[mrsmith78]

Originally Posted by mazerunner_888

My understanding of this she is speaking to a very base aspect of people. A projected external blame that negates self examination and motive. To me one of the worst things she ever said was a call to continue the bombing raid by Israel on the people of Palestine which includes families, woman and of course children. To me this is not some Perez self absorbed rant it's on a very different level. It's on the level of a hate crime, a dehumanization of a people, a call for genocide. I think for the UK public and the people on this forum to not see that is a deep ignorance and a real tragedy. For her to have that this support from the UK public is deeply problematic. To me she is not someone speaking her mind but something very ugly that should be cut out of a society that values any sort of compassion and tolerance.

Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.

[Tarryn]

Originally Posted by mrsmith78

Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.

I really think you need to open your eyes & look more into the language Katie has used. Especially when it comes to Israel.
It's okay to have opinions, nobody is disputing this. It's the disgusting & degrading things she say's to get herself noticed.
She has lowered herself by such a distance that many people could never respect her opinion whether it is valid or not.
A truly intelligent person can get their point across using clean & simple language. Katie appeals to the trash in this World.
It seems to be working well for her.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by mrsmith78

Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.

Great post,nice other people look closer into what she says too

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by mrsmith78

Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.

th

Great post, I wish we saw more posts like yours. However, I disagree with some, not all, of what you said.

What Katie Hopkins does is neither original or clever. Picking out the most controversial of subject and taking the view that sits at the extreme is bound to appeal to the radical thinkers. I don't believe this creates debate, other than "what sort of person is Katie Hopkins?". It causes unrest, resentment and argument. This is why people like Farage had to severely dampen down his spiel and sack members of his party that have been too forthright when speaking out.

Whilst I believe we should all have a voice, if we are given a platform for that voice we shouldn't abuse that platform. We must be prepared to back up what we have said because if we don't, then it has to be presumed its been said in ignorance. Unfortunately, this isn't something Katie Hopkins has been willing to do thus far.

I don't agree with many of Katie Hopkins views but would respect her if only she could debate those views with her interested audience. Until that day, all I can see is a woman with a hand grenade who chucks and scarpers.

Last week I was waiting for a bus and had perched myself on a seat at the bus stop. Seeing a heavily pregnant Muslim woman approach, I got up and offered her my seat. She smiled but declined and moments later an elderly woman looked at me and uttered, "bloody immigrants, why don't they go back to their own country?". Me being me, couldn't resist questioning why this woman felt the need to say this to me but she turned her back on me and walked away. Why couldn't she answer me? because she honestly didn't have an intelligent enough answer that would of satisfied my curiosity and she knew that. What that woman did is in parallel with what Katie Hopkins does.

[power2thepeople]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

th

Great post, I wish we saw more posts like yours. However, I disagree with some, not all, of what you said.

What Katie Hopkins does is neither original or clever. Picking out the most controversial of subject and taking the view that sits at the extreme is bound to appeal to the radical thinkers. I don't believe this creates debate, other than "what sort of person is Katie Hopkins?". It causes unrest, resentment and argument. This is why people like Farage had to severely dampen down his spiel and sack members of his party that have been too forthright when speaking out.

Whilst I believe we should all have a voice, if we are given a platform for that voice we shouldn't abuse that platform. We must be prepared to back up what we have said because if we don't, then it has to be presumed its been said in ignorance. Unfortunately, this isn't something Katie Hopkins has been willing to do thus far.

I don't agree with many of Katie Hopkins views but would respect her if only she could debate those views with her interested audience. Until that day, all I can see is a woman with a hand grenade who chucks and scarpers.

Last week I was waiting for a bus and had perched myself on a seat at the bus stop. Seeing a heavily pregnant Muslim woman approach, I got up and offered her my seat. She smiled but declined and moments later an elderly woman looked at me and uttered, "bloody immigrants, why don't they go back to their own country?". Me being me, couldn't resist questioning why this woman felt the need to say this to me but she turned her back on me and walked away. Why couldn't she answer me? because she honestly didn't have an intelligent enough answer that would of satisfied my curiosity and she knew that. What that woman did is in parallel with what Katie Hopkins does.

Great post.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by mrsmith78

Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.

Very well said.

[Jules2]

[QUOTE=mrsmith78;7527316]Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.[/QUOTE]

That is a good point tbh, the trouble with many they are to patronising trying to keep in with everyone and as you say closing a debate down. Talking generally here. For the general public it is sometimes easier just to criticise and to ignore.

I can see the flip sides to everything said but then the two sides have to be weighed up, there is never ever a satisfactory answer to please everyone. I have never really looked into Katies remarks, only gone by that which others have said. I would say though there is always a wider picture and the picture which in the end gets best results and saves a man from drowning is obviously the right one. The trouble is we cannot save everyone, this is a very sad fact of life.

[the truth]

[QUOTE=Jules2;7559229]

Originally Posted by mrsmith78

Well I think this comment is kind of why people are relating with Katie Hopkins.

Because people don't like when disingenuous arguments are made not in a way to promote debate and opinions but to stifle it. By throwing around loaded terms to shut down a conversation.

I mean the example you use is the perfect example.

She believes in Isreal's bombing campaign.

As do many.

Why is that?

Because many think a coordinated bombing campaign is the only way. Because of Hamas's own less discriminate bombing campaign who deliberate target innocent women and children and also use their own women and children as human shield. Because the Hamas ideology is the extermination of all Jews.

This might be an argument you agree with, or disagree with. Because actually there is a genuine argument against.

However what you have chosen to do is go the easy route and shut down the argument because it's much easier to do that by throwing out loaded untruths like 'genocide', and 'hate crime'.

As with terms like 'sexism', 'racism' when they are used to quiet real debate however extreme or opposing an opinion might be most people in real life don't like it. Because not only is it insulting and irritating to the people who you oppose but it undermines and insults the people who you agree with.

And that's why people like Katie. Her opinions are often at the extreme ends of the spectrum for dramatic effect and as such fairly two dimensional and black and white. However her loaded terms are designed to encourage debate not shut it down. Whether I agree or disagree I like that.[/QUOTE]

That is a good point tbh, the trouble with many they are to patronising trying to keep in with everyone and as you say closing a debate down. Talking generally here. For the general public it is sometimes easier just to criticise and to ignore.

I can see the flip sides to everything said but then the two sides have to be weighed up, there is never ever a satisfactory answer to please everyone. I have never really looked into Katies remarks, only gone by that which others have said. I would say though there is always a wider picture and the picture which in the end gets best results and saves a man from drowning is obviously the right one. The trouble is we cannot save everyone, this is a very sad fact of life.

shes a a shallow bigot that's all she is.....she lacks every human quality