Thank you very much, Alfie. Still... it gave Kizzy another chance to have a dig so... everyone's a winner.

So from this I have to assume that you currently demonstrate against the sub-communities of somewhat lawless white British people that exist mostly outside of the mainstream community, in every single town in the country?

No? Do you perhaps just get on with your own life? Is that perhaps what the generally well integrated Muslims in the UK want to do? You know... Go to work, spend time with their families, maybe have a hobby? Oh wait no they're duty bound to be political activists because after all, it's "folks like them" causing such trouble.

Comparing terrorists with "sub-communities of somewhat lawless white British people..." is kind of flawed because those sub-communities are not carrying out terrorist atrocities all over the world, particularly on other Muslims.

I think if people are concerned about the effects such behaviours are having on them and their community they should.

From a Muslim perspective I would have thought the current depth of feeling in so many ie Brexit would make me think and maybe want to do something about the 'minority' of Muslims potentially threatening the position of other Muslims.

Many such Muslims are clearly motivated to demonstrate against Brexit and Trump but not so clearly motivated to take action against Muslims that spoil things for them. They makes me wonder about their loyalties and priorities and clearly many others feel the same.

Quebec, Jo Cox, Dylann Roof ring any bells?

Members of these sub-communities are carrying out terrorist attacks across the western world. For some reason when a white supremacist commits an attrocity, the entire white population is not required to answer for their crimes.

Oh I think they are as demonstrated by how such 'comparisons' are used against anyone who dares to express any concerns about mass immigration.

Nothing special about this. White nationialists are welcome in all europen towns and cities.:shrug:

I don't see anyone comparing people concerned about immigration to these people, though. The government of this country is hell bent on ending free movement, for goodness' sake, even of they have to destroy the economy in the process. This whole idea that people who are worried about immigration are somehow labelled, attacked or shouted down and silenced- that they are somehow victims- is preposterous.

You're in the majority!!

As for my post, I was just commenting on the idea that you can't compare certain sub-communities of white people to terrorists is flawed, becaue there are terrorists who belong to those same sub-communities.

That's not the point at all. Merely an illustration that we all know fine well, if we're honest, that we do and should only represent ourselves and we are not responsible for the actions of others just because they fall under the same broad "grouping". Otherwise I, as a white (culturally) Christian man, would never stop apologising to everyone I encounter. But I don't apologise because I don't feel responsible in the slightest for the actions of other white blokes? They aren't me? I can fully understand why a peaceful Muslim individual living a peaceful life doesn't feel inclined to apologise for, and in fact would feel uncomfortable with the notion that they are expected to apologise for, the actions of random other Muslim individuals.

That's the comparison you made. And no, it isn't the point. We agree at last.

It's the comparison I made for a specific and clearly laid out reason, which you chose to ignore in favour of "But terrorists blow people up with bombs so it's not the same".

You're confusing "comparison" with "equation". You do that quite a lot, actually.

Excuse me you had a dig at DR for not understanding you, not everyone is a cockney sparra me ol china.
All I did was explain the semantic expression.

What was Thomas Mair?

A terrorist. And so was the guy that punched Nazi Richard Spencer. And so were the people who attacked innocent people at Berkley last week.

terrorist
ˈtɛrərɪst/
noun
noun: terrorist; plural noun: terrorists
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"
1.
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"

Yes thank you, I was highlighting that sub communities of white British are terrorists too if they commit terrorist acts in their own communities or not.

Don't go putting the notion that only brown people can be called terrorists to bed fgs, back in the day when the IRA were active, every Irish person was considered a terrorist, were we brown no..did people complain about how it was wrong to treat Irish people in this way..no, its not a new thing to tar people with the same brush, but some people think they invented the wheel and that this is all new and of course can only be because everyone is racist

most of the *cough* left leaning members cannot remember the Troubles

:idc:

Its a pity the government stood back and allowed the fundraising for the ira to take place every saturday afternoon on the streets of glasgow....probably to many fingers in to many pies..or eachothers holes or young boys holes at the time for anyone concerned to care..bunch of paedos with to much to hide to just end it all.. bit like now with the fresh batch of child molesting beasts we have running the muslim and government stuff...hang the ****ing lot of them

Racism is the word of the day with some. It can shut down discussion and is constantly used by those trying to do just that.

It is also inflammatory and baiting behaviour and should be recognised as so by those dictating acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour in any such discussions.

If it walks like a duck....

Overusing a word to shut people up does more harm than good and waters down the true meaning of the word. Neither does it reflect well on those that use it as ammunition.

Walking like a duck works both ways.

If there was a fair democratic referendum then I don't see a problem.
Different if they were declaring war or violence.
Why would you want to live where you are not wanted, plenty of other places to welcome you with open arms.

Lefty
Leftist
Lefty Liberal
PC Crowd
PC Gone Mad
...
Snowflake

These are words/expressions that in my experience have been used in RESPONSE to being called names such as racist. If people give it out they have to expect it back.

Those throwing the racist word around started it so are not really in a position to object to a bit of tit for tat.

Bull****, snowflake started being used here as soon as it became a popular media buzz-term, not in response to anything.

Also the second part is amusing me. I think you'll find that in general, people handle these terms (Lefty, snowflake) with barely a comment. They get a bit boring in their overuse, but it's mostly water off a ducks back.

Ironically... It's the "more righty un-PC right to my opinion" crowd that start launching their toys out of the pram as soon as anyone dares "call them a name" like racist/xenophobe/bigot :joker:. Can't handle anyone invading their snowflakey safe-space I guess :shrug:

Personally I had never even heard the 'snowflake' word until recently on here. But I have heard the word 'racist' on endless occasions

If your argument can be shut down by a single word, you probably didnt have much of an argument.

Calling someone a racist is fair if they share views that can be considered racist. If you get accused of racism then it's down to you to defend yourself. Being called a racist is an accusation, not a way of shutting someone down.

Which isn't the case with the phrases TS have listed which you have used freely to try to shut down anyone who thinks differently to you. Not to mention the fact that in other threads you have basically denounced anyone of a left leaning persuasion as naive. THAT is shutting someone's opinion down and you are guilty of it more than any left leaning member I've seen on this site. You are happy enough to throw out insults at the left meant to shut down their opinion.

Your constant hypocrisy is ASTOUNDING.

Accusing someone of being racist does not make every such allegation a fact. It is also based on perception and interpretation as well as intent as many do use it to shut down opinion.

Your constant hypocrisy is astounding to many.

The BBC pulled an advert for the Wales England game as people complained it was racist

It was Welsh people struggling to think of any good things to say about the English


Lots of people have no idea what racism is

If you wanted an example of your hypocrisy, then here is is. You have already agreed that it is okay to question people when you believe they are being sexist, and those that defend sexist attitudes.. by that logic alone, the same should apply for interpretations of racism/homophobia/xenophobia etc.

I'd suggest that if a persons argument can be shut down by being called sexist, they probably either were being sexist, or they didnt have much of an argument to begin with.

Then stop mocking left wing people at every opportunity. :smug:

Where did I say calling someone racist makes it a fact? Also, it's not meant to shut an opinion down, like Withano said, if you feel that then your opinion must be pretty weak in the first place. If someone accused me of racism then I'd take it as an opportunity to completely dismantle their argument because it would be a silly accusation. I wouldn't break down and cry about it, I'd defend myself. The same can't be said for you constantly attacking the left wing for not being right wing.

Also repeating my last line at me makes you look silly since it really doesn't apply.

Whatever happened to free speech? :fist:

Free Speech is only a thing when it benefits certain people, Kizzy. You should know that by now :nono:

Language evolves and being pedantic about exact definitions is just another petty way of shutting an argument down, e.g "I'm not racist, Islam is not a race". It's a strawman. In my actual opinion, to be fair, at this point there should be an equivalent term to "antisemitism" for Muslims, but I don't think certain people would be very comfortable with that. They wouldn't be able to dodge the comment by saying "I'm not a... " any more.

I try on occasion to use xenophobia in place of racism when it comes to anti-cultural statements but I struggle a little because a phobia is an irrational fear, and most of the bile I see being sloshed around has absolutely Jack **** to do with fear of any kind.

Wasn't 'Islamophobic' a thing? But it's socially acceptable for people to be Islamophobic now...cos terrorism.

I don't exactly disagree with that but it has to work both ways.

I don't 'cry' about it, I am generally pretty thick skinned, that is just your words/interpretation. Could that be yet another attempt to dismiss/undermine my opinions?

My objection is that some people spout this allegation at just about any criticism of Muslims, strongly suggesting it to be an attempt to shut down any argument. I am hardly the only person to say this.

But you make no sense, the demand is for it be acceptable to make racist comments freely before you will accept someones right to expose it as racist?