*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also, we were taught in sensitivity training not to ask students that at all. Seems our uni is ahead of the Palace on that one.

cringe

Sounds like the whole, "I don't see race," nonsense that I used to say myself, without realizing that denying a person their culture, history, and current social situation is still racist. Pretending racism doesn't exist still marginalizes their identity.

I mean, sure... if you are an accidental racist (this is far more common than intentional racism, mind), and you're not aware of it, then prob. you're very likely to accidentally offend someone - in this case, a student. From the administration's POV, that's the cheapest and easiest way of not dealing with this problem. Blame the accident as intent and end any learning or conversation about it. Definitely end any discussion before someone asks what's a better way to respect the student, in which case, you risk being accused over an accident in the same way.


It'd be better if we learn from each other. It'd be better if we see each other and understand the nuances that we didn't see before. It'd be better if everyone took a deep breath and apologized for any mistaken offense and admitted they need to learn how to be more empathetic in those situations. It'd be better if we could stop treating all racism as intent, and realize that people make mistakes, sometimes hurtful mistakes, and that doesn't mean they meant any harm at all.

It's far too easy for the media in the US to absolutely shield white people from black culture. It's far too easy for white people to have only a bastardized media bias providing them information about black lives. I really don't think it's fair to excuse people from accidental racism, but I also don't think it's on nearly the same level as intentional racism. If you've been lied to your whole life, and you believe even some of those lies, then that's a problem... but it's not an intent to devalue another person, it's being brainwashed into not seeing the other person's reality.

[OngBonga]

Mojo is being much more reasoned and balanced than I am, which is good.

I'm really, really tired of race baiting in society, it's the exact opposite of helpful in terms of ending racism. A lot of people share this view, if social media is a reliable indicator. And not just right wingers. Balanced people, black people, leftists, there are lots of people who think Fulani is overplaying her hand here. Nobody knows the real context of this incident, because there's only the word of the accuser to go by. Poop's kneejerk reaction is to blindly believe the accuser, my kneejerk reaction is to be suspicious of deliberate race baiting. If I'm honest, neither of these positions are helpful. And both positions are motivated by the same thing - we both want racism to not be a problem. But for me, when I see someone making a huge fuss about being asked where she's from when wearing tribal clothing, I don't see this as helpful at all. All it's done is once again divide society into two camps. Which is of course the point of it. That's why I see it as race baiting. The intention is social division. I might be wrong on this occasion but it's a huge problem in society that is hindering progress, not advancing it.

[Poopadoop]

It'd be better if we learn from each other. It'd be better if we see each other and understand the nuances that we didn't see before. It'd be better if everyone took a deep breath and apologized for any mistaken offense and admitted they need to learn how to be more empathetic in those situations. It'd be better if we could stop treating all racism as intent, and realize that people make mistakes, sometimes hurtful mistakes, and that doesn't mean they meant any harm at all.

This is more or less what I'm getting at. I don't think Lady TE was going out of her way to be racist to Fulani - she just didn't know any better because when she grew up it was acceptable for whites to feel superior. She may even feel superior because of her class, not race. That said, there's nothing wrong with a POC saying "this is not ok, people need to do better."

All the hysteria around this is the media making a bigger deal of something than it really is.

News update: Fulani has said she never wanted Lady TE to be sacked, and Lady TE has asked to meet with Fulani and smooth things out. I'm guessing she's learned a lesson. It's too bad the palace didn't teach it to before the event in question, that would have avoided this whole kerfuffle.

The royals have been accused of racism before, and caught saying some racist things, most notably by Harry and Megan. So it's not like this just came out of nowhere.

[Poopadoop]

Ong, your approach seems to be to deny racism at every turn. You say the cops aren't racist, when clearly a lot of them are. You say the royals aren't racist. Seems every time someone points out racism, your response is to accuse them of race-baiting or playing the victim. Fact is, everyone is racist inasmuch as it's a natural part of human cognition to categorize people based on appearance.

It's a question of whether or not you let it drive your behaviour. If you think Lady TE had a right to touch this woman's hair and hector her about where in Africa she was from, and Fulani is an attention-seeking race-baiter for not taking it in good humour (which sounds a lot like "knowing her place," if you think about it), then you're part of the problem, not people who say Lady TE was wrong to do those things.

[OngBonga]

Ong, your approach seems to be to deny racism at every turn.

Wrong. It's just I refuse to dilute the term to capture anyone showing the slightest hint of insensitivity.

You say the cops aren't racist, when clearly a lot of them are.

"The cops" is not equal to "a cop".

Yeah, some, maybe a lot of them, are racist. These are individuals. The police as a force are not racist. Prove they are and you should write to the Guardian or someone and escalate the matter, because if you're right, if the police are institutionally racist and you can prove it, you'll get the chief fired. Heads will roll.

You say the royals aren't racist.

Again, we're talking about a lot of people here. I'm not sure I ever actually said the royals are not racist, but they obviously all aren't. Now the Royals have lots of old people who have lived through colonialism and have a very different view of interracial relations than younger people. Some of the Royals certainly are racist, Prince Phillip being the obvious one to point to. And given that the Royals don't fire racist princes, I can accept the argument that the Royal Family does have an institutional racism problem. But that doesn't mean it's fair to tag everyone associated with the Royals as racist, even if they say something that some (not all) people will find insensitive.

Seems every time someone points out racism, your response is to accuse them of race-baiting or playing the victim

There's a reason for this. The vast majority of what we talk about, it's not the kind of racism we'll all agree about. It's not a white person kicking the shit out of a black person. It's not businesses refusing to employ black people. It's subjective stuff like not supporting BLM, booing footballers who take the knee, being offended about being asked where you're from, so of course I usually dismiss it as race baiting. It's headline news, the media are making a big deal out of it, it's very likely to be race baiting.

Fact is, everyone is racist inasmuch as it's a natural part of human cognition to categorize people based on appearance.

But this isn't what racism is. Racism is the belief that one's own race is superior to another. It's discrimination against people based on their race or ethnicity. It's hatred based on skin colour or ethnicity.

It's not looking at a black woman wearing tribal clothing and assuming they are not British. That alone is not racism. If old lady is being malicious, wilfully attempting to make Fulani feel like an outsider, then it is racism. But I just don't see that as the likely motivation. Intended polite small talk is much more likely.

If you think Lady TE had a right to touch this woman's hair...

I'm not even sure how much credit I give to the hair touching without footage of it happening, but let's assume it did happen. Why is the default here "racism"? Maybe this old lady would have done exactly the same to a white woman.

Lady Oldface has no right to deliberately touch anyone's hair without consent. Race is irrelevant here, unless you're arguing that old lady subconsciously believes black woman are inferior to her and therefore she doesn't need to ask permission. That *might* be the case, and if so, then yes, it's racism. But that's an assumption based on absolutely nothing.

And you're still taking Fulani's account as factual. Do you not see the problem with blindly believing the accuser?

[CoccoBill]

Wrong. It's just I refuse to dilute the term to capture anyone showing the slightest hint of insensitivity.

Or to put it differently, you don't want to extend it to include yourself. Why is the term sacred, why must someone be a literal hitler or have burned a cross in the past 90 days to be captured by it? Would it not be more helpful for everyone to realize that to an extent racism is an inherent property of being a human, and unless we recognize and acknowledge that in ourselves, we're never gonna do anything about it? You want to protect the term, but by doing that you're diluting the acts of "racism".

[OngBonga]

Or to put it differently, you don't want to extend it to include yourself.

I don't hate people of a different ethnicity to me. I don't discriminate. I don't think I'm racially superior to anyone else. Why the hell would I think I'm racist? Why the hell would I need to define racism in such a way to exclude myself when the actual definition of racism already excludes me?

If you think I'm racist because I don't blindly believe Fulani, or because I don't think asking where someone is from is an inappropriate question, or because I won't cheerlead footballers taking the knee, then ok, you're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to define racism in such a way to include me if you choose to do so. But you're the one redefining racism, not me.

[CoccoBill]

Which definition of racism requires hate or hatred, you mentioned it twice?

Oxford: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Webster: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
or
the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

Wikipedia: Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.[1][2][3] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[2] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.

None of them talk about hatred, and none require anyone to strictly believe their race is superior, it's about prejudices that end up disadvantaging others, whether on purpose or not.

I brought this up because you were talking about helpful views on racism, and I feel that seeing the problems and acknowledging them is the first step. Sure, there are people who are literal card-carrying nazis, but to think only they are to blame and I personally don't have anything to do with anything, is on a larger scale of things a far bigger problem. Nazis don't decide on zoning or city development issues, they don't do hiring for all employers, they don't enact stop and frisk policies or jail minorities. All people do, and if all people don't keep their prejudices in check and try to change things, they won't change.

[OngBonga]

None of them talk about hatred

Now tell me the definition of "antagonism".

The first one I pulled up was "showing dislike or opposition".

Dislike is approximately equal to hate.

Not sure why you're picking up on this like it's important. Clearly someone who hates black people is racist. Don't we agree on this?

Sure, there are people who are literal card-carrying nazis, but to think only they are to blame and I personally don't have anything to do with anything, is on a larger scale of things a far bigger problem

Nazis aren't the only racists in society. Anyone who fits the definitions we're discussing is racist. Can you give me an example where I might fall into such definition? Can you show the inherent racism inside of me that I need to address? Because I'm not seeing it. No hate (antagonism), no discrimination, no superiority complex. That's it. That makes me not racist. If I'm part of a society that's racist (which I'm not), then maybe there's a discussion to be had about what more I can do, but I can't change individuals. A society can change governments, whether at the ballot or by revolution, but you can't change the way some people think.

So racism is not a solvable problem. There's no magic fix. All we can do is socially exclude people who are racist (while using that word responsibly), remove from positions of power and influence those who are racist, and go about our lives treating people with equal respect until they give reason to not show them respect. What more do you think I should do?

[Poopadoop]

If I'm part of a society that's racist (which I'm not), then maybe there's a discussion to be had about what more I can do, but I can't change individuals.

You were doing a decent job of defending yourself until you said this.

What you mean I think is that UK society is not blatantly racist, like apartheid. But going from that to "it's not racist," is discounting the problems that people like Fulani face day in and day out. It's not always people using the n-word, sometimes it's more subtle than that. But it's still racist and it still pervades society. That's why it should be called out.

I get why it's hard to see, because if you put yourself in her shoes it wouldn't bother you if someone asked you where you're from, so it doesn't seem like a big deal. But surely, you can see, if only in some little corner of your mind, the colonial overtones of that question, and the implied superiority and entitlement shown by the touching of her hair and the repeated badgering and the condescending attitude.

And ask yourself, if a white person had been there instead of Fulani, would Lady TE have felt ok about touching her hair, and asking her where her ethnic roots were, and talked down to her like that.

(while using that word responsibly)

But you still haven't grasped the problem with what happened. Instead you started arguing that Fulani was making it up, "race-baiting," like she's Louis Farrakhan or something.

What more do you think I should do?

You can stop taking the side of the person being racist, how's that for a start?

[OngBonga]

What you mean I think is that UK society is not blatantly racist, like apartheid.

Well that's the extreme example, or Nazi Germany, but that's not the only way a society can be racist. If there are no laws in place to protect people from ethnic discrimination, then I can accept that society has a problem with racism. The UK has laws in place and enforces them.

Society is not racist. People are racist. Some (banned) groups are racist. But our society is not racist. The vast majority of black people in the UK experience no problems most of the time. Yes most can say they have experienced racism at some point in their lives. Most people have experienced violence too. Society is not violent. There are some people who are violent, again the law has something to say about that.

I get why it's hard to see, because if you put yourself in her shoes it wouldn't bother you if someone asked you where you're from, so it doesn't seem like a big deal.

It's not that it wouldn't bother me. It's that I would expect to be asked such questions, given I'm at a party wearing tribal clothing. If it did bother me, I either wouldn't wear such clothing at parties, or not attend parties where I fear I might be asked such questions.

What if a black person asked where she's from? This should be treated with precisely the same amount of seriousness. Equality.

But you still haven't grasped the problem with what happened. Instead you started arguing that Fulani was making it up, "race-baiting," like she's Louis Farrakhan or something.

Well you're still blindly believing Fulani's account.

You can stop taking the side of the person being racist, how's that for a start?

"Where are you from" does not make someone racist. There is no evidence this woman is racist, except for the account of the accuser.

[OngBonga]

Here's a fun question...

Would it be racist if I were to create a support group for female white victims of domestic abuse? This is not for black women, just white women.

[Poopadoop]

It's that I would expect to be asked such questions, given I'm at a party wearing tribal clothing. If it did bother me, I either wouldn't wear such clothing at parties, or not attend parties where I fear I might be asked such questions.

So this black woman was asking for it by dressing up as a black woman. lol you should listen to yourself sometimes.

Well you're still blindly believing Fulani's account.

No-one who was there has contradicted it. What reason is there to think she's lying?

"Where are you from" does not make someone racist. There is no evidence this woman is racist, except for the account of the accuser.

Which no-one who was there has contradicted.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a fun question...

Would it be racist if I were to create a support group for female white victims of domestic abuse? This is not for black women, just white women.

Do you mean in a country where white people were in a minority with a black ruling class?

[Poopadoop]

The vast majority of black people in the UK experience no problems most of the time.

Citation needed.

[OngBonga]

So this black woman was asking for it by dressing up as a black woman. lol you should listen to yourself sometimes.

You listen to yourself.

She didn't dress up "as a black woman". She dressed in attire unfamiliar to British people.

No-one who was there has contradicted it. What reason is there to think she's lying?

You can't imagine reasons for her to lie about this? I'll give you one... to boost the profile of the charity she runs.

Which no-one who was there has contradicted.

Have you been to a party before? You'd need to be standing with the to hear what they're talking about. Stand five meters away and their chatter is just background noise along with all the other chatter.

Nobody at the party has contradicted Fulani, also nobody else has said they heard the old lady say anything offensive.

Do you mean in a country where white people were in a minority with a black ruling class?

Didn't think you'd fall into the trap of admitting you're defending a racist.

Fulani's charity "specialises" in Caribbean and African victims of domestic abuse. So if a white woman want to use their service, she can't.

Maybe I shouldn't have said white women only. Maybe I should have said Scandinavian and Russian women.

[OngBonga]

I mean this is the state of affairs...

Ask someone wearing unusual clothing where they're from - racist.
Provide a service that only serves people of a particular ethnicity - not racist.

Now go and look at those definitions of racism that cocco posted.

[Poopadoop]

You listen to yourself.

She didn't dress up "as a black woman". She dressed in attire unfamiliar to British people.

Uncommon, not unfamiliar. We've all seen African clothes before.

So, your argument is that by wearing African clothes, a black person gives every white person the right to touch their hair and ask them about their ethnic orgins over and over?

You can't imagine reasons for her to lie about this? I'll give you one... to boost the profile of the charity she runs.

lol right, it's all an elaborate ruse. What an artiste she is coming up with that one. She even knew to blame it on an old white upper class woman who worked at the palace 'cause then everyone would believe it. Amazing that you've seen through this web of lies. Well done, sir.

Have you been to a party before? You'd need to be standing with the to hear what they're talking about. Stand five meters away and their chatter is just background noise along with all the other chatter.

Nobody at the party has contradicted Fulani, also nobody else has said they heard the old lady say anything offensive.

So when a black person accuses a white person of acting racist, your default is to think their lying even if no-one contradicts them, not even the person they're accusing.

Fwiw, if a white woman had been to Africa and reported being treated like this by an upper class black person, I would believe them too if no-one denied it.

Didn't think you'd fall into the trap of admitting you're defending a racist.

It wasn't a trap, it was a lame attempt at a false equivalence.

Fulani's charity "specialises" in Caribbean and African victims of domestic abuse. So if a white woman want to use their service, she can't.

Do you have evidence that they've turned away white women who sought help? Is there a sign on the door that says "blacks only"?

More generally, why do you think they feel there's a need for a domestic abuse charity specifically geared towards black women in the UK? Would you like to take a guess?

[Poopadoop]

I mean this is the state of affairs...

Ask someone wearing unusual clothing where they're from - racist.
Provide a service that only serves people of a particular ethnicity - not racist.

Do you feel like you're disadvantaged in this world because you're white?

[OngBonga]

Uncommon, not unfamiliar. We've all seen African clothes before.

Sure, just like we've all seen European clothes. But funnily enough there's huge variation in the clothing of different European countries.

Africa isn't one culture. It's lots of cultures. So "African clothes" is not really narrowing it down.

Are you suggesting that it's less offensive to assume she's merely African and doesn't identify as a member of a nation or country? Because I wouldn't agree. I don't identify as European. It's a continent, not a culture.

So, your argument is that by wearing African clothes, a black person gives every white person the right to touch their hair and ask them about their ethnic orgins over and over?

Why are you deliberately being insincere?

I'll repeat myself. Nobody has the right to touch anyone's hair without consent. This isn't a matter of racism. This is a matter of common decency. What she's wearing makes no difference, if old lady did indeed touch her hair, that's not acceptable. It's not racist though, not unless you have good reason to believe this is an act of subconscious superiority. You don't have good reason. You have the word of a single person, the person who claims to be offended.

She's wearing non-British clothing. She's likely going to get asked about it at parties.

Over and over? So says Fulani. If that's true, if she really was repeating the question despite getting a negative response, ok she's being a dick and probably with malicious intent. I don't believe it. There's no evidence, only the word of one person. And that person might have an agenda.

lol right, it's all an elaborate ruse. What an artiste she is coming up with that one. She even knew to blame it on an old white upper class woman who worked at the palace 'cause then everyone would believe it.

Nailed it, well done.

So when a black person accuses a white person of acting racist, your default is to think their lying even if no-one contradicts them, not even the person they're accusing.

My default is to consider the context. And in this case, it's a lady at a royal party wearing "ask me about my culture" clothing getting upset about someone asking her about her culture.

And the old lady is in hiding. The Palace are not supporting her because they're worried about the backlash. I think they might have misjudged this one though because they're getting a lot of heat for throwing this woman to the wolves.

Fwiw, if a white woman had been to Africa and reported being treated like this by an upper class black person, I would believe them too if no-one denied it.

I wouldn't expect that a white woman wearing British clothing in Africa would get offended when asked where she's from. Even if she just so happens to have been born in the very country this conversation took place.

Do you have evidence that they've turned away white women who sought help?

Well not specific examples, but their website makes clear that it's a service for women of Caribbean or African heritage.

More generally, why do you think they feel there's a need for a domestic abuse charity specifically geared towards black women in the UK? Would you like to take a guess?

Sure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36562028

This is the exact reason why the charity was set up. Because the police failed to stop a man murdering his ex and child. Maybe if this poor woman had access to support groups, she'd have survived. Maybe.

That's why these groups exist. Because men are arseholes and the police are useless. I'm not for a minute saying these groups shouldn't exist. They definitely should exist. I'm saying they shouldn't be profiling people based on ethnicity. That is not the way to go about creating a society that treats people of all ethnicities as equals.

Do you feel like you're disadvantaged in this world because you're white?

No. But I'm not at an advantage either. My employment prospects are precisely equal to a black person of equal experience and skill. I have the same access to education, health, welfare.

I'm disadvantaged because I come from a poor and broken family though. Can I have a support group for brown haired people who come from poor families? No gingers.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[CoccoBill]

Now tell me the definition of "antagonism".

The first one I pulled up was "showing dislike or opposition".

Dislike is approximately equal to hate.

Not sure why you're picking up on this like it's important. Clearly someone who hates black people is racist. Don't we agree on this?

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism" Or, not and. Of course we agree that someone who hates black people is racist, what we don't seem to agree on is that not ONLY people who hate someone else are. If you have prejudices against other "races", whether positive, negative or neutral, that's racism, and a lot of the time contributes to issues of systemic racism. Most if not all of us have them, and that's the issue here.

Look I get it, "racist" is a charged word, and it's understandable to want to categorize them as bad people, and think I'm definitely not one of them, I don't hate anyone. We could just pick a less charged word here to describe the less hateful kinds, like "prejudiced", but that right there is diluting the actual acts of racism, belittling what people go through as if it's nothing when the victims are not actively hated upon, just accidentally treated differently.

Nazis aren't the only racists in society. Anyone who fits the definitions we're discussing is racist. Can you give me an example where I might fall into such definition? Can you show the inherent racism inside of me that I need to address? Because I'm not seeing it. No hate (antagonism), no discrimination, no superiority complex. That's it. That makes me not racist. If I'm part of a society that's racist (which I'm not), then maybe there's a discussion to be had about what more I can do, but I can't change individuals. A society can change governments, whether at the ballot or by revolution, but you can't change the way some people think.

I obviously don't know what inner thoughts or feelings you have about anyone. Maybe you've never seen a white girl working at a nail salon or a white guy delivering pizzas and wondered how they ended up there. Maybe when given a list of names of random people, with some of them likely from different ethnicities, you don't have any sort of prenotion on any their attributes. Maybe, but I bet that's not the case, that certainly isn't for me. Now imagine we all have them, some worse than others. Systemic racism is an emergent property of the sum of them. Some of us are active players in enforcing it, some just passive enablers, but all are contributing to it unless they're actively working against it.

So racism is not a solvable problem. There's no magic fix. All we can do is socially exclude people who are racist (while using that word responsibly), remove from positions of power and influence those who are racist, and go about our lives treating people with equal respect until they give reason to not show them respect. What more do you think I should do?

It's very much a solvable problem, at least in theory, we'd just all have to realize if we're not part of the fix, we're part of the problem. No one is perfect, everyone can improve their actions, be more considerate, more aware of what others are going through. I'm sure my actions have and still continue to hurt people in many ways, but what I can do is try to learn to be better, and not just close my eyes from it and think it's someone else's problem.

[Poopadoop]

King Chuck showing how it's done.

[OngBonga]

Of course we agree that someone who hates black people is racist, what we don't seem to agree on is that not ONLY people who hate someone else are.

Huh?

Hate, discrimination, superiority. That's racism. You can change those words to antagonism, prejudice and haughtiness if you want, they're basically synonyms. We can play word wrestling all day if you want, but I'm pretty sure we actually agree what racism is.

If you have prejudices against other "races", whether positive, negative or neutral, that's racism.

Ok. Let's just clear up what prejudice means then. It's "holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions". But that's the general definition. In the context of racism it's "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular social group, such as a race or the adherents of a religion."

We're back to hate being a key aspect. Nothing positive in hatred.

Look I get it, "racist" is a charged word

And it's highly misused.

and it's understandable to want to categorize them as bad people, and think I'm definitely not one of them, I don't hate anyone. We could just pick a less charged word here to describe the less hateful kinds, like "prejudiced"

But prejudice in the context of racism does require hatred or irrational suspicion. I just showed you that.

If my suspicion of Ngozi is because she's black, then ok I'm being racist and need to address that. My suspicion of Ngozi is due to her overreaction to a seemingly mundane faux pas. That's not irrational, and it's not because of her skin colour. If Ngozi were a white trans woman offended by being accidentally misgendered, I'd still be suspicious of her motives if she blew it up to this degree.

To show "prejudice" in a racist context, your motive is based on hatred or intolerance.

but that right there is diluting the actual acts of racism, belittling what people go through as if it's nothing when the victims are not actively hated upon, just accidentally treated differently.

"treated differently"

This is highly, highly subjective. People are different. If you're treating all black people in the same different way than you treat white people, ok there might be basis in this. Even in a positive sense. If you patronise all black people like they're less intelligent, dumbing down your language, then yes that's positive racism. But if you treat one black person differently to another, that's not racism, assuming the reason you're treating them differently is for rational reasons. Perhaps one is Muslim and the other is not, so you adapt your behaviour to suit their circumstances. You treat people differently. But you do so based on rational reasons.

Maybe you've never seen a white girl working at a nail salon or a white guy delivering pizzas and wondered how they ended up there.

I don't pay attention to the skin colour of people I encounter on a daily basis. Obviously I notice but it's not something I store in my memory bank for future reference.

Wondering how someone got where they are in life, this isn't racism. I work with two Polish girls. One (my boss) is a beautiful woman who lives with her Mother. I wonder why she's in England, seemingly single. The other is married with a son. I wonder why she and her family decided to move to England. I'm not going to ask, it's none of my business. I recently went to France alone to a music festival. The French people I met were curious why I travelled to another country where I don't speak the language. These are reasonable curiosities.

Maybe when given a list of names of random people, with some of them likely from different ethnicities, you don't have any sort of prenotion on any their attributes.

Of course I don't. I might assume that someone called Pavel is likely Polish, or someone called Mohammed is likely Muslim, but I don't assume that someone called David Bolt is a black man who can run fast. The only assumption I would make is their nationality (and gender) based on their name, and I'm also completely aware that I might not be right. Stevie Nicks is a girl. Is it sexist for me to see that name for the first time and assume male? Of course not.

It's very much a solvable problem, at least in theory, we'd just all have to realize if we're not part of the fix, we're part of the problem.

Well it's solvable in theory, in the same way it's possible to correctly guess every card in a deck of cards one after the other, in theory. Good luck with that.

No one is perfect, everyone can improve their actions, be more considerate, more aware of what others are going through. I'm sure my actions have and still continue to hurt people in many ways, but what I can do is try to learn to be better, and not just close my eyes from it and think it's someone else's problem.

I agree. We can all be better people. But you should be treating everyone equally, right? So when you talk about awareness of what other people are going through, you should apply that to people you might disagree with on the surface, People who oppose immigration, for example. Maybe they have good reason to feel that way. Maybe their circumstances would shed some light onto that, if only you took the time to be more aware.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Cocco's prior post is epic tier.

Racism doesn't necessarily involve hate. Most of the time, racism doesn't involve hate. It involves ignorance and probably entitlement.


For example: in the US, white people touching black people's hair without permission is a cultural problem. It's technically assault to put your hands on another person or anything they are holding without their permission. Not the level that would necessitate a criminal case, but such is the nature of laws.

Any person reaching out to touch anyone's body without their permission is in the wrong. Whether your motivation included hate isn't relevant to the entitled permission to lay your hands on someone.

I have not heard stories of black people spontaneously touching a white person's hair. I have heard many, many stories from black people about some stranger walking up to them and touching their hair without even saying hello first.


This is racism. Acts of violence and hate are also racism. The violence and hate aren't necessary elements of racism.

[Poopadoop]

Turns out there is a cure.

https://twitter.com/BradTroemel/stat...39026323849217

[OngBonga]

Racism doesn't necessarily involve hate.

I never suggested it did. I said hate was one of three primary aspects of racism, the others being discrimination and superiority. You can find synonyms of these words if you prefer, like antagonism, prejudice, whatever. But I absolutely agree that racism doesn't necessarily involve hatred.

And I provided an example. Dumbing down your language because you think black people are less intelligent than you would be an act of racism not motivated by hatred, but instead motivated by a debunked stereotype. That would be ignorance.

For example: in the US, white people touching black people's hair without permission is a cultural problem.

I don't understand what this has to do with racism, other than you providing the specific example of white people touching black peoples' hair. What if a black person touches a black person's hair? What if a black person touches a white person's hair?

If you're saying that it's a much more common occurrence for white people to touch black peoples' hair then ok there might be a racism problem playing a role in the statistics. But this is the first I'm hearing of such a problem.

btw, I've recently had my hair touched without permission. I was in France dancing to music and someone behind me flicked my hair that was tied back. It happened twice. I ignored it completely and carried on dancing, but it was obvious to me that whoever did it was taking the piss out of me tying my hair back into a bun rather than a pony tail. It wasn't friendly. Other than mildly insulting me, it didn't bother me at all. In a crowd of thousands of people, there are going to be a few wankers. I'm not going to be one of them by turning around and making a big deal out of it.

Any person reaching out to touch anyone's body without their permission is in the wrong.

This is absolutely not in dispute.

I have not heard stories of black people spontaneously touching a white person's hair.

I've no idea what race my hair toucher was for the simple reason I didn't care to turn around and look at who it was. Chances are it was a white man, but I don't know that. If it was a black person, it's still not something I would consider racism.

I don't hear stories about hair touching in any context.

[CoccoBill]

I don't understand what this has to do with racism, other than you providing the specific example of white people touching black peoples' hair.

I'll try to elaborate. Imagine that you're a person whose cultural history is filled with atrocities by blue people. They've invaded your lands, enslaved you, treated you like animals for centuries. Then an old blue lady comes and starts playing with your hair like you're a toddler. "Aren't you a cute little thing". Now, this one instance in a vacuum doesn't sound too bad, you might even shrug it off with a chuckle. Now imagine this happens to you every fucking week all your life, always by blue people. The blue person most likely doesn't mean anything bad, but with the context and the history, I might very well lose my shit at some point, at least I wouldn't blame if someone in that situation did.

What if a black person touches a black person's hair? What if a black person touches a white person's hair?

It would be 100% the same thing, except for the context and history. Do blacks have a history of oppression over black people? Yes they do, so if you're Hutu, you better think twice before doing that to a Tutsi. Do blacks have a history of oppression over white people? Not that I know of really, so I would think it's less of a problem, apart from the fairly general rule that that's just not a thing you do to other people without consent.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I never suggested it did. I said hate was one of three primary aspects of racism, the others being discrimination and superiority. You can find synonyms of these words if you prefer, like antagonism, prejudice, whatever. But I absolutely agree that racism doesn't necessarily involve hatred.

And I provided an example. Dumbing down your language because you think black people are less intelligent than you would be an act of racism not motivated by hatred, but instead motivated by a debunked stereotype. That would be ignorance.

Oh, my bad. I thought that's what you were saying.

I apologize for pressing the point when it was my misunderstanding.

As for the hair touching, I did stipulate this is a thing in the US. IDK what racial relations are like in the UK at all, so I can only really speak to my experiences in the US. The first I heard of the hair-touching thing I was like... eww gross, WTF. And I assumed it was kinda a 1-off thing. But then I heard the story again from a different black woman and I asked about it. It's a thing. White people touching black people's hair - especially women, but not necessarily - is a thing that happens in the US. And it's fucked up. And it's a white person who most likely just wants to learn about black hair and what it feels like, but the impulse that they don't even need to ask permission first is fucked up. Really fucked up.

Take in the history and culture of black women in the US and their hairstyles - some women regularly spend 1/4 or more of their net income on their hair - and it's even more fucked up. In the US, hairstyles are a huge part of black culture and specifically black women's culture. They probably wouldn't give permission to anyone to touch their hair, even their partners and family. Let alone some club-fisted stranger.

[OngBonga]

I'll try to elaborate. Imagine that you're a person whose cultural history is filled with atrocities by blue people.

Ok nice, setting the tone, blue people oppressors, non blues the oppressed.

They've invaded your lands, enslaved you, treated you like animals for centuries.

Like when the Romans came to England and fucked all the Celtic blood out of my ancestry?

I suddenly feel justified in demonising Italians.

Then an old blue lady comes and starts playing with your hair like you're a toddler. "Aren't you a cute little thing".

Presumably we're not allowed to question the non-blue person's account of the incident?

Now imagine this happens to you every fucking week all your life, always by blue people.

This would definitely make me want to wait until an elderly blue person said it to me instead of one of the younger ones before her. Someone who for all I know could be suffering from dementia. Yeah I'll rip that blue person apart for years of blue people annoying me.

I hope I gave your blue analogy the respect it deserved.

[OngBonga]

@mojo

I really don't know if hair touching is a problem in the UK. I have to admit I live in a bubble, I'm reclusive and isolated in the countryside instead of the social animal in a busy town that I was 20 years ago. But it's not something I ever understood to be a problem, and certainly not in a racist context. We all know from a young age that it's socially unacceptable. I mean, I can vaguely remember at school an instance of a girl with an afro getting upset because a boy wanted to feel her "fuzzy hair", but this is children being children. It's obviously not acceptable and the teachers had to sit everyone down to make sure we all knew we can't do that. I don't think I could go as far as calling that boy "racist" because he was too naive to understand. But in this instance it's certainly something an Afro-Caribbean girl is way more likely to encounter, and so it does need to be dealt with differently. If an adult were to do that, then yes I would say that's racist.

And it's fucked up. And it's a white person who most likely just wants to learn about black hair and what it feels like

This is what I just described, only adults doing it. It's a massive no-no, and everyone should know it. There's no real excuse for this kind of ignorance except maybe autism. It was unacceptable when I was a child in the 1980s. This isn't a modern shift in attitude, like words that we used to use no longer being cool. Hair touching has always been frowned upon, you should know you can't touch peoples' hair. Maybe if you're friends with someone you can ask. Trust is absolutely key here.

[CoccoBill]

Presumably we're not allowed to question the non-blue person's account of the incident.

I think this right here is the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter what the non-blue thinks about it. If you drive drunk and no one gets hurt, it doesn't make it ok. Some non-blues might not mind, but that doesn't make it ok. It's on the blue person to mind what they're doing.

[OngBonga]

The way I see it here is that it's the non-blue person who has the problem. The non-blue person is holding the blue person to a standard of behaviour based on the historical crimes of blue people on non-blue people. The modern blue person isn't a blue supremacist, only fringe blue nutters cling onto this belief, but the non-blue is still blaming blue people for crimes that happened centuries ago. It's the non-blue person who is concerned about blueness.

[CoccoBill]

I don't think anyone said it happened centuries ago? I agree that if it had, and nothing worth mentioning had happened since, the situation would be a bit different. Interesting though that you assumed this'd be the case, and most likely the victim is to blame. I used the "blue" exactly for the purpose of avoiding you supplanting your biases about any real world situation on the scenario, but I guess I failed.

[OngBonga]

I was just taking the piss, in case it wasn't obvious.

[OngBonga]

I mean there's an element of truth.

White people are blamed for racism, and held to a different standard of behaviour and mentality. When you simplify it to that level you can see the absurdity of it. If you blame an entire race and treat them differently to other races, for the actions of a few, then you're being racist. Fighting racism with racism is not a viable solution. But people don't see the racism in blaming white people.

White people aren't to blame for racism. Racist people are to blame for racism. IF someone blames white people, they are part of the problem.

[Poopadoop]

White people aren't to blame for racism. Racist people are to blame for racism. IF someone blames white people, they are part of the problem.

Fair point, but in the present case Fulani is not complaining about the white race. She's complaining about Lady TE and others who act like her.

[OngBonga]

Do you think that no black person exists that asks another black person where they are from, based on nothing but attire? Because presumably, if this is racism, only white people have such curiosities, and these curiosities only extend to black people. Like, a white person isn't going to ask someone wearing Lederhosen where they're from, because Germans are white and white people don't ask other white people these questions.

If this is something that happens often, the "others who act like her" in your words, then surely people of other races ask her too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's some race-based generalizations you're making, ong.

It's not the first time the question was asked that is even being criticized. It's the alleged lack of acceptance of the answer, "I'm from where you're from," that is the issue.

[OngBonga]

Well I have said that if Fulani's account is accurate then old lady hasn't really got a leg to stand on. If she really did press the matter in the way she did, that's not something I'm going to defend. It should be obvious to her that such a conversation is awkward and she should cut it short. That's the right thing to do if you suspect you might have accidentally caused offence. Change the subject. Easy.

I'm assuming Fulani is milking it. I find it hard to believe that someone who has worked for the royal family for 60 years is only now exposed as an insensitive racist. There are no allegations emerging relating to previous conduct. Fulani hasn't given any thought to the mental state of the 84 y/o woman she is accusing (dementia is a possibility). Nobody else has come forward to support Fulani's account of the conversation. People are kneejerking to Fulani's side simply because she has made an allegation of racism. I've kind of wanted to avoid making the comparison because it's unpleasant, but it's similar to blindly believing rape allegations. Of course they should be treated seriously, but also with an open mind. We know that some disturbed women make false allegations because they know it will cause immense damage to the reputation of the person they are accusing. Some women use rape allegations as a weapon. And some people use racism allegations as a weapon. I believe that is the case here. Maybe I'm wrong.

[OngBonga]

I mean it's not as serious as a rape allegation, it's not the best comparison. I would be a great deal more careful about accusing someone of making a false rape allegation, even if there was a zero percent probability they see my comments. I would use much more sensitive language. Because if I'm wrong, the distress that could cause is immense. The same could be said for certain kinds of racism allegations, but not this kind.

This isn't traumatic for Fulani, even if her account is to be believed, and any such use of that word would be an exaggeration and an insult to people who have experienced trauma.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... even if we take Fulani's account as purely factual, there's nothing in there that's lose-your-job-over-it bad.
Apologize for the *appearance* of insensitivity. Deny any actual intent of insensitivity. Invite Fulani to tea to have a chat about the whole thing and smooth it over (as civilized British people do, I imagine).

At worst if Lady McOldface refuses to apologize for giving the impression of cultural insensitivity - not even admitting to intent - then fire her for being a difficult person to employ who brought negative attention to you and will not cooperate to make it better. I.e. the reason to fire her would be failure to perform her job duties as instructed, not the conversation at the party.

[OngBonga]

Apologize for the *appearance* of insensitivity. Deny any actual intent of insensitivity. Invite Fulani to tea to have a chat about the whole thing and smooth it over (as civilized British people do, I imagine).

Precisely. This is exactly how it should be dealt with. There was absolutely no need for Fulani to make this public, not immediately anyway. Give the old lady the benefit of the doubt, at least for a duration of time to see if she is willing to privately discuss the perceived insensitivity of her comments.

I'm not a huge fan of insincere apologies. I am personally more offended if someone says sorry to me when they don't mean it than if they don't say sorry at all. Only say it if you mean it, as an acknowledgement you're in the wrong. So if this old lady really doesn't think she's done anything wrong, an apology isn't what's in order, but rather a recognition that such comments can be perceived as insensitive, and a genuine effort to not make the same mistake again.

[OngBonga]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...860406274.html

177 tweet thread exposing Sister Space as frauds. Quite the read.

nepotism
fraud
gross incompetence of accounts, including clear and obvious conflicts of interest
politicians lobbying on their behalf for concessions from councils

The fraud is applying for grants under false pretence. One example is a £60k grant for a new website, and the result was a "technical downgrade to their previous one" and was created on Square Space, by someone whose website selling himself as a web designer is built on the Wix platform. These two platforms are for people who can't code. I used Wix to build a website for recent training. This £60k website could probably have been bought for a fiver on fivrr.com

Lots of other grants with no evidence that they were spent on the intended purpose.

The nepotism is hilarious.

It's also hilarious how some Scottish dude with 1000 followers destroyed this "charity" with simple research that any competent journalist should be more than capable of.

[OngBonga]

Oh and he claims his intention when looking into their affairs was to donate to them, but he did his due diligence first. Also hilarious. When you scream and shout, demanding attention, and then when you get attention you have regrets.

[Poopadoop]

Oh and he claims his intention when looking into their affairs was to donate to them, but he did his due diligence first. Also hilarious. When you scream and shout, demanding attention, and then when you get attention you have regrets.

So now you believe everything you read...

[OngBonga]

"he claims"

That's a rather significant caveat, which to any normal person would imply an element of doubt, if only a little.

So to answer your question... no.

[OngBonga]

With that said, I definitely believe his many many hours of research, especially given he's said things he could be sued for if they are not true, and which can easily be refuted if they are indeed false, since he pulled this info off the internet.

His motivation, he's probably being honest but I obviously don't know that.

[OngBonga]

By the way, really cool of you to not even comment about the fact you're blindly believing the word of someone now accused of charity fraud.

You just focus on me.

[OngBonga]

I mean, this is what really matters...

It's also hilarious how some Scottish dude with 1000 followers destroyed this "charity" with simple research that any competent journalist should be more than capable of.

Let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he's nailed this charity. Why didn't a single journalist do so? Don't you find this concerning? You most definitely should.

[OngBonga]

The reason you should find it concerning is because these very same journalists, the ones that don't do due diligence or research, and whip up racial tensions, they are the same journalists telling you what "misinformation" is, they're the same ones who tell us what "fact checkers" have to say.

You think I'm paranoid for not trusting governments and media, but stuff like this only reinforces my distrust.

[Poopadoop]

Hey look, another POC lying about experiencing racism in the UK. It's contagious!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ism-in-cricket

[Poopadoop]

"Economic migrants" drowning in the channel again. Good thing there's no legal routes for asylum seekers from most countries - that will solve the people trafficking problems! #MEGA

[OngBonga]

Lol


So basically...


Where are you from? Racist.


Here's where you're from. Absolutely fine.


Fun fact - Diane Abbott is one of the two named politicians who have been lobbying for Sistah Space.

[OngBonga]

"Economic migrants" drowning in the channel again. Good thing there's no legal routes for asylum seekers from most countries - that will solve the people trafficking problems! #MEGA

UK bad because the French police are standing there watching as people get on a boat.
EU good, even though their member state Poland is pushing migrants back into Belarus as the Belarussians fire blanks.

That's according to this video you've linked poop.

The UK seem to be bad here because we're forcing them to flee France on boats. Is that right? These people are from Iraq, which was the top nationality claiming asylum in the UK in 2021. That implies rather heavily that there are a huge number of Iraqi people who found a non-dinghy method of coming to the UK to claim asylum.

This isn't the UK's fault, no matter how much you really wish it was. They want to come here because the French are doing much, much less to look after migrants in their country than the UK are doing. Nobody is going the other way, are they?

[Poopadoop]

UK bad because there's no legal routes for asylum seekers from most countries.

fyp

because the French police are standing there watching as people get on a boat.

Not sure I saw the reports of the French police standing watching people get on a boat. It's not illegal to get on a boat though, so there's that.

EU good, even though their member state Poland is pushing migrants back into Belarus as the Belarussians fire blanks.

It's not a EU-UK thing, it's the UK that is forcing people to drown to try to get here.

The UK seem to be bad here because we're forcing them to flee France on boats. Is that right? These people are from Iraq, which was the top nationality claiming asylum in the UK in 2021. That implies rather heavily that there are a huge number of Iraqi people who found a non-dinghy method of coming to the UK to claim asylum.

Is that a fact? By what legal route can an Iraqi citizen come to the UK to seek asylum?

This isn't the UK's fault, no matter how much you really wish it was.

I don't want it to be the UK's fault. I know it's the UK's fault.

They want to come here because the French are doing much, much less to look after migrants in their country than the UK are doing.

ORLY?



You really should stop reading the Daily Mail, or listening to people who do. The reason most of them want to come here is because they have family here and/or they can speak English and not French.

Nobody is going the other way, are they?

Such as all those asylum seekers from Iceland that are trying to get to France via the UK? You geography much?


Seriously, you think these people just hopped on a plane in some shithole country, then decided to holiday for a while in Calais before spending the rest of their money on a deathdinghy ride?

[OngBonga]

Not sure I saw the reports of the French police standing watching people get on a boat. It's not illegal to get on a boat though, so there's that.

Did you even watch the video you linked?

It's not a EU-UK thing, it's the UK that is forcing people to drown to try to get here.

That's one way of looking at it. I'd argue it's an abuse of the word "forced", seeing as plenty of people find other ways. You could also argue that the French are letting them drown. That has a little more basis in fact, if the video you linked is accurate, anyway.

Is that a fact? By what legal route can an Iraqi citizen come to the UK to seek asylum?

idk but unless you're going to argue they all came on dinghies they they simply must have found another way.

I might have misread that stat, Iraq might be the highest Middle East country. I just tried to fact check it and India seems to be our top nationality for migrants, followed by Poland. But still, we have a lot more Iraqis here than we've had people arrive by boat. So the point remains. Dinghy is not the only way. It's the stupidest way.

I don't want it to be the UK's fault. I know it's the UK's fault.

Yes, I agree. We provide a massive incentive for them to do so. Remove the incentive.

It's not our fault that the French police are "waiting for backup" or whatever the fuck they're doing for an hour.

You really should stop reading the Daily Mail...

I don't.

You really should stop posting graphs with no context like it's a mic drop.

Let's say in some hypothetical world that France offers greater benefits to migrants than the UK does. In what world does it make any sense to then risk your life and that of your child by crossing a sea in winter during a cold spell? The lady tells us why she's leaving Calais. No water. It's basically a slum. When she gets to England she'll be put in a hotel. The French are doing nothing to stop this because the only thing they can realistically do is offer similar benefits to migrants that we do. The only thing they can do is to remove the incentive. But they probably think that's on us.

The reason most of them want to come here is because they have family here and/or they can speak English and not French.

One day you'll come to realise this is ludicrous. Those who have families here can get visas much easier. If they have someone in this country they have access to money. If I were a migrant wanting my family to come and join me, I'd be sending them every spare penny I had until they could afford to join me. And like hell would I allow them to leave France by dinghy. Would you? Under any circumstances? And if you really think someone is risking the life of their child so they don't have a learn a new language, you must have a very low opinion of these people to reach such a conclusion. If I told you I was going to put my son on a dinghy across a sea because I can't be bothered to learn a new language, wouldn't you think I'm a terrible person? I would hope so. Language alone is simply not a morally acceptable reason to take such insane risks. You can't seriously believe it is.

Seriously, you think these people just hopped on a plane in some shithole country, then decided to holiday for a while in Calais before spending the rest of their money on a deathdinghy ride?

Well one thing they didn't do is sail from Iraq. But they left Iraq with the UK as their destination of choice. So for all intents and purposes, this description is a close enough approximation.

And by "nobody is going the other way" I mean nobody is thinking the UK is so bad for migrants that they were better off in France. That's because they're not better off in France. Those who get here are just fine. Their quality of life is vastly improved. That's why they take such insane risks. For a better life. Education, health, social security. That better life isn't France. And yet you scream and shout about how terrible the UK is. Basically because we don't offer an hourly migrant service through the Chunnel, which you interpret as "forcing them into dinghies" as if that's literally the only way people are coming here.

You do realise that not literally every migrant arrives by dinghy from France, don't you? You're aware that in percentage terms, it's actually a very low number, right? How do you suppose the other got here? Swimming?

[Poopadoop]

Did you even watch the video you linked?

Did you? Where is the French police there? The reporter could have just said that for effect, obviously. Funny how the camera never pans over to the French police, isn't it?

I mean ffs, it's like you're only skeptical about things you wish weren't true. Everything that fits your worldview you accept without question.

That's one way of looking at it. I'd argue it's an abuse of the word "forced", seeing as plenty of people find other ways.

Because some people can does not mean every one can. There's safe routes for Afghanis, Ukranians, and one or two other places. Everyone else, if they want to come here, has to do it illegally. You think those people in the video decided a dinghy was safer than British Air?

You could also argue that the French are letting them drown. That has a little more basis in fact, if the video you linked is accurate, anyway.

Even if the French were there (which seems doubtful since they aren't in any camera shot), what do you expect them to do? Where is the law saying that either a) you can't let people get in a dinghy if they want to; or b) France is responsible for controlling our immigration process? They offered us a place to set up a processing center. We refused. They have every right to say "ok, your problem then."

idk but unless you're going to argue they all came on dinghies they they simply must have found another way.

It's like you think refugees have a choice to either come a) legally on a commercial plane, or b) on a dangerous dinghy. How many stowed away in trucks? How many stowed away on a larger boat? How many came from countries where you can actually apply before you arrive in the UK?

I'll say it again. You can't get on a plane or a legal boat if you're an asylum seeker, unless your from a few select countries where they're allowed to apply in another country. Otherwise they just won't let you on the plane or boat, end of.

Yes, I agree. We provide a massive incentive for them to do so. Remove the incentive.

We don't. The main incentives are language and family.

It's not our fault that the French police are "waiting for backup" or whatever the fuck they're doing for an hour.

Again, it's not their job to deal with OUR immigration problem. Why don't we set up an asylum processing center in Calais like they offered to let us do, rather than blaming the consequence of not doing that on the French?

I don't.

It's funny that you spout all the same lines then.

You really should stop posting graphs with no context like it's a mic drop.

You said we were much more welcoming of refugess than France. I posted a graph that showed they took a lot more than we do. What other context do you want?

Let's say in some hypothetical world that France offers greater benefits to migrants than the UK does. In what world does it make any sense to then risk your life and that of your child by crossing a sea in winter during a cold spell? The lady tells us why she's leaving Calais. No water. It's basically a slum. When she gets to England she'll be put in a hotel.

Does this look like a hotel to you?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...me-office-kent


The reason SOME of them have to stay in hotels is because our gov't is so slow at processing claims. It's almost like they're incompetent or something (hard to believe I know). They only processed something like 4% of them last year.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...asylum-backlog

The French are doing nothing to stop this because the only thing they can realistically do is offer similar benefits to migrants that we do. The only thing they can do is to remove the incentive. But they probably think that's on us.

We don't offer them these great benefits you're talking about. They aren't allowed to work to earn money while their claim is being processed. They get $40 a week allowance. Stop pretending they're coming here to live it up at our expense. As if the Tories would do that lol.

One day you'll come to realise this is ludicrous. Those who have families here can get visas much easier.

Pretty sure you can't claim you have a cousin here and get a visa, or that you deserve a visa because you speak passable English. And meanwhile while they're waiting forever for their visa application to be rejected in their home country someone comes and cuts their head off.

If they have someone in this country they have access to money. If I were a migrant wanting my family to come and join me, I'd be sending them every spare penny I had until they could afford to join me. And like hell would I allow them to leave France by dinghy. Would you? Under any circumstances? And if you really think someone is risking the life of their child so they don't have a learn a new language, you must have a very low opinion of these people to reach such a conclusion. If I told you I was going to put my son on a dinghy across a sea because I can't be bothered to learn a new language, wouldn't you think I'm a terrible person? I would hope so. Language alone is simply not a morally acceptable reason to take such insane risks. You can't seriously believe it is.

So you actually believe if these people just had common sense, they would get into the UK on a plane. But instead they're choosing the dinghy route. Fuck me.

And by "nobody is going the other way" I mean nobody is thinking the UK is so bad for migrants that they were better off in France. That's because they're not better off in France. Those who get here are just fine. Their quality of life is vastly improved. That's why they take such insane risks. For a better life. Education, health, social security. That better life isn't France. And yet you scream and shout about how terrible the UK is. Basically because we don't offer an hourly migrant service through the Chunnel, which you interpret as "forcing them into dinghies" as if that's literally the only way people are coming here.

We don't offer a safe route for these asylum seekers. The French have offered to let us set up a processing center in Calais (pretty nice of them really since they don't have to), and we've refused. So, yes, it's on us.

You do realise that not literally every migrant arrives by dinghy from France, don't you? You're aware that in percentage terms, it's actually a very low number, right? How do you suppose the other got here? Swimming?

You're conflating asylum seekers with migrants. Obviously for many people there are legal routes. But that's limited to just a few countries for asylum seekers. Watch the video Suella Braverman humming and hawing and trying not to acknowledge that fact.

[OngBonga]

Did you? Where is the French police there? The reporter could have just said that for effect, obviously. Funny how the camera never pans over to the French police, isn't it?

So the reporter is just flat out lying about it? While being totally honest about everything else? Honest enough for you to think "this needs to be talked about"?

You linked this video poop. We're talking about what you posted. And you posted a video of a reporter claiming that the police were standing there doing nothing. If you don't believe him, then you must think it's Daily Mail propaganda, don't link it for discussion like it's news.

Because some people can does not mean every one can.

And we should be providing ways for everyone to come here?

There's safe routes for Afghanis, Ukranians, and one or two other places.

So all the Iraqis here came by unsafe means? This is your assertion?

Everyone else, if they want to come here, has to do it illegally.

They don't have to, but thank you for acknowledging that what they are doing is illegal.

Even if the French were there (which seems doubtful since they aren't in any camera shot), what do you expect them to do? Where is the law saying that either a) you can't let people get in a dinghy if they want to; or b) France is responsible for controlling our immigration process? They offered us a place to set up a processing center. We refused. They have every right to say "ok, your problem then."

I find it absolutely baffling that you can

a) accuse the British government of "forcing" people onto dinghies by not flying them in on a chartered plane, while simultaneously
b) letting the French cops off the hook who stand by and do nothing.

In what world is a) worse than b)? In poop's world.

This isn't about France controlling our immigration process. It's about them controlling their beaches and ensuring the safety of vulnerable people in their country.

What can the French police do? They can at least try to stop them. They're not even doing that. There's a reporter there, you think nobody has called the police? If this reporter hasn't himself called the police then he's an asshole who's letting them sail to their likely death.

It's like you think refugees have a choice to either come a) legally on a commercial plane, or b) on a dangerous dinghy.

No, it's like you think they only have choice b. Which implies you have absolutely no idea either a) how many migrants are here, or b) how many migrants arrive by dinghy.

idk how most come, they probably overstay visas. They don't mostly come by dinghy. We're talking about the tip of the iceberg here, and you're saying there's no other way for them. You're living in another world.

Again, it's not their job to deal with OUR immigration problem.

I can't believe you're doubling down on this. I mean by this logic we can turn their boat around so it's pointing south and say it's now France's problem.

They are on French territory, risking their life and that of their children. France has a moral responsibility to try to stop them from making this journey. They can't stop everyone. But they can try. And according to the reporter that YOU linked, they are standing there watching, waiting for backup.

Why don't we set up an asylum processing center in Calais like they offered to let us do, rather than blaming the consequence of not doing that on the French?

idk and I also don't know if it's a solution. It just encourages more to Calais.

It's funny that you spout all the same lines then.

I wouldn't know. Seems like you need to stop reading the Daily Mail.

I gotta go to work, I'll read the rest of your wall later.

[OngBonga]

You said we were much more welcoming of refugess than France. I posted a graph that showed they took a lot more than we do. What other context do you want?

Well I'd be curious to compare standards of living. I mean, do you suppose it's kinder to welcome a million migrants and let them live in a slum, or 100K migrants in a place with hot water? You think the total number is all that matters?

Does this look like a hotel to you?

Yeah my mistake, they get the hotel when their asylum claim is successful. Until then, it's somewhere safe and secure.

So would you rather be living in that prison-like complex or a slum with no water?

The reason SOME of them have to stay in hotels is because our gov't is so slow at processing claims.

I'm not even sure this is accurate. idk precisely why there are migrants at hotels, but they're not in a slum like they were in Calais.

We don't offer them these great benefits you're talking about. They aren't allowed to work to earn money while their claim is being processed.

Of course not. I can't walk into another country and get a job either. Neither can Lionel Messi, he has to apply for work permits just like everyone else.

They get $40 a week allowance.

And food, secure accommodation, hot water, toiletries, childcare, access to health services, and this is just while they're being processed. Once they are successful, they have access to everything that I have access to, including Universal Credit and other welfare benefits, which is a lot more than £40 a week.

So now tell me what France gives to people who are yet to be granted asylum.

Pretty sure you can't claim you have a cousin here and get a visa...

Cousin? So you're offering full unconditional asylum to extended family?

Sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters. If you have one of these living legally in the UK, then you can most certainly visit them. I imagine that's how most migrants actually get here, by overstaying visas when they visit family or as tourists. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe most sneak in the back of lorries. Which, while still dangerous, is a lot more preferable to taking to the sea.

And meanwhile while they're waiting forever for their visa application to be rejected in their home country someone comes and cuts their head off.

Imagine thinking this.

When was the last decapitation in Albania? Presumably not recently, seeing as Sweden isn't accepting Albanians on the basis it's a safe country.

So you actually believe if these people just had common sense, they would get into the UK on a plane. But instead they're choosing the dinghy route. Fuck me.

Well you seem to think that everyone is coming by boat, seeing as you don't seem to believe other safer methods exist. And you believe people would rather risk their own life and that of their children rather than learn a new language. Fuck me.

These people coming by boat might think it's the only way to get here. That's gonna be the fault of the traffickers who will tell vulnerable people anything if it means they get money.

We don't offer a safe route for these asylum seekers.

Clearly we only offer a safe route to the many people of various nationalities who get here safely.

The French have offered to let us set up a processing center in Calais (pretty nice of them really since they don't have to)

Imagine saying the French are nice after literally linking a video which claims they're standing there watching migrants leave the French coast.

You're conflating asylum seekers with migrants.

No doubt, and you're going to have to use a bit of common sense to know which I'm talking about at a given time. Sorry about that.

Migrants aren't even part of the discussion really. We're under absolutely no obligation to accept any economic migrants, but we still do. We are obliged to accept asylum seekers, and we certainly do this because there are a lot of people here already who have claimed asylum. But asylum seekers also can't just pick a country on the map and head for it like they have a right to live there. They have a right to flee an unsafe country and settle in a safe country.

Which incidentally means Albanians are not asylum seekers. And guess what? Albanians are arriving by boat too.

[OngBonga]

I mean as best I can tell, you believe that the entire population of India has the moral and legal right to settle in the UK.

It shouldn't need saying that this is an absurd position. You're going to have to trim down the number who can come here for simple practical reasons. We're already a densely populated island. We're not full up, there's room for more, but we obviously can't just let anyone who wants to live here do so. That would be billions of people. The UK is a much nicer place to live than most of Africa, Asia, Central America and probably South America too.

We probably do need to do more to help genuine asylum seekers who have reasonable grounds for wanting to settle in the UK. But an open door policy is not something that the majority of people in the UK want. There has to be an element of control. And people arriving undocumented on unsafe boats, that is not controlled.

It's absurd to think that this is the only way for asylum seekers to get here, and it's absurd to think that it is worth risking your own life and that of your child to flee France. There must be asylum processing centres in France, why does it have to be Calais? They can be bothered to cross the channel on a dinghy but they can't be bothered to travel from Calais to Paris?

These people are vulnerable people being exploited by traffickers. And these traffickers are acting with impunity. France are doing nothing because as far as they are concerned, they want these people to reach the UK because then they are our problem, not theirs. And you're calling the French "nice" for offering to process them in Calais. They're not being "nice" by offering that. If they were "nice" they would be offering secure and warm accommodation with hot water and access to health services. Even if it has a fence around it to stop them from roaming freely.

[Poopadoop]

I'll post this video again since you seem really confused about why so many people are coming in dinghies. Hint: the answer is in the video.





And just in case you can't be bothered to watch a 2 minute video that explains what the problem is, I'll condense it down into a single sentence for you.


THERE'S NO FUCKING LEGAL ROUTES TO ASYLUM FOR THEM.

That's not my "opinion," it's a fact. The MP quizzing Braverman in that video makes it very plain that that's what the problem is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is certainly a country's right and responsibility to control who crosses its borders.
It is a country's right to close their borders if they choose.

No one has the right to freely enter any country, unless there are exceptional agreements between that country and others that grants such permissions.

So ong has a point.


Watching desperate people risk their lives to do something illegal - so they can be hard-working, taxpaying members of your society - that's not a "crime" in the same way murder or rape is a crime. Yes, it's illegal, but 100% different in every way.

And if someone is that desperate, that passionate, that motivated, to want to be like me as a countryman, then that deserves a strong pause of my judicial instincts, IMO.

Rules are stupid. Rules are to keep idiots from being idiots and then claiming no one told them not to be idiots.
When someone isn't an idiot, and they break a rule - I'm all in favor of making an exception.
As you've seen me moderate this forum with a healthy dose of making exceptions and moving on. Nanners should have been insta-banned, but I made exceptions in the hope that it was just a 1-off mistake or learning moment.

IDK if that's Poop's point, but it's there.


The problem is that ong gets to be right again because there are people like Nanners in those dinghies.
But it's not a good win for ong. Out of hundreds, maybe thousands of people in dinghies, maybe 1 or 2 of them are Nanners, and holding the rest of them accountable isn't fair - isn't justice.

But if we DO start taking people in that risked their lives like that - it sets a precedent.
We may be unintentionally encouraging other people to risk their lives in dinghies because they KNOW it works - sometimes - and that may be their best shot, given their current situation.


So it's very complicated. I don't see a way to do it at all without taking everything case by case. Each individual who wants to enter is a person and that person's entry needs to be not lumped into anyone else's.

But that's not how politicians do things.

And it's just more complicated at every nuanced addition of fact.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But blaming France for letting people get on boats and go into the ocean...
C'mon.

France isn't a prison - despite many similarities.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/TylerDinucci/sta...344542720?s=20

Is this true?

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/TylerDinucci/sta...344542720?s=20

Is this true?

Bunch of goddamn remoaners...Truth is, Brexit's going great!

https://twitter.com/TerryWhenman/sta...45688326840321

Latest Brexit benefit: Retired people are being encouraged to go back to work to make up for all those Eurolibtards we told to go back to Euroland.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dlife-MOT.html

[OngBonga]

I'm not watching cunts on Love Island talk about stuff. Sorry.

Poop, you failed in your New Years resolution already, didn't even get through January.

[OngBonga]

Bunch of goddamn remoaners...Truth is, Brexit's going great!


https://twitter.com/TerryWhenman/sta...45688326840321

This is funny. I wish we stayed in the EU like USA and Canada.

It's also funny how you pull up figures from 2018 to 2023. If you only pulled up one of those years, 2021, the UK (39th in the world) just outperforms France (45th) and Italy (50th) and absolutely shits on Germany (138th).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...DP_growth_rate

Funny how you can paint whatever picture you want when you cherry pick the right numbers.

[OngBonga]

Oh and by the way, idk about other sectors but in the hotel industry we still have European workers. Two of my colleagues (in a team of 10) are Polish. They're both cute as fuck women, including my boss. I digress.

My point is, it's still perfectly possible for Euros to work here, and many do still work here. If any return home that's a job opening up for someone else. Could be another migrant, could be me. And as best I can tell, the govt is attempting to entice early retirees back into work... those aged between 50 and 65. Nobody is wheeling out the fogies to scan barcodes.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/TylerDinucci/sta...344542720?s=20

Is this true?

Fuck's sake I watched it, and this is exactly why I don't watch these kind of programmes. They literally take the stupidest good looking motherfuckers in the country and we watch them talk shit.

Yes it's true that some people in this country are really this stupid, and it's also true that this is considered entertainment to a lot of British idiots.

It's a good conversation starter at social gatherings to be fair.

"Did you watch Love Island last night?"

"Yeah, oh I love it, never miss it!"

"Cool. Nice meeting you, bye."

[Poopadoop]

2 million unfilled job vacancies, simultaneous with halting free movement with the EU. But hey, there's a couple of Poles working in Ong's hotel so obviously that trumps everything.

I don't know how many years of economic decline it will take to convince you Brexit was a bad idea. You'll always find some excuse for why it isn't Brexit, just like the Tories.

Fact is, in two years we're going to have a Labour gov't, and the very first thing they'll do is start to realign us with the EU. No more lousy food standards, no more shit in our rivers. And in their second term, the public will be so sick of Brexit they'll have to start talking about rejoining.

My advice is to enjoy your sovereignty while it lasts.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Welcome back, Poopy.
Nice holiday?

[Poopadoop]

Come on Ong, get with the winning team.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-opinion-poll/

[Poopadoop]

Welcome back, Poopy.
Nice holiday?

Been busy with work. Also, no-one was posting anyways so there was nothing to comment on.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're the life of the forum, these days, Poop.