UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Ostroeuropa]

UK Far-right infiltration from hope not hate had a mindblowing discussion that reminded me of this scene from judgement at nuremburg:
https://youtu.be/-1IlG_MF6do?t=395

I think the "You can't just deport millions of people like you're pretending so its got to be a genocide" people who oppose the far-right are underestmating our logistical capabilities by quite a large margin.

Within a single 8 hour period at peak time, 1.2 million planes leave the UK. With 15 passengers on the plane, that's 10 minorities with 5 white "Undesirables" of some form per flight for total depopulation of the target communities, the entire process can be done in a single day. The holocaust was able to achieve millions of dead through a logistical and processing feat, and we're acting like our logistical capabilities haven't improved since then. Furthermore, the camps could operate at 10,000 dead every half hour, but were limited to 5,000 a day because disposing of the bodies was the real technical limitation. The "deportation" process covers that already. Imagine if the holocaust didn't have camps at the end, the trains reached their destination and the passengers simply disappeared, then 3 minutes later the train could go back for the next batch without considerations for camp capacity and turnover. The death toll would be staggeringly higher.

The disruption to UK society and economy from a single day of no air travel is miniscule in comparison to the loss of the immigrant population and is easily feasible as we saw from the Icelandic eruption a while back.

You don't even have to change the flight plans. Just one day you load the population onto the planes and send them where they were already going. When the country in question tries to send them back, tell them they will be imprisoned if they do and should claim asylum.

The airports already have the logistics to deal with this and the infrastructure leading to and from the airports can manage the task.

The real technical challenge would be rounding up the population, and the spaces to keep those people penned up for the 8 hours it would take to complete the process.

I'm pointing this out because I think acknowledging our logistical capabilities is important, as well as noting that the far-right may in fact be genuine when they say they're about deportations rather than genocide. The discussion that made me believe them was when they went over the technical and logistical nature of the process and its similarity to the holocaust and how it would be quicker and so on. Not only that I think acknowledging that this is a thing that is possible changes the frame of the discussion.

Instead of us screaming "Nazi" at them alongside denying facts and saying it would require genocide (Which allows them to gain the high ground on that point when they discuss how it is, in fact, possible.), we should say;
"Okay. It's possible. So now convince me it's desirable. Why should someone be kidnapped from their home, shoved on a plane-" and so on. Forcing them to actually defend their position and advocate it is more damaging to them than insisting they secretly hold a position they might actually not.

Moreover I suspect that open political discussion of this kind of thing might actually prevent genocides in some non-western countries by leaving them opting for this method instead.

[Ifreann]

UK Far-right infiltration from hope not hate had a mindblowing discussion that reminded me of this scene from judgement at nuremburg:
https://youtu.be/-1IlG_MF6do?t=395

I think the "You can't just deport millions of people like you're pretending so its got to be a genocide" people who oppose the far-right are underestmating our logistical capabilities by quite a large margin.

Within a single 8 hour period at peak time, 1.2 million planes leave the UK. With 15 passengers on the plane, that's 10 minorities with 5 white "Undesirables" of some form per flight for total depopulation of the target communities, the entire process can be done in a single day. The holocaust was able to achieve millions of dead through a logistical and processing feat, and we're acting like our logistical capabilities haven't improved since then. Furthermore, the camps could operate at 10,000 dead every half hour, but were limited to 5,000 a day because disposing of the bodies was the real technical limitation. The "deportation" process covers that already.

The disruption to UK society and economy from a single day of no air travel is miniscule in comparison to the loss of the immigrant population and is easily feasible as we saw from the Icelandic eruption a while back.

You don't even have to change the flight plans. Just one day you load the population onto the planes and send them where they were already going. When the country in question tries to send them back, tell them they will be imprisoned if they do and should claim asylum.

The airports already have the logistics to deal with this and the infrastructure leading to and from the airports can manage the task.

The real technical challenge would be rounding up the population, and the spaces to keep those people penned up for the 8 hours it would take to complete the process.

I'm pointing this out because I think acknowledging our logistical capabilities is important, as well as noting that the far-right may in fact be genuine when they say they're about deportations rather than genocide. The discussion that made me believe them was when they went over the technical and logistical nature of the process and its similarity to the holocaust and how it would be quicker and so on. Not only that I think acknowledging that this is a thing that is possible changes the frame of the discussion.

Instead of us screaming "Nazi" at them alongside denying facts and saying it would require genocide (Which allows them to gain the high ground on that point when they discuss how it is, in fact, possible.), we should say;
"Okay. It's possible. So now convince me it's desirable. Why should someone be kidnapped from their home, shoved on a plane-" and so on. Forcing them to actually defend their position and advocate it is more damaging to them than insisting they secretly hold a position they might actually not.

Moreover I suspect that open political discussion of this kind of thing might actually prevent genocides in some non-western countries by leaving them opting for this method instead.

Alternatively, make the point that if they attempt genocide, you'll put them all in prison. Or the ground.

[Ostroeuropa]

UK Far-right infiltration from hope not hate had a mindblowing discussion that reminded me of this scene from judgement at nuremburg:
https://youtu.be/-1IlG_MF6do?t=395

I think the "You can't just deport millions of people like you're pretending so its got to be a genocide" people who oppose the far-right are underestmating our logistical capabilities by quite a large margin.

Within a single 8 hour period at peak time, 1.2 million planes leave the UK. With 15 passengers on the plane, that's 10 minorities with 5 white "Undesirables" of some form per flight for total depopulation of the target communities, the entire process can be done in a single day. The holocaust was able to achieve millions of dead through a logistical and processing feat, and we're acting like our logistical capabilities haven't improved since then. Furthermore, the camps could operate at 10,000 dead every half hour, but were limited to 5,000 a day because disposing of the bodies was the real technical limitation. The "deportation" process covers that already.

The disruption to UK society and economy from a single day of no air travel is miniscule in comparison to the loss of the immigrant population and is easily feasible as we saw from the Icelandic eruption a while back.

You don't even have to change the flight plans. Just one day you load the population onto the planes and send them where they were already going. When the country in question tries to send them back, tell them they will be imprisoned if they do and should claim asylum.

The airports already have the logistics to deal with this and the infrastructure leading to and from the airports can manage the task.

The real technical challenge would be rounding up the population, and the spaces to keep those people penned up for the 8 hours it would take to complete the process.

I'm pointing this out because I think acknowledging our logistical capabilities is important, as well as noting that the far-right may in fact be genuine when they say they're about deportations rather than genocide. The discussion that made me believe them was when they went over the technical and logistical nature of the process and its similarity to the holocaust and how it would be quicker and so on. Not only that I think acknowledging that this is a thing that is possible changes the frame of the discussion.

Instead of us screaming "Nazi" at them alongside denying facts and saying it would require genocide (Which allows them to gain the high ground on that point when they discuss how it is, in fact, possible.), we should say;
"Okay. It's possible. So now convince me it's desirable. Why should someone be kidnapped from their home, shoved on a plane-" and so on. Forcing them to actually defend their position and advocate it is more damaging to them than insisting they secretly hold a position they might actually not.

Moreover I suspect that open political discussion of this kind of thing might actually prevent genocides in some non-western countries by leaving them opting for this method instead.

Alternatively, make the point that if they attempt genocide, you'll put them all in prison. Or the ground.

They're not proposing a genocide in the usual sense and acting like they are is allowing their actual proposal to go unchallenged as well as feeds into their narrative about their opponents.

[Ifreann]

Alternatively, make the point that if they attempt genocide, you'll put them all in prison. Or the ground.

They're not proposing a genocide in the usual sense and acting like they are is allowing their actual proposal to go unchallenged as well as feeds into their narrative about their opponents.

Who cares?

[Ostroeuropa]

They're not proposing a genocide in the usual sense and acting like they are is allowing their actual proposal to go unchallenged as well as feeds into their narrative about their opponents.

Who cares?

The far right is gaining ground and looks set to take about 1/3rd of the seats in the EU parliament and perhaps take over the conservative party.

[Trumptonium1]

Breaking news:

Pro-Remain Conservative MP Nick Boles' local conservative party association has begun a deselection process

[Hydesland]

Watch the numbers shoot up once no deal is announced.

I'll hold you to that. To me "no deal" just means *more* uncertainty - nobody knows what it actually means or what the implications are in terms of customs, regulations, Ireland etc... but everyone who isn't a total crank seems to agree that falling back to WTO terms (which would be uncertain in itself) would be disastrous.

[Ifreann]

Who cares?

The far right is gaining ground and looks set to take about 1/3rd of the seats in the EU parliament and perhaps take over the conservative party.

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

[Vassenor]

Watch the numbers shoot up once no deal is announced.

I'll hold you to that. To me "no deal" just means *more* uncertainty - nobody knows what it actually means or what the implications are in terms of customs, regulations, Ireland etc... but everyone who isn't a total crank seems to agree that falling back to WTO terms (which would be uncertain in itself) would be disastrous.

You're forgetting that every single country is just waiting for us to deregulate everything then the money will come pouring in because something something Singapore of the West.

[Ostroeuropa]

The far right is gaining ground and looks set to take about 1/3rd of the seats in the EU parliament and perhaps take over the conservative party.

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

They thrive on the current dynamic.

[Ifreann]

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

They thrive on the current dynamic.

In which they are given platforms to push their propaganda. What's Carl of Swindon been up to since getting kicked off YouTube, Twitter and Patreon? Does he still work for UKIP?

[Eastfield Lodge]

UK Far-right infiltration from hope not hate had a mindblowing discussion that reminded me of this scene from judgement at nuremburg:
https://youtu.be/-1IlG_MF6do?t=395

I think the "You can't just deport millions of people like you're pretending so its got to be a genocide" people who oppose the far-right are underestmating our logistical capabilities by quite a large margin.

Within a single 8 hour period at peak time, 1.2 million planes leave the UK. With 15 passengers on the plane, that's 10 minorities with 5 white "Undesirables" of some form per flight for total depopulation of the target communities, the entire process can be done in a single day. The holocaust was able to achieve millions of dead through a logistical and processing feat, and we're acting like our logistical capabilities haven't improved since then. Furthermore, the camps could operate at 10,000 dead every half hour, but were limited to 5,000 a day because disposing of the bodies was the real technical limitation. The "deportation" process covers that already. Imagine if the holocaust didn't have camps at the end, the trains reached their destination and the passengers simply disappeared, then 3 minutes later the train could go back for the next batch without considerations for camp capacity and turnover. The death toll would be staggeringly higher.

The disruption to UK society and economy from a single day of no air travel is miniscule in comparison to the loss of the immigrant population and is easily feasible as we saw from the Icelandic eruption a while back.

You don't even have to change the flight plans. Just one day you load the population onto the planes and send them where they were already going. When the country in question tries to send them back, tell them they will be imprisoned if they do and should claim asylum.

The airports already have the logistics to deal with this and the infrastructure leading to and from the airports can manage the task.

The real technical challenge would be rounding up the population, and the spaces to keep those people penned up for the 8 hours it would take to complete the process.

I'm pointing this out because I think acknowledging our logistical capabilities is important, as well as noting that the far-right may in fact be genuine when they say they're about deportations rather than genocide. The discussion that made me believe them was when they went over the technical and logistical nature of the process and its similarity to the holocaust and how it would be quicker and so on. Not only that I think acknowledging that this is a thing that is possible changes the frame of the discussion.

Instead of us screaming "Nazi" at them alongside denying facts and saying it would require genocide (Which allows them to gain the high ground on that point when they discuss how it is, in fact, possible.), we should say;
"Okay. It's possible. So now convince me it's desirable. Why should someone be kidnapped from their home, shoved on a plane-" and so on. Forcing them to actually defend their position and advocate it is more damaging to them than insisting they secretly hold a position they might actually not.

Moreover I suspect that open political discussion of this kind of thing might actually prevent genocides in some non-western countries by leaving them opting for this method instead.

And this is undesirable why?

[Ostroeuropa]

And this is undesirable why?

It would damage the economy significantly and leave us with gaping holes in it and a massive employment crisis. It would alienate the UK from the planet unless the rest of the west also drifted toward the far-right. It would do little to actually preserve the culture of the united kingdom given the impacts of globalization, capitalism, and americanization alongside neoliberal refusal to invest in assimilation strategies. It would unfairly target assimilated minorities on the basis of color and leave us losing many of our compatriots and be a violation of the rights of Britons, not merely British Citizens, but Britons in the cultural sense.

It would rend apart families (Unless those intermarried to the minorities were likewise deported) and communities. It would require dehumanizing the minorities to the extent that the project could be undertaken. It would require a large scale use of physical force and deaths would occur regardless of intent, and given that the operation is based on racist undertones we can expect reckless and unnecessary deaths to occur even under the best of scenarios where intentional "oopsie"s don't occur from excessive force (More force than necessary to drag people into camps and then on to planes.).

We can expect sabotage to the infrastructure to occur if it looks like things are progressing to that state, and possibly riots or political unrest in general.

It does not actually prevent the circumstances preceding genocide and merely outsources them to other countries. One of the major reasons for the climate toward minorities in post-WW1 europe could be exploited is the millions of stateless people and political refugees that resulted from the war being penned up in concentration camps and the populaces hostility toward them (given that they were often from the opposing side of the war, or from a country that had just seceded.).

We would essentially be forcing a situation where the countries we packed the immigrants into would begin building masses of refugee camps to hold millions of people who their economies could not integrate in time, and who have no material wealth of possessions, and who the western world is already pretty sus about, and recreate the situation where:

1. The government refuses to invest money to help these people because capitalism
2. The populace is paranoid over the sudden arrival of millions of foreigners who we've actively made out to be a threat to society
3. The camps now already exist.

The Nazis didn't build most of the camps they used. They were pre-existing and merely adopted a new purpose. It wasn't some bizarre out of the ordinary thing where they suddenly built a bunch of camps and shipped people off to them. Within living memory the camps had been used to house foreign and political "undesirables", which is one reason why people didn't ask too many questions about it.

It is in effect, outsourcing the investment costs and blood-on-hands of genocide to other countries and saying "We're just creating a situation where everything we said about these people being hordes of foreign moochers who we cannot reasonably integrate and who have no useful economic purpose is actually true instead of a bunch of bollocks, but it's not happening to us anymore, so oh well."

Coupled with the trend now set of international crimes against this group of persons, genocide would probably occur in at least some of the countries we deport them to because it creates the sociopolitical and material conditions necessary for it. (1. Camps. 2. Local Hostility to this group. 3. International lack of will, given that we've now made this group a problem for the international community and their financial backers who aren't going to want to pay money to help them and would prefer they just disappear.)

"We're not killing all these people. Here, Donald Trump and the US who hate giving even their own citizens any money, have millions of EVIL MINORITIES with no money and no reasonably way to become gainfully employed, put them in camps. It'll be fine.".

[Space Captain Brian Surgeon]

UK Far-right infiltration from hope not hate had a mindblowing discussion that reminded me of this scene from judgement at nuremburg:
https://youtu.be/-1IlG_MF6do?t=395

I think the "You can't just deport millions of people like you're pretending so its got to be a genocide" people who oppose the far-right are underestmating our logistical capabilities by quite a large margin.

Within a single 8 hour period at peak time, 1.2 million planes leave the UK. With 15 passengers on the plane, that's 10 minorities with 5 white "Undesirables" of some form per flight for total depopulation of the target communities, the entire process can be done in a single day. The holocaust was able to achieve millions of dead through a logistical and processing feat, and we're acting like our logistical capabilities haven't improved since then. Furthermore, the camps could operate at 10,000 dead every half hour, but were limited to 5,000 a day because disposing of the bodies was the real technical limitation. The "deportation" process covers that already. Imagine if the holocaust didn't have camps at the end, the trains reached their destination and the passengers simply disappeared, then 3 minutes later the train could go back for the next batch without considerations for camp capacity and turnover. The death toll would be staggeringly higher.

The disruption to UK society and economy from a single day of no air travel is miniscule in comparison to the loss of the immigrant population and is easily feasible as we saw from the Icelandic eruption a while back.

You don't even have to change the flight plans. Just one day you load the population onto the planes and send them where they were already going. When the country in question tries to send them back, tell them they will be imprisoned if they do and should claim asylum.

The airports already have the logistics to deal with this and the infrastructure leading to and from the airports can manage the task.

The real technical challenge would be rounding up the population, and the spaces to keep those people penned up for the 8 hours it would take to complete the process.

I'm pointing this out because I think acknowledging our logistical capabilities is important, as well as noting that the far-right may in fact be genuine when they say they're about deportations rather than genocide. The discussion that made me believe them was when they went over the technical and logistical nature of the process and its similarity to the holocaust and how it would be quicker and so on. Not only that I think acknowledging that this is a thing that is possible changes the frame of the discussion.

Instead of us screaming "Nazi" at them alongside denying facts and saying it would require genocide (Which allows them to gain the high ground on that point when they discuss how it is, in fact, possible.), we should say;
"Okay. It's possible. So now convince me it's desirable. Why should someone be kidnapped from their home, shoved on a plane-" and so on. Forcing them to actually defend their position and advocate it is more damaging to them than insisting they secretly hold a position they might actually not.

Moreover I suspect that open political discussion of this kind of thing might actually prevent genocides in some non-western countries by leaving them opting for this method instead.

Sounds like some rightwing fucknut moron has misunderstood the sentence from CAA Statistics 2006 "the UK air transport fleet numbered 963 aircraft, flying just under 1.2 million flights and averaging over eight hours of flying daily". The 1.2 million flights is over the year, not the eight hours. Heathrow only has about 1.500 take offs and landings a day.

[Eastfield Lodge]

And this is undesirable why?

It would damage the economy significantly and leave us with gaping holes in it and a massive employment crisis. It would alienate the UK from the planet unless the rest of the west also drifted toward the far-right. It would do little to actually preserve the culture of the united kingdom given the impacts of globalization, capitalism, and americanization alongside neoliberal refusal to invest in assimilation strategies. It would unfairly target assimilated minorities on the basis of color and leave us losing many of our compatriots and be a violation of the rights of Britons, not merely British Citizens, but Britons in the cultural sense.

It would rend apart families (Unless those intermarried to the minorities were likewise deported) and communities. It would require dehumanizing the minorities to the extent that the project could be undertaken. It would require a large scale use of physical force and deaths would occur regardless of intent, and given that the operation is based on racist undertones we can expect reckless and unnecessary deaths to occur even under the best of scenarios where intentional "oopsie"s don't occur from excessive force (More force than necessary to drag people into camps and then on to planes.).

We can expect sabotage to the infrastructure to occur if it looks like things are progressing to that state, and possibly riots or political unrest in general.

It does not actually prevent the circumstances preceding genocide and merely outsources them to other countries. One of the major reasons for the climate toward minorities in post-WW1 europe could be exploited is the millions of stateless people and political refugees that resulted from the war being penned up in concentration camps and the populaces hostility toward them (given that they were often from the opposing side of the war, or from a country that had just seceded.).

We would essentially be forcing a situation where the countries we packed the immigrants into would begin building masses of refugee camps to hold millions of people who their economies could not integrate in time, and who have no material wealth of possessions, and who the western world is already pretty sus about, and recreate the situation where:

1. The government refuses to invest money to help these people because capitalism
2. The populace is paranoid over the sudden arrival of millions of foreigners who we've actively made out to be a threat to society
3. The camps now already exist.

The Nazis didn't build most of the camps they used. They were pre-existing and merely adopted a new purpose. It wasn't some bizarre out of the ordinary thing where they suddenly built a bunch of camps and shipped people off to them. Within living memory the camps had been used to house foreign and political "undesirables", which is one reason why people didn't ask too many questions about it.

It is in effect, outsourcing the investment costs and blood-on-hands of genocide to other countries and saying "We're just creating a situation where everything we said about these people being hordes of foreign moochers who we cannot reasonably integrate and who have no useful economic purpose is actually true instead of a bunch of bollocks, but it's not happening to us anymore, so oh well."

Coupled with the trend now set of international crimes against this group of persons, genocide would probably occur in at least some of the countries we deport them to because it creates the sociopolitical and material conditions necessary for it. (1. Camps. 2. Local Hostility to this group. 3. International lack of will, given that we've now made this group a problem for the international community and their financial backers who aren't going to want to pay money to help them and would prefer they just disappear.)

"We're not killing all these people. Here, Donald Trump and the US who hate giving even their own citizens any money, have millions of EVIL MINORITIES with no money and no reasonably way to become gainfully employed, put them in camps. It'll be fine.".

Sure, you'd remove the assimilated people, but on the plus side, you'd remove the minorities that refused to assimilate. And how would it not "preserve the culture"? Demographic changes from these foreigners would have changed the culture anyway, so removing them stops that process. And with no minority cultures to pander to, you can better protect your own culture from outside influence.

As for rending apart families/communities, that's their fault for polluting the genepool and betraying their race by consorting with foreign invaders. Isn't British spirit strong enough to ignore that loss and carry on? As for the "unintentional" deaths and dehumanisation, well, so what? You always need to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

It'd solve the problem of dangerous minorities in your own nation, so why should you care what happens to them once they're in another country? Any genocide is their fault, surely, for not looking after them in their country?

[Thermodolia]

I'll hold you to that. To me "no deal" just means *more* uncertainty - nobody knows what it actually means or what the implications are in terms of customs, regulations, Ireland etc... but everyone who isn't a total crank seems to agree that falling back to WTO terms (which would be uncertain in itself) would be disastrous.

You're forgetting that every single country is just waiting for us to deregulate everything then the money will come pouring in because something something Singapore of the West.

Does that mean Corbyn is going to overthrow the monarchy and become the Lee Kuan Yew of the west?

[Ifreann]

Looking forward to seeing fascism defeated with facts and logic.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure, you'd remove the assimilated people, but on the plus side, you'd remove the minorities that refused to assimilate. And how would it not "preserve the culture"? Demographic changes from these foreigners would have changed the culture anyway, so removing them stops that process. And with no minority cultures to pander to, you can better protect your own culture from outside influence.

As for rending apart families/communities, that's their fault for polluting the genepool and betraying their race by consorting with foreign invaders. Isn't British spirit strong enough to ignore that loss and carry on? As for the "unintentional" deaths and dehumanisation, well, so what? You always need to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

It'd solve the problem of dangerous minorities in your own nation, so why should you care what happens to them once they're in another country? Any genocide is their fault, surely, for not looking after them in their country?

The same factors leading to loss of British culture would be present; lack of assimilation, enforced globalization and capitalism, etc. It wouldn't actually change the problem, and the minorities can still be here if you apply the correct fixes to the problem and assimilate them properly. Trampling individuals underfoot large scale interests is part of the problem that has led to capitalism destroying our culture in the name of profit.

You're forgetting that every single country is just waiting for us to deregulate everything then the money will come pouring in because something something Singapore of the West.

Does that mean Corbyn is going to overthrow the monarchy and become the Lee Kuan Yew of the west?

We could do worse than Singapore tbh.

[Novus America]

It would damage the economy significantly and leave us with gaping holes in it and a massive employment crisis. It would alienate the UK from the planet unless the rest of the west also drifted toward the far-right. It would do little to actually preserve the culture of the united kingdom given the impacts of globalization, capitalism, and americanization alongside neoliberal refusal to invest in assimilation strategies. It would unfairly target assimilated minorities on the basis of color and leave us losing many of our compatriots and be a violation of the rights of Britons, not merely British Citizens, but Britons in the cultural sense.

It would rend apart families (Unless those intermarried to the minorities were likewise deported) and communities. It would require dehumanizing the minorities to the extent that the project could be undertaken. It would require a large scale use of physical force and deaths would occur regardless of intent, and given that the operation is based on racist undertones we can expect reckless and unnecessary deaths to occur even under the best of scenarios where intentional "oopsie"s don't occur from excessive force (More force than necessary to drag people into camps and then on to planes.).

We can expect sabotage to the infrastructure to occur if it looks like things are progressing to that state, and possibly riots or political unrest in general.

It does not actually prevent the circumstances preceding genocide and merely outsources them to other countries. One of the major reasons for the climate toward minorities in post-WW1 europe could be exploited is the millions of stateless people and political refugees that resulted from the war being penned up in concentration camps and the populaces hostility toward them (given that they were often from the opposing side of the war, or from a country that had just seceded.).

We would essentially be forcing a situation where the countries we packed the immigrants into would begin building masses of refugee camps to hold millions of people who their economies could not integrate in time, and who have no material wealth of possessions, and who the western world is already pretty sus about, and recreate the situation where:

1. The government refuses to invest money to help these people because capitalism
2. The populace is paranoid over the sudden arrival of millions of foreigners who we've actively made out to be a threat to society
3. The camps now already exist.

The Nazis didn't build most of the camps they used. They were pre-existing and merely adopted a new purpose. It wasn't some bizarre out of the ordinary thing where they suddenly built a bunch of camps and shipped people off to them. Within living memory the camps had been used to house foreign and political "undesirables", which is one reason why people didn't ask too many questions about it.

It is in effect, outsourcing the investment costs and blood-on-hands of genocide to other countries and saying "We're just creating a situation where everything we said about these people being hordes of foreign moochers who we cannot reasonably integrate and who have no useful economic purpose is actually true instead of a bunch of bollocks, but it's not happening to us anymore, so oh well."

Coupled with the trend now set of international crimes against this group of persons, genocide would probably occur in at least some of the countries we deport them to because it creates the sociopolitical and material conditions necessary for it. (1. Camps. 2. Local Hostility to this group. 3. International lack of will, given that we've now made this group a problem for the international community and their financial backers who aren't going to want to pay money to help them and would prefer they just disappear.)

"We're not killing all these people. Here, Donald Trump and the US who hate giving even their own citizens any money, have millions of EVIL MINORITIES with no money and no reasonably way to become gainfully employed, put them in camps. It'll be fine.".

Sure, you'd remove the assimilated people, but on the plus side, you'd remove the minorities that refused to assimilate. And how would it not "preserve the culture"? Demographic changes from these foreigners would have changed the culture anyway, so removing them stops that process. And with no minority cultures to pander to, you can better protect your own culture from outside influence.

As for rending apart families/communities, that's their fault for polluting the genepool and betraying their race by consorting with foreign invaders. Isn't British spirit strong enough to ignore that loss and carry on? As for the "unintentional" deaths and dehumanisation, well, so what? You always need to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

It'd solve the problem of dangerous minorities in your own nation, so why should you care what happens to them once they're in another country? Any genocide is their fault, surely, for not looking after them in their country?

You would also destroy the economy and diplomatic position of the UK.
If you have legitimate problems with specific individual immigrants, such as criminal behavior or failure to meet fair standards (such a language proficiency), just deport those ones.

Collective punishment is bad.

[Novus America]

The far right is gaining ground and looks set to take about 1/3rd of the seats in the EU parliament and perhaps take over the conservative party.

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

The purpose is not to convince the hard core supporters of such views.
The purpose is to convince the more moderate people angry with the problems from trade and globalism that the people holding such views are looney.

Vast numbers of Germans supported the Nazis not because they were all hardcore, convinced Nazis.
Rather the Nazis engaged in debate, (along with other, more violent tactics) and managed to convince them the alternative was worse.

The purpose is not to convince the lunatic fringe. The purpose is to convince the majority that the lunatic fringe is indeed, the lunatic fringe.

If you fail to respond, more moderate but perhaps less informed people will assume you are conceding. A failure to respond is widely regarded as an admission that you are wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

The purpose is not to convince the hard core supporters of such views.
The purpose is to convince the more moderate people angry with the problems from trade and globalism that the people holding such views are looney.

Vast numbers of Germans supported the Nazis not because they were all hardcore, convinced Nazis.
Rather the Nazis engaged in debate, (along with other, more violent tactics) and managed to convince them the alternative was worse.

The purpose is not to convince the lunatic fringe. The purpose is to convince the majority the lunatic fringe is indeed, the lunatic fringe.

If you fail to respond, more moderate but perhaps less informed people will assume you are conceding. A failure to respond is widely regarded as an admission that you are wrong.

Pretty much exactly this. The reason the far right is surging is that the tactics of the progressive left provide fertile ground for them.

[The Blaatschapen]

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

The purpose is not to convince the hard core supporters of such views.
The purpose is to convince the more moderate people angry with the problems from trade and globalism that the people holding such views are looney.

Vast numbers of Germans supported the Nazis not because they were all hardcore, convinced Nazis.
Rather the Nazis engaged in debate, (along with other, more violent tactics) and managed to convince them the alternative was worse.

The purpose is not to convince the lunatic fringe. The purpose is to convince the majority that the lunatic fringe is indeed, the lunatic fringe.

If you fail to respond, more moderate but perhaps less informed people will assume you are conceding. A failure to respond is widely regarded as an admission that you are wrong.

If I now respond with a statement that you are wrong, I'll be proving you right

[Alvecia]

And do you suppose that you could prevent that by trying to engage them in good faith debate and discussion? They're just going to use any platform to push their propaganda, not to engage with facts and reason. We're talking about people who want to purge the country of anyone different from them, reason is obviously not going to work.

The purpose is not to convince the hard core supporters of such views.
The purpose is to convince the more moderate people angry with the problems from trade and globalism that the people holding such views are looney.

Vast numbers of Germans supported the Nazis not because they were all hardcore, convinced Nazis.
Rather the Nazis engaged in debate, (along with other, more violent tactics) and managed to convince them the alternative was worse.

The purpose is not to convince the lunatic fringe. The purpose is to convince the majority that the lunatic fringe is indeed, the lunatic fringe.

If you fail to respond, more moderate but perhaps less informed people will assume you are conceding. A failure to respond is widely regarded as an admission that you are wrong.

We've already ran into this issue before. Two slightly different instances that come to mind are Bill Nye's debate on creationism with Ken Ham, and the BBC's policy on balance in TV debate. Neither of which are ideal methods of treating fringe lunatic ideologies.

You don't convince people that an ideology is a lunatic fringe by putting it center stage and treating it like it is a valid "other" option. You give it legitimacy merely by acknowledging it. If you want to treat it like the fringe it is then push it to the fringe.

[Ostroeuropa]

The purpose is not to convince the hard core supporters of such views.
The purpose is to convince the more moderate people angry with the problems from trade and globalism that the people holding such views are looney.

Vast numbers of Germans supported the Nazis not because they were all hardcore, convinced Nazis.
Rather the Nazis engaged in debate, (along with other, more violent tactics) and managed to convince them the alternative was worse.

The purpose is not to convince the lunatic fringe. The purpose is to convince the majority that the lunatic fringe is indeed, the lunatic fringe.

If you fail to respond, more moderate but perhaps less informed people will assume you are conceding. A failure to respond is widely regarded as an admission that you are wrong.

We've already ran into this issue before. Two slightly different instances that come to mind are Bill Nye's debate on creationism with Ken Ham, and the BBC's policy on balance in TV debate. Neither of which are ideal methods of treating fringe lunatic ideologies.

You don't convince people that an ideology is a lunatic fringe by putting it center stage and treating it like it is a valid "other" option. You give it legitimacy merely by acknowledging it. If you want to treat it like the fringe it is then push it to the fringe.

Disagree. You deal with it by acknowledging root concerns and providing practical policy to fix it and that inherently makes them look like a lunatic fringe.

"Shut him up, marginalize the fringe!" V "We need to put all the muslims on a plane and fly them away or everything will be Shariah!"

"No, you're wrong, because LIBERALISM IS MAGIC! Multiculturalism! Diversity! Buzzwords!" V "We need to put all the muslims on a plane and fly them away or everything will be Shariah!"

"We need to enforce strict secularism in law and end religious schooling while adopting a policy of assimilation in our culture, or Muslim extremism will become more and more of a problem!" V "We need to put all the muslims on a plane and fly them away or everything will be Shariah!"

The latter solves the problem. The first merely galvanizes them and provides a victim narrative as we've constantly seen. The second galvanizes them because it's empty meaningless capitalist nonsense. The third takes the wind right out of their sails.

[Novus America]

The purpose is not to convince the hard core supporters of such views.
The purpose is to convince the more moderate people angry with the problems from trade and globalism that the people holding such views are looney.

Vast numbers of Germans supported the Nazis not because they were all hardcore, convinced Nazis.
Rather the Nazis engaged in debate, (along with other, more violent tactics) and managed to convince them the alternative was worse.

The purpose is not to convince the lunatic fringe. The purpose is to convince the majority that the lunatic fringe is indeed, the lunatic fringe.

If you fail to respond, more moderate but perhaps less informed people will assume you are conceding. A failure to respond is widely regarded as an admission that you are wrong.

We've already ran into this issue before. Two slightly different instances that come to mind are Bill Nye's debate on creationism with Ken Ham, and the BBC's policy on balance in TV debate. Neither of which are ideal methods of treating fringe lunatic ideologies.

You don't convince people that an ideology is a lunatic fringe by putting it center stage and treating it like it is a valid "other" option. You give it legitimacy merely by acknowledging it. If you want to treat it like the fringe it is then push it to the fringe.

I disagree. In the modern world you cannot stop the spread of ideas by controlling the means of communication, if you ever could.

The Soviets refused to allow discussion of certain ideas. That did not kill those ideas, in fact it added to their mystique as something different, rebellious, edgy.

Note you do not have to debate then nicely.
You do not have to treat it like a valid option.
You can attack an idea without conceding it is a viable option.

You point out why it is not a valid option.
If you do not explain why it is not a valid option, people will assume it is a valid option.

And clearly the mainstream refusing to discuss ideas has not prevented the spread of those ideas.