** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[Ben@Forest]

And I'm not claiming all leave voters are racists,not at all so please don't tar me with that brush,however UKIP is another matter.

I have mentioned this before but the only UKIP voter (in the 2015 GE) who admitted as much to me is a woman who has done more charity work than most of the people on this forum have ever done (I include myself in this and I have volunteered substantially for two charities). Her work has included flying at her own expense to do charity work abroad (racist... really?).

I think the only tar brush that can be used here is that of forum commentators to wield one without thinking.

[meic]

Wind bag isn't far off the mark,and a nasty piece of xenophobic work to boot along with the rest of his fascist party bretheren IMHO

Can I use this as one of the examples Brian Fox requested of people being set upon as racists when talking about immigration.

Meic
Examine the UKIP party leaders,of which there's been many and you'll find I'm right,they are ultra rightwing fascist movement who would have cyclists licenced,numberplated,taxed,insured,and confined to any cyclepath however bad!

And I'm not claiming all leave voters are racists,not at all so please don't tar me with that brush,however UKIP is another matter.

They havent bombed or invaded any foreign countries though, have they?
I seem to recall that on the whole they opposed such sort of activities.

[Mick F]

It's all circular arguments.
I'm a Leave person, someone else will be a Remain person.
We will never agree, so there's no point in debating it.

Four hundred and nine pages now.

[Cugel]

Cugel:
From the other side though, the cultural imposition was invasive, aggressive and seeking to control everything.
Laws were put in put in place on what people could say, the words that they could use and what they should be thinking. This laws often criminalised the existing culture. Compelling obedience even when it contradicted long held beliefs. These compulsory inclusivity rules were also following trends from the USA. Combining the imposition from the USA which you object to, with the imposition from the emerging new UK cultures that your average little Englander apparently doesnt like.

Could you elaborate this post and make things more explicit? I can't follow your argument as I don't know what or who you're referring to as "the other side". Also, what laws are you suggesting criminalise which aspects of an existing culture and in which domain? What are the offending "compulsory inclusivity rules" you have in mind?

Cugel

Ah, I see you have clarified your statements, later in the thread - its the old "free speech" argument.

I feel that you're confusing anti-hate and anti-persecution laws with an attempt to make free thinking illegal. In general, the anti-hate laws are an attempt to stop the sort of intolerance that results in active persecution and harm to people who are not at any fault other than being in the hater's out-group, a handy pariah for hounding by newspapers or similar.

You may feel that people who, for example, are Catholic, black, homosexual, Irish or female should be disenfranchised, persecuted, denied various rights and generally treated badly simply because they fit a crude stereotype. Well .... probably not, eh? Allowing newspaper columnists, politicians, local councillors, employers and any other power groups to conduct such persecution does seem to me to be a generally bad thing - a denial of real freedoms (from actual abuse & persecution) for no good reason.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to harbour our personal dislikes or even hatreds, however irrational or unreasonable. After all, I find myself curling a lip or even snarling at football bores, MAMILs and celebrity-gawpers. I also avoid them socially. This doesn't mean that I think it would be OK to call for their persecution, criminalisation or denial of the rights I myself enjoy.

Do you see the difference?

Would you object if I discovered your own attributes and habits then denigrated them (here and elsewhere in the public domain) in abusive and foul language inclusive of the suggestion that you should be hated and persecuted? That would just be "free speech" after all.

Cugel

[reohn2]

They havent bombed or invaded any foreign countries though, have they?

Not yet.

I seem to recall that on the whole they opposed such sort of activities.

Their lips move don't they?

[reohn2]

And I'm not claiming all leave voters are racists,not at all so please don't tar me with that brush,however UKIP is another matter.

I have mentioned this before but the only UKIP voter (in the 2015 GE) who admitted as much to me is a woman who has done more charity work than most of the people on this forum have ever done (I include myself in this and I have volunteered substantially for two charities). Her work has included flying at her own expense to do charity work abroad (racist... really?).

I think the only tar brush that can be used here is that of forum commentators to wield one without thinking.

You give me one example of a good person and expect me to believe ALL UKIP voters fall into that category.I don't believe they are as don't I believe ALL Tory voters are or ALL Labour voters can categorised similarly.
MY post was of the party not ALL it's supporters,as I'm sure you are aware.

[reohn2]

It's all circular arguments.
I'm a Leave person, someone else will be a Remain person.
We will never agree, so there's no point in debating it.

Four hundred and nine pages now.

It shows how complex and divisive the issue is.

[PDQ Mobile]

And I'm not claiming all leave voters are racists,not at all so please don't tar me with that brush,however UKIP is another matter.

I have mentioned this before but the only UKIP voter (in the 2015 GE) who admitted as much to me is a woman who has done more charity work than most of the people on this forum have ever done (I include myself in this and I have volunteered substantially for two charities). Her work has included flying at her own expense to do charity work abroad (racist... really?).

I think the only tar brush that can be used here is that of forum commentators to wield one without thinking.

At best it's anecdotal and at worst not even relavent.
You don't know how much charity work is done by members of the Forum.

And doing charity work does not in any measure mean that someone is not racist.
People do charity work for many different reasons and those reasons can include "looking after number one". Or just wanting to be a member of some group.

[meic]

Cugel:
The other side is those who fundamentally disagree with your analysis of the situation and those with whom you fundamentally disagree. You would probably only see them as Conservatives, racists, xenophobes etc. Though I can see that you, like myself, dont appear to be singing off any one particular establishment song sheet. So I cant really state who exactly the other side is but if they were not there, you wouldnt be disagreeing with them.

Plenty of laws criminalise existing culture. The way that incitement to hatred, harassment and other equality legislation has been implemented encroaches on the very words and symbols that were in frequent use prior to the acts. They may have been rather nasty but they were the existing culture.
Rather like killing and eating animals is a rather nasty but integral part of our culture (for now at least). That reminds me, the ban on foxhunting.
Specific cases of legally compulsory inclusivity would be Christian bakers forced to make a wedding cake with wording that went against their beliefs, rather than being allowed to decline the job.
Financially compulsory inclusivity would be a requirement on any organisation to meet such conditions in order to receive any public funding.

Then there is the removal of culture by those who are in power to do so, regardless of the likes of the people who partook of it. Love Thy Neighbour, Benny Hill, Black and White minstrels.
Not something nice, for those who saw it as malicious targeting of their race or gender but an aggressive removal of the majority "conservative" culture, by a new "liberal" culture rather than just co-existing with it.
The media attacks are frequent, Clarkson's little rhyme, Morris dancers blacking up, the Guardian can see sexism and racism in anything.
I am sure you think all these restrictions to be fully justified but it created a culture under attack and generated a backlash.

[bovlomov]

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to harbour our personal dislikes or even hatreds, however irrational or unreasonable. After all, I find myself curling a lip or even snarling at football bores, MAMILs and celebrity-gawpers. I also avoid them socially. This doesn't mean that I think it would be OK to call for their persecution, criminalisation or denial of the rights I myself enjoy.

Do you see the difference?

Would you object if I discovered your own attributes and habits then denigrated them (here and elsewhere in the public domain) in abusive and foul language inclusive of the suggestion that you should be hated and persecuted? That would just be "free speech" after all.

May I reply to the question aimed at meic?

I am uncomfortable with the term 'hate crime', and am even more uncomfortable with some of the ways that term is interpreted.

Violence, incitement and harassment already cover much of what we are talking about - so which behaviours are not?

It is an interesting example you give: 'to call for their persecution, criminalisation or denial of the rights I myself enjoy'. It may be disgusting, but I can't think how it could be forbidden. I mean, Brexit is removing rights I myself enjoy from millions of people. I strongly disagree with people who support that (even in these pages), but it seems harsh for them to be criminalised. Calling for persecution? Well, that depends.

In short, I'm not sure that you can criminalise nastiness. And - worse - I have a feeling that in trying to do so the nastiness is amplified. It's best to face up to the nasties.

In any case, it seems nasty people have perfected the art of deniable nastiness - by hiding it in 'humour' (can't you take a joke, you snowflakes?), by using thinly disguised proxy villains (Islam isn't a race you know!) and proxy victims (I can understand why many people would not want to live next to a Romanian - not that I think it myself, you understand).

I'm not saying that I wouldn't call the mods if you were to start denigrating meic's habits.

[Ben@Forest]

And I'm not claiming all leave voters are racists,not at all so please don't tar me with that brush,however UKIP is another matter.

I have mentioned this before but the only UKIP voter (in the 2015 GE) who admitted as much to me is a woman who has done more charity work than most of the people on this forum have ever done (I include myself in this and I have volunteered substantially for two charities). Her work has included flying at her own expense to do charity work abroad (racist... really?).

I think the only tar brush that can be used here is that of forum commentators to wield one without thinking.

You give me one example of a good person and expect me to believe ALL UKIP voters fall into that category.I don't believe they are as don't I believe ALL Tory voters are or ALL Labour voters can categorised similarly.
MY post was of the party not ALL it's supporters,as I'm sure you are aware.

Not sure why the party can be denigrated but those who support the party are somehow different but I agree with all your points. This should mean that from now on no post on this topic should include the suppositions that Leave or UKIP voters are unintelligent, that they do not know that they have been lied to, that they are racist or small-minded, because as we agree this either may or may not be the case for Remain or Labour/Conservative voters who are equally vapid.

So a new era of no judgements, just looking at the issues why people voted the way they did. I'm sure you'll not be saying that you have 'certain personal experiences and reasons for referring to the Tory party as evil and scum,which won't change' as you did on 15th March.

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=120645&start=45

[meic]

I feel that you're confusing anti-hate and anti-persecution laws with an attempt to make free thinking illegal. In general, the anti-hate laws are an attempt to stop the sort of intolerance that results in active persecution and harm to people who are not at any fault other than being in the hater's out-group,

I feel that you are mixing up the theory of the law with how it has been implemented and ignoring the chilling effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Like with political correctness, a laudable idea but subject to manipulation and corruption and often used in a powerplay rather than to perform its intended function.

[roubaixtuesday]

Plenty of laws criminalise existing culture. The way that incitement to hatred, harassment and other equality legislation has been implemented encroaches on the very words and symbols that were in frequent use prior to the acts.

Thanks for the reply Meic.

I'm rather mystified as to what this has to do with suppression of views on Brexit that you claimed. Surely you're not suggesting that leave voters want to legalise homophobia (The Christian bakers example you give). Most such legislation is absolutely nothing to do with the EU; the human rights act puts into UK law the European convention on human rights, a UK conception championed by the famous bleeding heart liberal W. Churchill.

Incidentally, you look at the legal judgements on such cases they are nuanced and attempt to balance the rights of both parties. They are far from the cliché you imply.

I doubt think this is anything to do with a "culture under attack". Working class culture is no more or less intolerant of incomers than middle or upper class. Our recently departed Foreign Secretary and his "picaninnies with watermelon smiles" can, for instance, attest to the tolerance imbued by an Eton education.

It's about demonizing the "other", particularly to take advantage of those in difficulties.

[meic]

I'm rather mystified as to what this has to do with suppression of views on Brexit that you claimed.

Because the common person isnt up to speed on what views are acceptable and which words they are or are not allowed to use at the moment. They know that certain subjects are dangerous and full of booby traps for the uniformed. Or they just refuse to have their vocabulary re-written for them by people who look down on them.
They do however open up down the pub, kindergarten, school gates, hairdressers or with other people who they trust and so the two sides no longer talk to each other, just among themselves.

Here is another facet of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_corridor

"culture of consensus" and that the social cost for presenting an opposing view is too high

[reohn2]

I have mentioned this before but the only UKIP voter (in the 2015 GE) who admitted as much to me is a woman who has done more charity work than most of the people on this forum have ever done (I include myself in this and I have volunteered substantially for two charities). Her work has included flying at her own expense to do charity work abroad (racist... really?).

I think the only tar brush that can be used here is that of forum commentators to wield one without thinking.

You give me one example of a good person and expect me to believe ALL UKIP voters fall into that category.I don't believe they are as don't I believe ALL Tory voters are or ALL Labour voters can categorised similarly.
MY post was of the party not ALL it's supporters,as I'm sure you are aware.

Not sure why the party can be denigrated but those who support the party are somehow different but I agree with all your points.

By supporters I meant those who voted UKIP forgive me if that's not clear.
The party can be denigrated by me because it fundamentally is at odds to the point of disgust with my beliefs and values.

This should mean that from now on no post on this topic should include the suppositions that Leave or UKIP voters are unintelligent, that they do not know that they have been lied to, that they are racist or small-minded, because as we agree this either may or may not be the case for Remain or Labour/Conservative voters who are equally vapid.

Did I claim otherwise?

So a new era of no judgements, just looking at the issues why people voted the way they did.

Those who cast their vote aren't necessarily supporters of any particular party other than at that time,the lesser of evils may indeed be the case for many at any election.

I'm sure you'll not be saying that you have 'certain personal experiences and reasons for referring to the Tory party as evil and scum,which won't change' as you did on 15th March.

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=120645&start=45

I reserve the right from a personal perspective to label the Tory party as "evil and scum" from a lifetime of observance of it.
YVMV mine won't