if they live in a gated community of only Brits or if they live in a Chinese only village; says so right in their citizenship papers.

It's a subtle thing, but noticeable.

That's a legalistic dodge, not a cultural one. I''m not denying they have a legal right to reside here, and are legally british. Merely that they are not culturally so, and should not be called as such for census data.

Stop counting immigrants as immigrants, stop counting Britons as British.

2016 can't end soon enough.

[Souseiseki]

http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/pdfs/ ... iberty.pdf

This has been even truer in the 20th century, the age of totalitarian socialism in all its variants – Communist, Nazi and Fascist.

holy shit this is what they actually believe

As American experience has shown, even the most carefully constructed federal system, buttressed by an originally homogeneous and libertarian political culture, has failed to prevent the growth and abuse of power by the Federal Government in the USA. How likely is it, then, that the European Union will avoid a much worse fate given the authoritarian and collectivist political traditions, and unfortunate history, of so many of its member countries?

it's like dude have you ever even heard of brexit

[Salandriagado]

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

Got an example?

"Go shoot that guy."

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

Adults are expected to have sufficient mental capacity to not blindly follow rhetoric of third party and commit violence; unless the person is preaching to deliberately, and knowingly preaching to venerable group (children, mentally ill etc) they can not be held responsible for actions of third party.

What about the "gang boss" side of things: someone who sits around ordering crimes to be done, but never actually commits them personally?

[Souseiseki]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-38237216

well i can't see many negative consequences from this

[South Park Labourite]

Beyond that, it was a literal conspiracy by Blair to troll the right wing by flooding the country with immigrants. But nevermind that, do you think the tories are conspiring to destroy the country?

Ostro actually isn't wrong here, though I think the left has moved on from this a long time ago. It was different times remember and much of the establishment was on board with 'diversifying' the country - John Major was actually the first to promote multiculturalism through the establishment of the Muslim Council of Britain prior to Blair.