Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,288,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

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

Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 LastLast
Results 2,251 to 2,325 of 2431
  1. #2251
    btw, good chance one of my ancestors got raped by a Viking. Does that mean I can insult Icelandic people but they can't insult me back?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #2252
    Vikings came from Norway.

    Anyways, back to the real world. Do you agree with the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  3. #2253
    There's this crazy idea that racism is 100% past and 0% present.

    Black people have indeed been oppressed by white people for centuries. That's terrible. That is indeed historical racism. So what, white people who have never been racist in their entire lives must suffer for the sins of their ancestors by being subject to racism and having no right to speak out about it? That's what you seem to think.

    Racism is not ok, whether it's against black people, Asians, white people, whatever. You can't say "don't be racist" and then mock white people when they go flushed pink. That's hypocrisy. It should be obvious to any reasonable person debating in good faith that this amounts to racism. Any reasonable person should not think it's ok to oppress, insult or discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity or skin colour. But leftists seem to turn a blind eye to racism against whites.

    You're no better than the white people centuries ago turning a blind eye to oppression against black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #2254
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Vikings came from Norway.

    Anyways, back to the real world. Do you agree with the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
    They got to Iceland from Norway. Whatever, splitting hairs.

    No I don't agree with sending people to Rwanda.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #2255
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're no better than the white people centuries ago turning a blind eye to oppression against black people.
    You think white people in the UK are oppressed?

    I'm really not stuck on the term gammon. If you prefer I'll just say "angry nationalist racists" or ANR for short, from now on.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  6. #2256
    You think white people in the UK are oppressed?
    Of course not. But if society turns a blind eye to racism against white people, then it's a matter of time before white people are oppressed. Should we wait for it to happen? Or should we learn from history and nip it in the bud before it happens?

    I get the idea that some people subconsciously think white people need to be oppressed before we can really live in a world where white and black people are truly equal.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #2257
    I'm really not stuck on the term gammon. If you prefer I'll just say "angry nationalist racists" or ANR for short, from now on.
    I think you just have to make a choice about whether you want to come across as racist. Doesn't even matter if you agree it's racist, if others think it's racist then perhaps you should be a little more sensitive to other peoples' racial sensitivities. I stopped calling a Chinese takeaway a "Chinky" years ago, not because I think it's racist, but because other people think it's racist. I'm not that stubborn that I want people to think I'm a dick.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #2258
    I mean, that's a poor example as well, the word "Chinky" is clearly racist because it's used as a slur against Chinese people. But it used to be a common word for takeout Chinese food, lots of people used the word without any intention to cause offence. It's not the 1990s any more, it's no longer an acceptable term in common language.

    Gammon is obviously a word that isn't itself racist. It's ham. But in the political context, when you're mocking people you perceive to be racist, it's definitely not a good idea to mock the colour of their skin. It shouldn't surprise you that it comes across as somewhat hypocritical.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #2259
    I guess I have a hard time being sensitive to the feelings of racists. But I appreciate that you are. ANR it is then.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  10. #2260
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course not. But if society turns a blind eye to racism against white people, then it's a matter of time before white people are oppressed. Should we wait for it to happen? Or should we learn from history and nip it in the bud before it happens?

    I get the idea that some people subconsciously think white people need to be oppressed before we can really live in a world where white and black people are truly equal.
    lol that in a country with 87% white people we need to worry about white oppression. Just listen to yourself.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  11. #2261
    87% eh? That's a bit higher than the black majority oppressed by whites in Apartheid South Africa.

    History tells us a majority can be oppressed. And that 87% isn't static. It was higher ten years ago, and it will be lower in another ten years. Don't be so short sighted.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #2262
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I guess I have a hard time being sensitive to the feelings of racists. But I appreciate that you are. ANR it is then.
    I'm just pointing out that when you use language that mocks the colour of someone's skin, it kinda gives you less authority to use the word racist to describe others. You're using the word racist based on your idea of what it means, and based on your interpretation of someone else's motivations.

    People throw the word racist around a little too casually. Opposing immigration doesn't automatically make someone racist, for example. There are legitimate reasons, non-racist motivations, to oppose immigration. Or to oppose Islam. Or to vote Tory. Or even to be a nationalist.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #2263
    Don't forget the few thousand British whites who ruled India for a century or so.

    Show me a country where a nonwhite minority lords it over a white majority and I'll take your argument seriously. Otherwise you're just talking shit. Hypothetical shit, to be clear, but still shit.

    On another topic, are you in favour of the bill to arbirtarily change the NI protocol? What's your alternative to the Rwanda policy?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  14. #2264
    It's funny you still oppose nationalism, btw. What do you think the Ukrainians fighting Russia are?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #2265
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Don't forget the few thousand British whites who ruled India for a century or so.

    Show me a country where a nonwhite minority lords it over a white majority and I'll take your argument seriously. Otherwise you're just talking shit. Hypothetical shit, to be clear, but still shit.

    On another topic, are you in favour of the bill to arbirtarily change the NI protocol? What's your alternative to the Rwanda policy?
    I'm talking about the potential for whites to be oppressed in the future. It's not even like I think it will happen, just that it could. And if it did, right now we're missing the early warning signs.

    I haven't been paying attention to the NI protocol or any other political news. I don't even know who was supposed to be on the plane to Rwanda. Any that aren't Rwandan citizens should be either staying in the UK or going to their own country, depending on if there is good reason to deport them. That's it. There's no sending people to a random country.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #2266
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm just pointing out that when you use language that mocks the colour of someone's skin, it kinda gives you less authority to use the word racist to describe others.
    My view is that if someone is calling people racist names, calling them racist names back is fair game. It doesn't make me racist, because I'm not using the term to describe everyone of their colour, just the racist ones. The perjorative term in this case is tied to their attitudes, not their skin colour.

    Like I said though, not really a hill I'm prepared to die on.

    And you're right, they don't necessarily have to be nationalists. I don't actually have time to get into the soul of every person who thinks dumping asylum seekers in another country with a poor record in human rights is a valid plan, to understand their individual motivations. Maybe some genuinely think the asylum seekers are economic migrants or just here to mooch off the state, rather than people with a legitimate claim to asylum, as the hearings have found a large majority of them (75% I think) to be.

    So as a shorthand I assume a significant portion of those people are ANR, and the rest are ignorant or otherwise misinformed. Some are probably just cunts too. Maybe some are brown people. But it's a lot of effort to type that all out while at the same time mocking their attitude, so I just chose the word gammon.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  17. #2267
    I don't have a problem with white people in general, I have a problem with white racists. I also have a problem with black racists and asian racists and native american racists. These latter type tend to be less vocal about their racism in public for obvious reasons than the white racists do, so it's harder to catch them at it.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  18. #2268
    A term black people in the States used to use to insult other blacks who they felt were too subservient to whites was "Uncle Tom." By your logic that's racist because they wouldn't apply it to anyone who wasn't black. Ergo (again by your logic) black people who used it were being racist against their own race, despite the fact they were only using UT to shame other blacks who were accepting of a race-based second class status. Does not compute.

    In fact, a lot of white people use the term gammon to refer to ANR. Are you against them doing that too, or just me?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  19. #2269
    Lol, this is the second ethics advisor Johnson has had who's resigned. Anybody seeing a connection here?

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...28214199513088
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  20. #2270
    Maybe some genuinely think the asylum seekers are economic migrants or just here to mooch off the state
    Well some certainly are, and I've got no problem sending Rwandan people to Rwanda if they are unfit for asylum. Now I'm going to have a more liberal view of who should stay than the Tories, but probably less of a liberal view than you do.

    I'm ignorant on this matter. Like I say, idk who was supposed to be on that flight. I can't imagine why anyone would think it's acceptable to send a non-Rwandan to Rwanda, and if that's what was supposed to happen, then I'd agree that the people who actually support that policy are cunts. Certainly not people I want to engage in conversation with. But just call them what they are. Cunts. It's better to use that word than gammon, at least in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #2271
    Uncle Tom isn't a reference to skin colour.

    I'm arguing gammon is racist purely because it's literally a reference to skin colour.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #2272
    In fact, a lot of white people use the term gammon to refer to ANR. Are you against them doing that too, or just me?
    I think it's a distasteful word for anyone to use to describe a white person who is flushed in the face, especially if it's coming from someone who is attempting to oppose racism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #2273
    I mean maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's perfectly fine and I'm just being silly. It's just the context in which it's used, when it's coming from people who oppose racism, against people they perceive to be racist, to mock the colour of their skin seems hypocritical. You can see it from that angle, surely?

    I don't think people who use the word are racist. Just, that it demonstrates how easy it is to be racist without meaning to be. When you oppose someone's political opinion, it's easy to not give a fuck about their feelings.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #2274
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well some certainly are, and I've got no problem sending Rwandan people to Rwanda if they are unfit for asylum. Now I'm going to have a more liberal view of who should stay than the Tories, but probably less of a liberal view than you do.

    I'm ignorant on this matter. Like I say, idk who was supposed to be on that flight. I can't imagine why anyone would think it's acceptable to send a non-Rwandan to Rwanda, and if that's what was supposed to happen, then I'd agree that the people who actually support that policy are cunts. Certainly not people I want to engage in conversation with. But just call them what they are. Cunts. It's better to use that word than gammon, at least in my opinion.

    One of the last people to be taken off the plane was an Iranian police officer who refused to order his men to shoot protestors. The Iranians sentenced him to prison, he ran. He came over from France on a dinghy.

    https://twitter.com/carolinehawley/s...87108494774273

    The people scheduled to be on that flight just seemed to be a random selection of asylum seekers they'd plucked off a dingy. Certainly there was no justification for calling that Iranian police officer an illegal asylum seeker, unless you think fleeing jail for not shooting protestors isn't a valid reason to seek asylum.

    Experts are saying the whole Rwanda plan is most likely going to be deemed illegal by intn'l law. One can only guess what their motivation was for trying it. It's almost certainly not going to stop people traffickers even if it does end up happening.


    Cunts are just indifferent to others' suffering. They don't want any refugees. ANR think brown people don't deserve help, but Ukranians do. That's where the G word comes in.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  25. #2275
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I haven't been paying attention to the NI protocol or any other political news.
    NI protocol is part of the Brexit agreement that upholds the Good Friday Agreement. In the latter, there was a gurantee there would never be a customs border between NI and the rest of Ireland. Because Brexit requires a border somewhere between the UK and the EU single market, that meant the customs border went between NI and GB.

    The oven-ready deal included the NI protocol, but ever since it was agreed, the Tories have been arguing that it undermines UK sovereignty. The EU's position is they have to protect the single market. US supports NI protocol being kept intact.

    Tories' bill allows them to unilaterally change the NI protocol to reduce the number of customs checks. Some goods will just be waved through between NI and GB. In a nutshell, this means the UK will not live up to the Brexit withdrawal agreement. EU says they will retaliate with sanctions. US also officially discouraging the UK from breaking intn'l law.

    All of which begs the question of why the UK signed a withdrawal agreement that explicitly required a customs border between GB and NI, if they couldn't live with it, or planned to breach it later. Whether you like the NI protocol or not, it isn't a good look to sign a treaty and then propose to break it unilaterally.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  26. #2276
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    One of the last people to be taken off the plane was an Iranian police officer who refused to order his men to shoot protestors. The Iranians sentenced him to prison, he ran. He came over from France on a dinghy.
    Someone else who fled that hellhole known as France eh? Clearly this guy can't be sent back to Iran, and there's absolutely no reason to send him to Rwanda. And I'm not entirely sure why we'd want to send him back to France. He's a cop with a moral backbone. This guy would fall into the category of those we should be keeping here. Well, aside from the fact he came here dangerously and illegally, while paying criminals to get him here. That's a problem, as I've discussed before. It makes no sense to risk your life to flee France. I really don't get it. I do get why you'd risk your life to flee Iran. But France? Nobody has explained that to me yet in satisfactory terms.

    The people scheduled to be on that flight just seemed to be a random selection of asylum seekers they'd plucked off a dingy. Certainly there was no justification for calling that Iranian police officer an illegal asylum seeker, unless you think fleeing jail for not shooting protestors isn't a valid reason to seek asylum.
    idk why we're sending these people to Rwanda instead of France. And no, fleeing jail in Iran doesn't make you an illegal asylum seeker. Coming here on a dingy does though.

    Experts are saying the whole Rwanda plan is most likely going to be deemed illegal by intn'l law. One can only guess what their motivation was for trying it. It's almost certainly not going to stop people traffickers even if it does end up happening.
    Gotta say I agree 100% here. It's surely illegal, and it's going to do fuck all to stop future incidents.

    Cunts are just indifferent to others' suffering. They don't want any refugees. ANR think brown people don't deserve help, but Ukranians do. That's where the G word comes in.
    Maybe they think people fleeing Ukraine deserve help but not people fleeing France. I can understand that viewpoint. France isn't at war, France isn't dangerous. I'm not the only person in the country who doesn't understand why people are putting their wives and children on dinghies to flee France.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #2277
    Tories' bill allows them to unilaterally change the NI protocol to reduce the number of customs checks. Some goods will just be waved through between NI and GB. In a nutshell, this means the UK will not live up to the Brexit withdrawal agreement. EU says they will retaliate with sanctions. US also officially discouraging the UK from breaking intn'l law.
    This last bit, "breaking international law", this seems tenuous. I don't anticipate there being any specific international law that refers to the relationship between the UK and the EU. Breaking agreements between the UK and the EU isn't necessarily breaking international law. But I'm no expert on international law.

    With that said, I fail to see what this has to do with USA, other than an economic interest.

    The NI situation has always been difficult. I'm of the opinion that it would be better for all parties if NI was part of the Republic of Ireland, not part of the UK. It's a colony, and not a colony like the Falklands where people settled on uninhabited islands. It's a colony where we took industrially productive land off another country. NI unifying with RoI would solve the EU problem. It would, of course, create problems with unionists who don't want to be part of the RoI, but so long as they have the choice to come to the mainland UK, then I'm ok with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #2278
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,326
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok so it's only possible to be racist to someone who has been oppressed for longer than they've been alive. I'm assuming that's what your sarcasm implies. Racism against white people is impossible because they've not been oppressed for centuries by black people. So let's oppress them, right? Then maybe in a few centuries it's actual racism. But not now.

    Racism is discrimination or insulting someone based on ethnicity or skin colour. There's no caveats beyond that. Japanese people haven't been oppressed by white people for centuries. Does that make it impossible for a white person to be racist to a Japanese person? Of course not.
    I think I pretty clearly said it is racist regardless, just that there are maybe bigger fish to fry. #whitelivesmatter

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why single out black people and Asians? Anyone using this term to describe a white person flushed in the face is being racist.
    Because those were the two "races" mentioned in the previous comments.
    Last edited by CoccoBill; 06-16-2022 at 08:24 AM.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  29. #2279
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,810
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Ugh. I missed this whole convo, and there's a dozen places I'd have loved to interject some thoughts.

    Basically, ong, racism is a much more involved and complicated beast than simply the words and actions of individuals in day-to-day life. Racism is a centuries-old, insidious policy-driving force in the world.
    The ways it manifests between individuals is often hurtful and cruel, even to the point of murder, but that's not the big deal with racism.
    Which sounds fucked up, but it really is the case. It's not to forgive or disregard the hurt of those individual interactions, but in the context of the whole picture, those are "dealable" problems for the most part.
    It's the stuff that happens on state level that is the real problem.

    It's the systematic under-treatment of non-whites in hospitals and emergency rooms. It's the history of segregation that continued by dark and underground means until at least the 90's (in the US) and probably still ongoing in many other parts of the world. It's the industrializing of colored neighborhoods - turning their air quality to poison and dropping their property values to nothing so they couldn't even sell and move if they were heartless enough to put another family in that house. It's the systematic criminalization of black cultural vices above and beyond the white cultural vices. Its the news and media portrayal of a white terrorist as "misguided" and "tragic" where a non-white terrorist is called a terrorist. It's the news and media's portrayal of black people using the worst gang-bangin' looking picture they can find, while using a white person's yearbook photo.

    I don't even know how long that list is, but it's pages. Pages and pages. Using racist words on the street or in conversation is rude, but it's not actually causing physical or financial hardship to anyone. It just wiggles that blade that is already sunk in deep.


    I think it's perfectly fair to hear the anti-racist chatter about not saying certain words as kinda stupid, and not solving any problems. However, I also think that taking a stand on that level is just showing the ignorance you have about the greater picture of what modern racism actually is and what it does to people - what it steals from all of us.

    Ong, you clearly have a good heart, and are on the right side of this beast philosophically, but your actual knowledge of what is the beast is lacking. As was my own a couple years ago. I've spent a lot of time learning about this difficult subject and the sheer amount there is to learn is heartbreaking and infuriating.
    I can't criticize anyone for not taking the time to truly investigate this entire topic. The web reaches back throughout history and has take uncountable baby steps of concealment and obfuscation along the way. The deeply entrenched and insidious nature of racism in the world is truly astounding. It's much bigger than I once thought, and much more subtle than I once thought.

    Your statement earlier that no one alive today has done the racist things that historically oppressed non-white people - it's a perfectly understandable lie to believe. It's been told to us our entire lives - with cherry-picked information to give the illusion of fact-based analysis. But dig past those picked cherries and see the whole story, and it's not pretty at all. We're not past it. It's not something that happened in our ancestors' days that we have overcome as a people. It's still present, as a daily oppression, in a million tiny ways. Tiny ways that culminate in loss of life and loss of heart, and loss of will to excel.


    Love you as a brother. You care a lot about racism, what it is, and how people are dumb in addressing it.
    Take some time to learn more about this thing you're passionate about.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 06-16-2022 at 08:56 AM.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  30. #2280
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Someone else who fled that hellhole known as France eh?
    This has been explained to you before but obviously hasn't stuck. The law doesn't say you have to stop in the first safe country. He has a right to seek asylum wherever he wants. If he chose the UK it's probably because he has family here.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well, aside from the fact he came here dangerously and illegally,
    There's no such thing as entering a country illegally as an asylum seeker.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It makes no sense to risk your life to flee France. I really don't get it. I do get why you'd risk your life to flee Iran. But France? Nobody has explained that to me yet in satisfactory terms.
    The law doesn't require the asylum seeker to follow anyone else's standards of what is reasonable. So whether you understand it or not is irrelevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    fleeing jail in Iran doesn't make you an illegal asylum seeker. Coming here on a dingy does though.
    There's no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. He didn't break the law by paying someone to bring him over on a dinghy. That's his desperate choice.

    And that raises another question: why is the only way an asylum seeker can get from FRA to the UK to pay an extortionate amount to come over on a leaky dinghy? Have you ever wondered?




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Maybe they think people fleeing Ukraine deserve help but not people fleeing France. I can understand that viewpoint. France isn't at war, France isn't dangerous. I'm not the only person in the country who doesn't understand why people are putting their wives and children on dinghies to flee France.
    So the "first safe country" argument applies to Iranians but not to Ukrainians? Why don't the latter stop once they get to Poland? Why do we have to take some of them?

    I'll answer that for you: Because back in the 1950s, the UN agreed that making one country bear the entire brunt of a refugee crisis was unfair and would cause more problems than letting the asylum seekers chose their own final destination. No other country than the UK has a problem with that afaik, and our issue only seems to apply to brown people.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  31. #2281
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This last bit, "breaking international law", this seems tenuous. I don't anticipate there being any specific international law that refers to the relationship between the UK and the EU. Breaking agreements between the UK and the EU isn't necessarily breaking international law. But I'm no expert on international law.
    Just to clarify, a treaty between two international polities ("international") is a legally binding agreement ("law"), so yes breaking the Brexit treaty would be breaking international law.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    With that said, I fail to see what this has to do with USA, other than an economic interest.
    It's destabilising for one thing. It suggests an advanced, presumably civilized country can just break an international treaty whenever it suits it to.

    For another, the UK is one of their strongest allies. Of course they don't want us to look like cunts on the international stage.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm of the opinion that it would be better for all parties if NI was part of the Republic of Ireland, not part of the UK.
    It would make life easier for us. Not sure there's a strong sentiment in favour of that in NI itself.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  32. #2282
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    I think I pretty clearly said it is racist regardless
    The tone of your post was highly sarcastic, at least it came across that way to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #2283
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Basically, ong, racism is a much more involved and complicated beast than simply the words and actions of individuals in day-to-day life. Racism is a centuries-old, insidious policy-driving force in the world.
    We view racism differently because we come from different countries with very different attitudes towards this matter. Racism here is a daily issue for some people, but it's not driving policy here.

    It's the systematic under-treatment of non-whites in hospitals and emergency rooms.
    For example, this just isn't happening in most places in the world, certainly not the UK. If it's happening in USA then you've got serious problems akin to the problems of Apartheid South Africa.

    It's the industrializing of colored neighborhoods...
    Again, if this is active policy, things are much worse in USA than I could have imagined.

    Its the news and media portrayal of a white terrorist as "misguided" and "tragic" where a non-white terrorist is called a terrorist. It's the news and media's portrayal of black people using the worst gang-bangin' looking picture they can find, while using a white person's yearbook photo.
    Again, not happening here. The news we get about America uses phrases like "domestic terrorism" when white people go shooting up schools or whatever. Maybe you're watching the wrong channels, idk.

    However, I also think that taking a stand on that level is just showing the ignorance you have about the greater picture of what modern racism actually is and what it does to people - what it steals from all of us.
    You're probably right here. If what you describe is accurate, if these things are happening in USA today in 2022, then idk what the fuck is going on.

    I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where racism is pretty much a lingering cultural problem with a minority of people, and not a systematic problem in law and policy.

    Love you as a brother. You care a lot about racism, what it is, and how people are dumb in addressing it.
    I wish I lived in a world where skin colour doesn't matter. I know there are lots of bad people in the world who do care about skin colour, but what gets me is all the good people who care about skin colour. That's your poops, coccos and maybe even your mojos who think black people deserve special treatment. But for me, when you identify someone based on the colour of their skin, when you designate someone as "oppressed" because they are black, it's not helping.

    It's really hard to put into words my position on racism. All I can say is I don't think society is dealing with it well. We don't treat everyone as equal. Skin colour remains an important part of identity, both within ethnic groups and in wider society. That's what needs to change for me.

    And, you know, legal systems that allow racism to continue in law and policy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #2284
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    The law doesn't say you have to stop in the first safe country.
    You're completely missing the point poop. I'm not discussing what the law says. I'm discussing the motivation of someone who risks their life, and often that of their wife and children, to flee France. It's absolutely insane.

    If he chose the UK it's probably because he has family here.
    If that's the case, then they have grounds for proper asylum instead of hoping to sneak in.

    There's no such thing as entering a country illegally as an asylum seeker.
    So if I want to go somewhere, I don't need a passport and/or a visa, I just declare myself an asylum seeker and I'm legally entitled to go where the fuck I like?

    There is definitely such a thing as entering a country illegally. Any sovereign state has the sovereign right to determine their own laws, and if they say it's illegal to enter their territory while wearing a hat, then don't wear a hat.

    The law doesn't require the asylum seeker to follow anyone else's standards of what is reasonable.
    I mean you're bogging me down in law talk here.

    Motivation. That's what I want to discuss. Why risk your life? There are less dangerous ways for people to apply for asylum, especially those who already have links to the UK.

    He didn't break the law by paying someone to bring him over on a dinghy.
    Yes he did. He broke French law (presumably) and British law. If I turn up in any country without proper documentation, I'm liable to arrest. If I pay criminals to act illegal on my behalf, I am breaking the law. Declaring myself an asylum seeker doesn't make me immune from law.

    And that raises another question: why is the only way an asylum seeker can get from FRA to the UK to pay an extortionate amount to come over on a leaky dinghy? Have you ever wondered?
    It's not the only way. People come through the tunnel, on planes and ferries, they come with tourist visas and outstay them, then come in the back of trucks, there's lots of ways to get here without getting on a dinghy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #2285
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,810
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Everything I've said is happening in regards to race is happening in the US today.

    Hospital treatment:
    Disparate treatments. Unequal outcomes. Even when ignoring socioeconomic factors.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194634/

    Industrializing of non-white neighborhoods:
    This is more about pollution than industrialization, but the pollution is the problem, not the jobs and businesses.
    Bear in mind the history of Redlining which isolated people of color to live in only those areas.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/c...inorities.html

    Disparate portrayal in the media:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-study-finds/

    It's a silent shit-show, and this is literally only scratching the surface. Seriously, it's so dark and subtle and layered and just fucking wrong, and it's woven into just about every aspect of public life in some way. And just about perfectly hidden from mainstream culture. It's no wonder people are flipping their shit over Critical Race Theory being taught in schools (it's not, BTW, not anywhere). It's not just easy to live a white life in the US without ever knowing any of this stuff. You have to actively seek it out. And once you start... the sheer amount of it is overwhelming. Repeatedly overwhelming.

    ***
    I certainly don't think anyone deserves special treatment based on their skin color.
    The problem is that I don't get to decide that I get "normal" (hah) treatment by other people because of the color of my skin.
    The problem is that white privilege is the privilege to receive "normal" treatment in a lot of cases.
    And people who feel no privilege in their lives being told they're privileged is just bad choice of words.

    The reality is that the privilege to live in a shitty neighborhood that doesn't have shit air to breathe shouldn't be a fucking privilege, and everyone agrees on that. Except actual racists, of which I don't think there are many.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  36. #2286
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,810
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The more you understand the realities of racism in the world today, the more that saying someone is oppressed simply due to the color of their skin is a no-brainer. It's institutional to depths that are unthinkable.

    FFS, the final slaves in the US weren't freed until 1941. My grandparents were alive then.

    It's still not technically illegal to own slaves in the US under federal law.
    It's just that the gov't will step in and free your slaves.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  37. #2287
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ...
    I tell you a series of fact about asylum seekers and refugees and you deny they're facts, even though it's very easy to find out they are facts.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/why-do...rwanda-3471762

    If you choose to be ignorant that's up to you. I'm not going to keep explaining things to you if you're only response is going to be "no that's wrong," or "they must be crazy."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  38. #2288
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,326
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The tone of your post was highly sarcastic, at least it came across that way to me.
    Well yes, indeed it was meant to be sarcastic, but that doesn't automatically mean I don't mean anything I say or that you can write a whole paragraph full of words in my mouth. Like I said, yes, technically what you said about the term "gammon" being racist I agree with, it is. But on the grand scheme of things, that's likely the least worrisome racist thing that has ever happened on this planet. I know you just view this from your own point of view, because you feel like you haven't had any preferential treatment in your life due to your skin tone, you don't want to accept that anyone else anywhere does or has either, or that systemic racism against other colors could exist.

    Looking at the past couple millennia, whites have held ALL the power on the planet, with some regional exceptions. We've crusaded, conquested, colonialized, enslaved, raped and pillaged our way across the planet, and remnants of that in policies and attitudes is still visible everywhere, if you just care to look.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's your poops, coccos and maybe even your mojos who think black people deserve special treatment.
    You misspelled "equal". Like for example, I'm technically not in favor of reparations for blacks in the US. They shouldn't be compensated for something that happened to their ancestors. What they should be compensated for, however, is any unequal policies and treatment they've personally been affected by in their lifetimes.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  39. #2289
    ...write a whole paragraph full of words in my mouth...
    I know you just view this from your own point of view, because you feel like you haven't had any preferential treatment in your life due to your skin tone, you don't want to accept that anyone else anywhere does or has either, or that systemic racism against other colors could exist.
    Chortle.

    Looking at the past couple millennia, whites have held ALL the power on the planet
    ^ Here's why you're missing the point. Because of history, you identify someone by the colour of their skin and designate them with the "oppressed" tag. And in the same post you pretend you promote equal treatment, not special treatment.

    "You black therefore oppressed" is a problematic viewpoint, in my opinion. That's the point I'm trying to make.

    We've crusaded
    We? Who's we? White people? So now you're designating me as "oppressor" because of my skin colour.

    This is why it's problematic. You're not solving racism. You're creating a different kind of racism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #2290
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Everything I've said is happening in regards to race is happening in the US today.
    All those people who made anti-Trump noise need to keep making noise. Why aren't they? Because they're not anti-racists. They're anti-capitalists.

    Getting rid of Trump didn't solve anything, did it? Even Obama couldn't fix these problems. So the problem isn't political. It's cultural.

    Racism is quite literally illegal in the UK. That's what it takes. Black people are lower priority in USA hospitals? So doctors are actively discriminating against black people? Throw them in jail, that's what would happen here if a court proved that a doctor was giving preferential treatment to white folk.

    It's still not technically illegal to own slaves in the US under federal law.
    This is just insane.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #2291
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    I tell you a series of fact about asylum seekers and refugees and you deny they're facts, even though it's very easy to find out they are facts.
    You appear to be arguing that all a person has to do is declare themself an asylum seeker and they are no longer subject to UK border control laws.

    What's the point of border control if people can just get on boats, legally, and evade ports and official entry points? Each country has their own border control laws. Countries do not share a common international border control law.

    Ok, asylum seekers get special treatment, which is fine. But we absolutely definitely should not in any way encourage people to get on a dinghy in France and head for the UK. That's irresponsible. And if people are self declaring themselves asylum seekers and that means they are not technically breaking UK law, then quite literally anyone can enter the UK in this way. Meaning border control is non-existent.

    Do you think borders shouldn't exist? Do you think global freedom of movement is the way to go? Because that's what you seem to be saying, by arguing that anyone turning up in a dingy is an asylum seeker doing nothing illegal.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #2292
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,326
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Chortle.
    Well I assumed it was fair game, how does it feel? The difference is you've actually hinted on those things in our previous discussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ^ Here's why you're missing the point. Because of history, you identify someone by the colour of their skin and designate them with the "oppressed" tag. And in the same post you pretend you promote equal treatment, not special treatment.
    So this is your angle? That because we think prople who are systemically oppressed fue to the color of their skin, demanding they shouldn't be is "special treatment"? Wanna rephrase or clarify that you mean by "special"?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "You black therefore oppressed" is a problematic viewpoint, in my opinion. That's the point I'm trying to make.
    Right, and you've dismissed every evidence for it so far. If you start looking it's impossible to miss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We? Who's we? White people? So now you're designating me as "oppressor" because of my skin colour.

    This is why it's problematic. You're not solving racism. You're creating a different kind of racism.
    Does it make you uncomfortable to think white people might collectively be a part of the problem, even if they haven't personally owned slaves or burned crosses? Do you think all germans in the 40s shared some blame of what happened? Or russians today who silently approve what's happening in Ukraine? No one is saying you should feel guilty about the actions of others, but you should feel a shared responsibility to at the bare minimum educate yourself to not be a part of the problem.
  43. #2293
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ...

    You know so little about asylum it gets tiring explaining it to you.

    According to the UN, an asylum seeker can enter a country through regular means or irregular means. There is no law that says they have to pass through border control. What they do have to do is make an asylum claim once they enter. So, if someone comes here on a dinghy and doesn't get themselves to an immigration office within a reasonable amount of time to file an asylum claim, then and only then are they deemed to have entered the country illegally.

    The reason asylum seekers are coming by dinghy is because the regular means of entering the UK are closed to them. An Afghan or Iranian refugee can't just get on a ferry with no visa and say "I'm going to Dover to claim asylum." They won't be allowed on the ferry. They won't be let on a plane either. And there is currently no way for them to apply for a visa. So if they want to come here their choice is between flapping their arms really hard and hoping they can fly over themselves, or taking a dinghy. Get it?

    You say we shouldn't encourage people to take a dinghy, but that's exactly what our policy does encourage. If we had a humanitarian way of getting them over here they wouldn't need the dinghy. We could ferry them here, or set up an asylum processing centre in Calais, or allow them to apply for a refugee visa the way we are doing with Ukranians. The fact is the gov't would rather let brown people die in the channel than help them get here.

    You say if someone declares themselves an asylum seeker they are no longer subject to UK border control laws. But they are. The UK is part of the UN agreement on refugees. The agreement applies to every asylum seeker entering every country that is in the UN. What happens is they have to apply for asylum when they arrive, then have their application processed. If asylum is granted, they can stay. If not, they are sent back. You might not like it, but that's the rules we signed up to.

    You accuse me of saying borders shouldn't exist. Reductio ad bananum. I'm not saying any person should be able to come to the UK, claim asylum, and automatically be given a house and car. I'm saying that since we signed up to the UN agreement on refugees, we should uphold its terms across the board, and not play favourites depending on whether the refugee comes from a white or brown country.

    If you want to stop dinghies coming over, give them a safe route to get here. Have you noticed no Ukranians are on those dinghies? That's because they can apply for a visa which gets them here by safe means (plane or ferry), at which point they can make an asylum claim. We should be doing the same thing for brown people. The most parsimonious reason for why we aren't is systematic racism at the government level.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  44. #2294
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    ...but you should feel a shared responsibility to at the bare minimum educate yourself to not be a part of the problem.
    We're all part of the problem because we can't agree on how to eradicate racism. I would like to completely disregard skin colour, but you won't let me. You instead insist I educate myself. I want to live in a world where white people and black people are just people. You want to live in a world where white people feel bad for black people. You are continuing to identify people based on their skin colour.

    I don't give a fuck what colour your skin is. That's all there is to it. That's how I believe an individual does his bit to eradicate racism. Not by learning about what happened in 1800's America and treating black people differently to how you would if you hadn't learned that history.

    I don't want to identify someone as black and adjust my behaviour. That would be me using skin colour as identity. I don't want to do that, because I want to treat people equally. Not differently based on the colour of their skin.

    So this is your angle? That because we think prople who are systemically oppressed fue to the color of their skin, demanding they shouldn't be is "special treatment"?
    I'm pointing out that you are identifying people based on their skin colour. I'm trying very hard not to.

    You can't treat people equally AND offer "special treatment". And no, demanding people are not oppressed is not "special treatment", unless of course you only make those demands for a certain demographic. What is "special treatment" is assigning victimhood to people of a certain skin colour, like every black person that ever lived is oppressed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #2295
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    You know so little about asylum it gets tiring explaining it to you.
    Don't bother then. I'm not bothering to read your posts. I already told you that I wasn't all that interested in law, I was concerned about motivation, yet you're writing essays on asylum law in an effort to avoid the elephant in the room, which is people risking their lives to flee France.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #2296
    You say we shouldn't encourage people to take a dinghy, but that's exactly what our policy does encourage.
    Sure, our policy of being a much, much more welcoming place for asylum seekers than France, coupled with being an island, encourages people to risk their lives by getting on flimsy boats.

    You seem to think that literally anyone in the world who lives in a shitty country and decides they want to live in the UK should be given plane tickets and hotels.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #2297
    If you want to stop dinghies coming over, give them a safe route to get here.
    Or put pressure on France to not treat migrants like shit. I love how the onus is on the UK and not France.

    If we open up more ways to get here, more migrants attempt to come here. Eventually we reach a point where we say "no more" and the boats start arriving again.

    You're not actually offering a solution to the problem, you're just kicking the can down the road.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #2298
    btw, Ukrainians don't come here by flimsy boat because they are actually asylum seekers, not economic migrants. Therefore they are not motivated to risk their lives to move from France to the UK since they are safe in France. Economic migrants who will enjoy a better quality of life in the UK than in France, they are motivated to take the risk.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #2299
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,326
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We're all part of the problem because we can't agree on how to eradicate racism. I would like to completely disregard skin colour, but you won't let me. You instead insist I educate myself. I want to live in a world where white people and black people are just people. You want to live in a world where white people feel bad for black people. You are continuing to identify people based on their skin colour.
    I'd assume most people would like to live in a world where color doesn't matter, but we don't live in one. Closing your eyes about it and pretending nothing's wrong isn't changing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't give a fuck what colour your skin is. That's all there is to it. That's how I believe an individual does his bit to eradicate racism. Not by learning about what happened in 1800's America and treating black people differently to how you would if you hadn't learned that history.
    I'm not telling you to learn what happened in 1800's America, I'm telling you to learn what happens today. Also in the UK.

    https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/ho...oung-people-uk
    https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-cen...e-nhs-says-bma
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2084913.html
    https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-065574
    https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/new-ipso...emic-racism-uk

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't want to identify someone as black and adjust my behaviour. That would be me using skin colour as identity. I don't want to do that, because I want to treat people equally. Not differently based on the colour of their skin.
    Who exactly has asked you to do that? I haven't seen anyone suggest you change your treatment of anyone in any way, unless of course you feel there's something that you should change.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm pointing out that you are identifying people based on their skin colour. I'm trying very hard not to.

    You can't treat people equally AND offer "special treatment". And no, demanding people are not oppressed is not "special treatment", unless of course you only make those demands for a certain demographic. What is "special treatment" is assigning victimhood to people of a certain skin colour, like every black person that ever lived is oppressed.
    Which do you think is worse, acknowledging a group of people has and is being oppressed, or acting like nothing even happened? The point here is that you actively dismiss everyone's issues, claim that you haven't seen it, deny that they are a problem. You wanna close your eyes and walk away, not my problem. By doing that you're part of the problem. You're not aware of the issues, so you won't use your vote against it, you won't advocate against it, you silently approve of it. No one's expecting you to become an advocate or an activist, but by not even being aware of where unequal treatment happens you're not being passively against it, you're being passively for it.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  50. #2300
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,810
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We're all part of the problem because we can't agree on how to eradicate racism. I would like to completely disregard skin colour, but you won't let me. You instead insist I educate myself. I want to live in a world where white people and black people are just people. You want to live in a world where white people feel bad for black people. You are continuing to identify people based on their skin colour.
    The problem is a lack of honest interest, and listening to good people's stories.
    The problem is that is EASY to be raised in white culture and have literally no idea what's common sense in every non-white home.
    The problem is white people hearing about the problems and assuming personal guilt, as if that's what anyone is trying to accomplish.


    Who said anyone should feel bad?
    No one is saying anyone should feel bad.
    People who are hurting and wanting to help you understand how they are hurt are not trying to push you away.
    Don't push them away. Don't push yourself away.


    I mean, I'd argue that the more aware you are of what's going on all around, if you don't feel bad about that, then that's kinda monstrous, but I don't feel personally responsible for the badness I see happening all around. I feel compassion for the good people who are dealing with it.


    People identifying as their race, and assuming responsibilities for actions of that race is what you're against.
    I'd even argue that in a perfect world, we could be proud of our racial identity the same way we're proud of our city, without the persecution and baggage that makes this such a difficult subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't give a fuck what colour your skin is. That's all there is to it. That's how I believe an individual does his bit to eradicate racism. Not by learning about what happened in 1800's America and treating black people differently to how you would if you hadn't learned that history.
    This attitude effectively denies that the daily struggles of non-white people even exist.

    The shame is that you have to go back to the 1800's. You start by asking questions about today, here and now, and the answers drive you back to the 1800's (and further) and there's simply no getting around it. The insidious problems have been being manufactured to be subtle, and corrosive for centuries.

    Pretending that today's realities do not exist as if it erases these centuries of terrible actors in powerful positions isn't going to solve anything. That's exactly what has been happening all along.

    Furthermore, ignoring the problem / pretending it's someone else's problem is ONLY an option for white people.
    That's white privilege for you. The reality is that non-white people have to explain to their children how they will be given unequal treatment. The privilege is that you can ignore these injustices and live a "normal" life. It shouldn't be a privilege, it should just be how it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't want to identify someone as black and adjust my behaviour. That would be me using skin colour as identity. I don't want to do that, because I want to treat people equally. Not differently based on the colour of their skin.
    Lovely that you can ignore their skin color when interacting with them.
    Do you suppose they can ignore yours?

    Don't get me wrong. Day to day relations just running smoothly and not drawing any attention to race is probably what everyone wants. To the extent that we can all do that, that's great. To the extent that we push non-white realities out of our cultural conversations, that becomes a problem.

    Unfortunately, acting like everything's fine is rarely going to be a solution when things aren't fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm pointing out that you are identifying people based on their skin colour. I'm trying very hard not to.
    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream is alive and well.
    Why has it been so many decades and it's still a dream, and not the reality?
    Is pretending it's real going to make it real?

    These problems are not confined to the US.
    As was pointed out... the refugee lines not only in the UK, but many places across Europe have conspicuously different lengths. The lines accepting Ukrainian refugees move quite quickly, whereas other non-white refugee lines are as stagnant as they've been for months if not years.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You can't treat people equally AND offer "special treatment". And no, demanding people are not oppressed is not "special treatment", unless of course you only make those demands for a certain demographic. What is "special treatment" is assigning victimhood to people of a certain skin colour, like every black person that ever lived is oppressed.
    The problem here is semantics and I'm not even sure if you're doing it on purpose.

    The current status quo is not equal treatment. Ergo, "special treatment" as opposed to "normal treatment" is obviously required.
    At least until the "special" becomes "normal" - that is equal - and we can all be persecuted equally
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  51. #2301
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ukrainians don't come here by flimsy boat because they are actually asylum seekers, not economic migrants.
    Funny then how 75% of those "economic migrants" coming over on dinghies end up being granted refugee status. That is one hell of a scam they're pulling off.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  52. #2302
    Ong, when you try to talk to him about issues of immigration and/or race.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  53. #2303
    tldr: Iranian Christians want to get to UK to avoid persecution in Iran. Only have enough money for one of them to come over from Calais at a time. First one almost drowns but gets to UK and claims asylum. Next one across gets grabbed and put on plane to Rwanda before asylum application can be heard. Eurolibard Court of Human Rights grants injunction to cancel his trip, so now his application will have to be processed in UK unless we can find some other dodge. #MEGA.

    https://twitter.com/Care4Calais/stat...63585274822656

    Then Ong comes on and asks why they didn't stop in the first safe country:

    https://twitter.com/mejoTP/status/1538052478385652032

    Answer: not all countries are welcoming of refugees. They thought UK was a tolerant society. Apparently they hadn't got the news that Cruella Patel is in charge of the Home Office. Also, there's that silly point of libtard human rights law where the asylum seekers can decide for themselves where they stop and claim asylum.

    https://twitter.com/Care4Calais/stat...64762147332096
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  54. #2304
    tldr: Iranian Christians want to get to UK to avoid persecution in Iran. Only have enough money for one of them to come over from Calais at a time
    That historical Persian city of Calais.

    Is the UK the only place in the world where they can avoid persecution? Of course not.

    Why should people in Iran be able to pick the UK and be allowed in? What if they picked Australia or Japan? Do you think these countries open their borders to all Iranian Christians? Do you think they should?

    How many people are persecuted, oppressed, or live in fear of their lives? It's more than the population of the UK, that much I can tell you.

    What if I decided to become a Satan worshipper, and argued that this makes me persecuted in the UK? Now can I pick any country in the world to claim asylum? Should they come and collect me?

    I really do not understand where you people are coming from. It's like you're not thinking through the consequences of your position. It seems to me naive and even deluded. You seem to be suggesting that all persecuted people around the world can, if they so choose, arrive in the UK without the UK having any say in the matter whatsoever, and not only that but we should make it easy for them. Clear it up for me. Tell me I'm wrong and that I'm missing something.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 06-18-2022 at 09:14 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #2305
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    I'd even argue that in a perfect world, we could be proud of our racial identity...
    Frankly I find the concept of being proud of your skin colour to be somewhat ludicrous. I'm not proud of having brown eyes. I'm not proud of being right handed. I'm not even proud of my city of birth, it's a shithole. I might be proud of the town I currently live in, but that's because it's a nice place to be, not simply because I live here.

    I'm not proud of being English either. This might confuse those who see me as pro-nationalist, but for me nationalism isn't about being "proud" of your nation or culture, it's about wanting to protect your nation and preserve your culture. I'm proud of nearly every culture in the world, if pride is even the right word. I want all cultures preserved. That's what being a nationalist means to me. Preserving culture and protecting nations, not just mine.

    This attitude effectively denies that the daily struggles of non-white people even exist.
    This comment effectively assumes all non-white people have daily struggles. You're putting every single non-white person in the same box here. This is what I consider problematic.

    There are lots and lots of black people around the world, and in the UK and surely even USA, that do not experience daily struggles. But you seem to be designating these people with the "oppressed" tag because they are not white.

    Likewise there are white people who do experience daily struggles. Lots and lots of white people are poor and have no idea where their next meal is coming from. The law fucks poor people as well. Why aren't we talking about the historical oppression of poor white people? Or just poor people in general?

    There is a focus on skin colour and this doesn't help. It means we tend to forget about the white people who struggle, and we give extra attention to the black people who don't struggle.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #2306
    About privilege.


    Wealthy people get better healthcare than I do, better education, better legal representation, better access to credit, I am discriminated against for being poor in many aspects of my life. But people call me privileged because I am white.


    The term "white privilege" is insulting, not just to white people but to black people. The term itself serves as a means of keeping people racially divided. You're telling black people they are oppressed, even if they don't believe it themselves, and telling white people that being white gives them some kind of advantage in society, which in my case is ludicrous because I am significantly less successful in society than lots and lots of non-white people. You're basically arguing that my life is more advantageous than all these black people who are better off than me just because I'm white, even though I don't have the same benefits that wealthy black people have like better healthcare, education, legal representation etc.

    Maybe we should stop using the term "white privilege" and start calling it "rich privilege". I've always disliked the term "white privilege" because I am fully aware there are lots of white people in the UK, and in USA, that are very poor, live in shithole neighbourhoods, and are massively disadvantaged in society.

    Economic status is a much more important factor in society than skin colour, certainly in the UK.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #2307
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That historical Persian city of Calais.

    Is the UK the only place in the world where they can avoid persecution? Of course not.
    Again, you don't get to decide where they chose to claim asylum. They do. That's the agreement we signed up to.

    They might have family here, might speak English, etc.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why should people in Iran be able to pick the UK and be allowed in?
    Because those are the rules lol.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What if they picked Australia or Japan?
    I'm sure some of them do.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you think these countries open their borders to all Iranian Christians? Do you think they should?
    They don't threaten to fly them to a third world country afaik.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How many people are persecuted, oppressed, or live in fear of their lives? It's more than the population of the UK, that much I can tell you.
    And?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What if I decided to become a Satan worshipper, and argued that this makes me persecuted in the UK? Now can I pick any country in the world to claim asylum? Should they come and collect me?
    If you can find one that welcomes Satan worshippers, sure. Good luck.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Should they come and collect me?
    If they were happy to take Satan worshippers, they'd probably give you a visa. Maybe they'd even have a Satan worshippers resettlement programme.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You seem to be suggesting that all persecuted people around the world can, if they so choose, arrive in the UK without the UK having any say in the matter whatsoever, and not only that but we should make it easy for them. Clear it up for me. Tell me I'm wrong and that I'm missing something.
    First of all, they don't all want to come to the UK. You need to get over that idea. The three countries who accepted the most refugees since the UN agreement was enacted in the 1950s have been the US, Canada, and Australia. That's because they generally haven't acted like cunts to those people the way we currently do. None of those countries are suffering because of it. It's clear that refugees tend to go on to become productive members of society after being giving a helping hand.

    There's a number of ways the USA, for example, helps refugees get there:
    https://www.unhcr.org/58599d054.pdf

    We, on the other hand, force them to pay criminals to make a dangerous journey in a dinghy. There's no visa option for most countries. Ukraine, yes, Afghanistan, Iran, most other countries, no. No visa means they can't get on regular commerical transport to the UK. The only way they can get here is to swim or take a boat. But if you had your way, taking a boat would be illegal (it's not), so they can't come at all.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  58. #2308
    I thought Brexit was going to keep us out of the goddamned EU imperial Army! Arrgggghhh!!!

    https://twitter.com/BritishArmy/stat...93459251290113
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  59. #2309
    First of all, they don't all want to come to the UK. You need to get over that idea.
    I never suggested they do. But in principle, they can.

    The three countries who accepted the most refugees since the UN agreement was enacted in the 1950s have been the US, Canada, and Australia. That's because they generally haven't acted like cunts to those people the way we currently do.
    How much bigger are these countries compared to the UK? Just curious.

    Anyway, good one, you said "haven't acted like cunts" when talking about Australia with regards to migrants. Comedy gold. They refuse boats too, only the sea around Australia isn't a narrow channel like that between the UK and France. It's open ocean.

    It's clear that refugees tend to go on to become productive members of society after being giving a helping hand.
    For the most part, yes, and that's the same across the world. This isn't the issue. I've never suggested immigration is a bad thing and it shouldn't happen. I've always acknowledged that immigration is a net benefit for host countries. But I've also always been in favour of being selective.

    There's a number of ways the USA, for example, helps refugees get there:
    This is kinda funny too because it wasn't that long ago we were talking about how shitty USA are for putting fences up at the border, and how inhumane they were for separating families.

    We, on the other hand, force them to pay criminals to make a dangerous journey in a dinghy.
    We do not force anyone to do this. People choose to do this. If you're going to abuse the word "force" like this then I'm forced to risk my safety walking to town to attend the jobcentre every two weeks. It's actually a dangerous walk for the first two miles, along an A-road with no path. Of course, I'm not forced into doing this, I could just get a fucking job. But you're being liberal with the word "forced" so fuck it, i'm practically at gunpoint, just like people fleeing France.

    I thought Brexit was going to keep us out of the goddamned EU imperial Army! Arrgggghhh!!!
    How insincere. This has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit, it's a bilateral defence agreement between the UK and France. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being partners with our allies. And, if it ever does become a problem, this isn't something that can't instantly be undone. The British government retain full sovereignty over the UK military. Well, unless USA make demands. We may be their puppet, but we're not France's puppet.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #2310
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I never suggested they do. But in principle, they can.
    Or, they can go to any other signatory of the UN agreement on refugees. So what's your point?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How much bigger are these countries compared to the UK? Just curious.
    Are you suggesting we're "full"? In that case, why did we accept > 1 million visa applicants last year? We also approved 14k asylum claims. or a little over 1% as many as the number of visas.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Anyway, good one, you said "haven't acted like cunts" when talking about Australia with regards to migrants. Comedy gold. They refuse boats too, only the sea around Australia isn't a narrow channel like that between the UK and France. It's open ocean.
    Reductio ad editum. I said "generally haven't acted like cunts." Up until a year or so ago, this was true of AUS as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I've always acknowledged that immigration is a net benefit for host countries. But I've also always been in favour of being selective.
    So, Ukranians fleeing war are ok, but Asians and Africans fleeing war are bad? Because it's only Ukranians who get offered the opportunity to apply for a refugee visa. So the gov'ts criteria seems fairly clear at least.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is kinda funny too because it wasn't that long ago we were talking about how shitty USA are for putting fences up at the border, and how inhumane they were for separating families.
    Why would a refugee need to walk across the Mexican desert when they can walk down the road to San Diego and apply for asylum there? The fences are to keep drug smugglers and illegals out. And they're not working.

    Afaik, the family separation policy was begun by Trump. You seem to again have ignored the word "generally" in front of "act like cunts." Might want to get that reductio ad dyslexium checked out.





    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We do not force anyone to do this. People choose to do this because they have no other way of getting here to claim asylum.
    fyp.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If you're going to abuse the word "force" like this then I'm forced to risk my safety walking to town to attend the jobcentre every two weeks.
    How many years have you been doing this now? Lots of understaffed businesses these days for some inexplicable reason that I'm sure is the EU's fault.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's actually a dangerous walk for the first two miles, along an A-road with no path. Of course, I'm not forced into doing this, I could just get a fucking job. But you're being liberal with the word "forced" so fuck it, i'm practically at gunpoint, just like people fleeing France.

    Reductio ad semantico. Obviously I meant 'forced' in the sense of 'given no other option,' not in the sense of 'made to do so at gunpoint.'




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The British government retain full sovereignty over the UK military. Well, unless USA make demands. We may be their puppet, but we're not France's puppet.
    We weren't the EUs puppet either lol. That's what makes it funny.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  61. #2311
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Or, they can go to any other signatory of the UN agreement on refugees. So what's your point?
    My point is that according to your interpretation of asylum law, there is no mechanism in place to protect a single country such as the UK from being legally obliged to accept the entire population of China, at least in theory. Which is why I'm struggling to accept your interpretation of asylum law. Or at least, that international agreements trump sovereign national laws.

    Are you suggesting we're "full"?
    No, but we're more "full" than Australia, Canada and USA. In fact, our population density is higher than every western nation in the world except Japan, South Korea, Belgium and the Netherlands. When you consider England rather than the UK, that population density increases a lot and probably puts us ahead of those four nations [citation needed].

    So, Ukranians fleeing war are ok, but Asians and Africans fleeing war are bad?
    Reductio ad poopium.

    Asians and Africans fleeing war are welcome here, as far as I'm concerned, provided it's not more than we can cope with, and provided they are not coming here by dingy from France.

    Do we need to do more to make it easier for people to apply for asylum? Clearly. But taxiing people across the channel is not the solution. That just encourages more to make the journey.

    We do not force anyone to do this. People choose to do this because they have no other way of getting here to claim asylum.
    Even if this is accurate it's still a choice. However, earlier in your post you say we accepted a million visa applicants. They didn't all arrive by dingy, did they? That's a million people who found a way that didn't involve risking their life, paying off people traffickers, and disregarding border control of a nation they hope to live in.

    Reductio ad semantico. Obviously I meant 'forced' in the sense of 'given no other option,' not in the sense of 'made to do so at gunpoint.'
    When we're talking about getting on an unseaworthy boat and crossing the channel, then staying in France is a more viable choice than attempting to make that journey. So your use of the word "forced" because they "have no other choice" is completely incorrect. They have the choice to not make the journey, and instead stay where they are safe.

    I'm not forced to make my walk, I do it because I don't want a shitty job. Just like the asylum seeker makes his choice because he doesn't want to live in a shitty country like France.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #2312
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, but we're more "full" than Australia, Canada and USA. In fact, our population density is higher than every western nation in the world except Japan, South Korea, Belgium and the Netherlands. When you consider England rather than the UK, that population density increases a lot and probably puts us ahead of those four nations [citation needed].
    Yet we've taken over 1 m visa migrants last year. Amazing we could squeeze them all in while only accepting 14k refugees.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Asians and Africans fleeing war are welcome here, as far as I'm concerned, provided it's not more than we can cope with, and provided they are not coming here by dingy from France.
    How do you suggest they get here then?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do we need to do more to make it easier for people to apply for asylum? Clearly. But taxiing people across the channel is not the solution. That just encourages more to make the journey.
    We could set up an asylum processing centre in Calais. The French have said they would be ok with that. What's stopping us doing that?

    Or, we could provide them a visa option like we do for Ukrainians.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Even if this is accurate it's still a choice. However, earlier in your post you say we accepted a million visa applicants. They didn't all arrive by dingy, did they? That's a million people who found a way that didn't involve risking their life, paying off people traffickers, and disregarding border control of a nation they hope to live in.
    I guess you missed the part where I've explained repeatedly that there is no visa option for refugees from most countries in Asia or Africa.

    You act as if these people think "Hmm, should I apply for a refugee visa to go to the UK or should I risk my life trying to cross the channel in a dinghy? Let's see, I think I'll take option 2. Oh wait, there's an option 3 where i can live in a refugee camp in France where I don't speak the language and have no prospect of ever becoming a useful member of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great life, I'll do that.

    The reason they're taking option 2 is because we don't allow them option 1, and option 3 is no life at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When we're talking about getting on an unseaworthy boat and crossing the channel, then staying in France is a more viable choice than attempting to make that journey. So your use of the word "forced" because they "have no other choice" is completely incorrect. They have the choice to not make the journey, and instead stay where they are safe.
    Try to think of these people as human beings who want a decent life. Are they supposed to stay in a camp in Calais forever? What if they have family here? What if they don't speak French and have no chance of ever getting a job there? But, they speak English and could work here if they were given a chance.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  63. #2313
    The funniest part of this is how you're trying to blame the refugees for desperately wanting to come here rather than the gov't for not giving them a decent option for getting here.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  64. #2314
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    We could set up an asylum processing centre in Calais. The French have said they would be ok with that. What's stopping us doing that?
    I mean this is common ground. I agree here.

    But you still don't seem to appreciate where I'm coming from when I point out these people are fleeing France. That's the only word I can think to use when we talk about risking your life on a dingy in the English Channel. Fleeing. And they're coming from France.

    Is France really that bad?

    Oh wait, there's an option 3 where i can live in a refugee camp in France where I don't speak the language and have no prospect of ever becoming a useful member of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great life, I'll do that.
    Or option 4 - apply for asylum in France. You talk about the language like the people arriving by boat are all fluent in English. They're not. And you're also for some inexplicable reason making the suggestion that it's better to risk your life than to learn another language. Nobody flees language.

    What if they have family here? What if they don't speak French and have no chance of ever getting a job there? But, they speak English and could work here if they were given a chance.
    If they have family here it's already much easier for them to come to the UK without having to come on a dingy.

    The funniest part of this is how you're trying to blame the refugees for desperately wanting to come here rather than the gov't for not giving them a decent option for getting here.
    I don't blame anyone for wanting to better their life. I'm questioning the motivation of people who are risking their lives to cross the channel. You think it's about language and family, I think it's because we're far too generous to asylum seekers who are here. People want to come here because it's the best quality of life they can reasonably expect, which makes them economic migrants. And you talk about the UK like we're a huge problem when it comes to immigration. These people are fleeing France, and you're talking about the UK like we're the assholes, not France.

    So, is France really that bad? Maybe you should be asking what they should be doing differently.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #2315
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Or option 4 - apply for asylum in France.
    Ikr? Why haven't these people thought of that themselves?

    Right now there's a guy called Le Ong in France asking why they didn't all stay in Germany, and a guy called Der Ong in Germany asking why they didn't all stay in Austria. And a guy in Austria call Ongskar asking why they didn't stay in Croatia.

    Fuck me.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If they have family here it's already much easier for them to come to the UK without having to come on a dingy.
    How so? There's no visa option, so there's no way to inform the authorities you have family here until you actually get here. And you can't get here on a plane or ferry without a visa, we've already established that. So you're only remaining option is to flap your arms or get on a dinghy.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think it's because we're far too generous to asylum seekers who are here.
    We're not exactly the Hotel California the Daily Mail says we are. £40 a week and forbidden to work while application is being processed, so no chance of making more. Most countries in Europe allow refugees to work.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    People want to come here because it's the best quality of life they can reasonably expect, which makes them economic migrants.
    75% of asylum appllcants are approved. By definition then they are refugees, not economic migrants. 25% of them are economic migrants. So you're a quarter correct and three-quarters wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    These people are fleeing France, and you're talking about the UK like we're the assholes, not France.

    So, is France really that bad? Maybe you should be asking what they should be doing differently.
    Why should France take refugees that want to be in the UK? You're back to the "first safe country" argument again. In that case, they should all live in Turkey. Fuck them, it's not our fault they're situated close to Syria, Iraq and Iran.

    And so what, if someone wants to come here because they have family, the French should fly their family over from the UK? Or if it's because they speak English, the French should change their national language to English? What are you even talking about here?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  66. #2316
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Right now there's a guy called Le Ong in France asking why they didn't all stay in Germany
    Yeah, asking what motivates these guys risking their life to cross the French German border.

    Why should France take refugees that want to be in the UK?
    So you think that simply wanting to be here means we are obliged to let them be here? That once Mohammed leaves Iran, once he's ten meters outside the border, he can literally pick his place on a globe and head right for there? Do you really believe this is how migration should happen? Because it does not seem sustainable to me.

    All of Nigeria would prefer to be in the UK than in Nigeria. I'm certainly more than 25% right here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #2317
    There's an urban myth that the entire world's population can fit on the Isle of Wight. I hope that's based on fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #2318
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, asking what motivates these guys risking their life to cross the French German border.
    Wouldn't it be safer and cheaper not to travel further as a refugee at all? I mean, these guys are vulnerable to all kinds of predators. Why would anyone travel across Germany to get to France? How much of a hellhole must Germany be? "Le Arrgggh!"



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So you think that simply wanting to be here means we are obliged to let them be here? That once Mohammed leaves Iran, once he's ten meters outside the border, he can literally pick his place on a globe and head right for there? Do you really believe this is how migration should happen? Because it does not seem sustainable to me.
    That's what the UN convention on refugees says, yes. As I said earlier, the rationale is not to spoil refugees with choices. It's to keep individual countries from becoming overwhelmed when a neighboring country has a humanitarian crisis.

    What about the Ukraine? Refugees from there are settling all over Europe. Are you suggesting that once Vladimov gets to Poland he not be allowed to go any further?

    Are you suggesting instead we pull out of the UN refugee convention? So, out of the EU, out of NATO, and out of the UN. Any other ways we can isolate ourself further from the civilized world? Leave the Commonwealth too? I heard it was created by some imperialist monarch.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    All of Nigeria would prefer to be in the UK than in Nigeria. I'm certainly more than 25% right here.
    Right, and the only thing stopping them from waltzing on in and living large here is Cruella Patel. Otherwise we'd be flooded with Nigerians, just like we were the last time Labour was in power. Oh wait...
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  69. #2319
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Wouldn't it be safer and cheaper not to travel further as a refugee at all? I mean, these guys are vulnerable to all kinds of predators. Why would anyone travel across Germany to get to France? How much of a hellhole must Germany be? "Le Arrgggh!"
    This is called debating in bad faith. Risking twisting your ankle is not the same as risking drowning.

    That's what the UN convention on refugees says, yes.
    Ok, benefit of the doubt. Do you not think this is insane? The idea is apparently to stop one country from being overwhelmed, but if everyone wants to go to just one country, then that country gets overwhelmed. So it's not fit for purpose.

    The problem according to the Guardian, of all sources, is that refugees in Germany and France are not automatically given asylum seeker status.

    They can also work after six months, but our black economy is huge (4x the size of France's) and most asylum seekers can find cash in hand work if they try hard enough, even if it's just selling the Big Issue outside Oxfam.

    But what the Guardian argue is the most appealing part of life in Britain is that nobody has the right to demand to see your papers in the UK, unlike France and Germany, unless the police suspect an individual of committing an offence. So provided you are law abiding, and working in a black economy job is not illegal, then you're safe from official harassment.

    I mean, France are basically blaming the UK for the shitshow in Calais because we're too fucking generous.

    As a French foreign ministry spokesman, Francois Rivasseau, said: "Maybe London should reflect on possible ways to reduce the differences between legislation and practice in the United Kingdom on the one hand, and in continental Europe on the other - differences that make Britain particularly attractive to potential immigrants."
    Basically they're saying "don't be so nice to refugees and they won't want to come to your country".

    But we're the cunts.

    Can't believe I'm actually using the Guardian as a source.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...atch.jonhenley
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #2320
    ^ 20 y/o article, I should probably check that before reading.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #2321
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is called debating in bad faith.
    Unlike all the good faith arguments you've been making...




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Risking twisting your ankle is not the same as risking drowning.
    I'm just not sure what your point is. You question their judgment over risking their lives to get here, as if that's in any way relevant to whether we should make it so they don't have to risk their lives to come here. It's not a good look to blame the people you're trying your hardest not to help for being desperate because you're trying your hardest not to help them.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, benefit of the doubt. Do you not think this is insane? The idea is apparently to stop one country from being overwhelmed, but if everyone wants to go to just one country, then that country gets overwhelmed. So it's not fit for purpose.
    Everyone doesn't want go to the same country.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  72. #2322
    In other news, Brexit is failing because Remainers are defeatist.

    https://twitter.com/nicklucas69/stat...04013988773888

    Is there any universe in which these people will own up to their shit?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  73. #2323
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,810
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Frankly I find the concept of being proud of your skin colour to be somewhat ludicrous. I'm not proud of having brown eyes. I'm not proud of being right handed. I'm not even proud of my city of birth, it's a shithole. I might be proud of the town I currently live in, but that's because it's a nice place to be, not simply because I live here.
    I'm with you 100%, but the reality is that skin color comes from ancestry, and lots of people are proud of their ancestry. Lots of people are proud of their parents, grandparents, and those who made their own life possible.

    Makes no sense to me, but there it is. I see no inherent harm in it. In a perfect world, people can be proud of whatever the hell they want and that's not a threat to anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not proud of being English either. This might confuse those who see me as pro-nationalist, but for me nationalism isn't about being "proud" of your nation or culture, it's about wanting to protect your nation and preserve your culture. I'm proud of nearly every culture in the world, if pride is even the right word. I want all cultures preserved. That's what being a nationalist means to me. Preserving culture and protecting nations, not just mine.
    See what I mean? You want to preserve the shape of the waves in a rolling sea, and you're proud of that.

    Culture isn't static. The culture of the UK today isn't what it was a few years ago, and that not what it was 10 years ago, and that not what it was 20 years ago. You're proud that want to keep this rolling sea locked in place. It doesn't make sense to me, but I see no harm in it.

    People are strange.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This comment effectively assumes all non-white people have daily struggles. You're putting every single non-white person in the same box here. This is what I consider problematic.
    Dude. Come on. I'm your bro.
    I'm not trying to convince you to be racist, FFS.
    I'm not sitting here trying to convey to you a glimmer of the years of research I've done on the realities of racism from a position of "let's do more of that."
    I'm trying to show you the death by a thousand paper cuts that is ever-present in society. If you're not arguing that his is inaccurate, then don't accuse *me* of putting people in boxes.

    I didn't put anyone in any boxes. History has done so. Culture is doing so.

    I'm just becoming less blind to it. I'm bound to say some stupid shit. I'm bound to hold some accidentally racist perspectives, and to accidentally realize something about myself that I wish my culture hadn't snuck in there without my permission. It happens. Please be gentle with me if I make a mistake. I'm learning, and I'm trying to help.

    The notion that there is a non-white person in the world who hasn't run up against dehumanizing racism sounds great to me. The more I pay attention, the more I find that's more of a fantasy than it ever fucking should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There are lots and lots of black people around the world, and in the UK and surely even USA, that do not experience daily struggles. But you seem to be designating these people with the "oppressed" tag because they are not white.
    I'll not entertain the whataboutism in this conversation. If you're trying to change the subject, I'm not taking the bait, and if you don't see it as changing the subject, then please just drop it for now and trust me (your bro) that in time, you will see why.

    I'm talking about the experiences that sparked a protest that people all around the world joined in a single voice to convey a few years ago.

    The BLM protests that erupted around the world were were indicative of immeasurable suffering, and they were by and large peaceful. That's nothing to forget. That's a deep problem, that deserves our respectful attention.

    I'm not tagging people as oppressed.
    I'm saying that to deny those protests reflect truth is beneath a man of your intellectual stature.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Likewise there are white people who do experience daily struggles. Lots and lots of white people are poor and have no idea where their next meal is coming from. The law fucks poor people as well. Why aren't we talking about the historical oppression of poor white people? Or just poor people in general?
    Because that, too is changing the subject.
    We *can* talk about rich privilege as well. It's very real. It's a growing problem.
    It also tends to disproportionately fall on non-white people.

    Rich privilege is, however, something separate from white privilege.
    And you'll get no argument from me that white privilege is shit marketing. I've made it clear that the choice of words is poor. Apt, but poor marketing. I've been painstakingly explaining to you this problem every time I've brought up the phrase. I do so only to point out what it actually means and manifests as, not to assert it's good marketing of those problems it points to.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There is a focus on skin colour and this doesn't help. It means we tend to forget about the white people who struggle, and we give extra attention to the black people who don't struggle.
    What doesn't help is your insistence that there is no value in believing non-white people screaming that they are being mistreated by innumerable cultural norms.
    What doesn't help is that you're picking apart my use of simple language and insisting I jump through a dozen semantic hoops for you to even engage with the point I'm making.
    What doesn't help is that you seem to always have another wall to put up between yourself and an issue that you give lip service to be wanting to eradicate.

    No one in fucking history is forgetting about white people's struggles. History books are full of stories about white people's struggles.
    FFS

    When you're done inventing reasons that modern racism doesn't exist except to troll you, then let me know.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  74. #2324
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,326
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're basically arguing that my life is more advantageous than all these black people who are better off than me just because I'm white, even though I don't have the same benefits that wealthy black people have like better healthcare, education, legal representation etc.
    No, we basically are not. If african elephants are on average 200kg heavier than indian ones, does that mean every random african elephant weighs 200kg more? Right? See how stupid your point is?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Maybe we should stop using the term "white privilege" and start calling it "rich privilege". I've always disliked the term "white privilege" because I am fully aware there are lots of white people in the UK, and in USA, that are very poor, live in shithole neighbourhoods, and are massively disadvantaged in society.

    Economic status is a much more important factor in society than skin colour, certainly in the UK.
    Like mojo said, rich privilege is certainly a thing and definitely worth discussing, but it's a completely separate issue to race privilege. A white poor person is on average doing far better than a poor POC, and the same is true for every income/wealth bracket.

    Like I don't get why such resistance to even entertaining this notion, do you perhaps fear that the cards you were dealt in life shouldn't have stopped you from "succeeding" in life, whatever that means? That you're responsible for your situation, and can't just delegate the blame to external causes? What we are talking about indicates no such thing, just that on average a POC in your exact situation would likely be having an even harder time to be where you're at. We're not saying all POC are shit out of luck and all white people waltz through life from success to success, just that small, often almost invisible things are stacked against POC that largely don't affect white people. The differences are clearly visible on societal level, like with elephants, but not necessarily apparent on individual level.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  75. #2325
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Like mojo said, rich privilege is certainly a thing and definitely worth discussing, but it's a completely separate issue to race privilege.
    I wouldn't say it's completely separate. In fact it just makes the point of white privelege even stronger since whites tend to be richer on average than POC.

    It's also a bad look when white poor people in Western countries who are still richer than > 90% of the world's population say they don't benefit from white privelege. It's like lol dude the world doesn't end at the town limits.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •