2015 Election

[localzuk]

But on this point, it seems fine when the hard left espouses the same views on the hard right but reversed. Hence the new Internet game "Stormfront or SJW" which puts quotes up and asks readers if they are made by members of Stormfront or left-wing bloggers. The results are...frightening.

 

BNP are fascists but they are not particularly far right... I attack them just like I attack the hard right. The right attack the left all the time - I've experienced a significant amount of anti-left rhetoric on other sites and whilst on protests in the past.

Edited May 11, 2015 by localzuk

[LosOjos]

But on this point, it seems fine when the hard left espouses the same views on the hard right but reversed. Hence the new Internet game "Stormfront or SJW" which puts quotes up and asks readers if they are made by members of Stormfront or left-wing bloggers. The results are...frightening.

 

Can we just not go there, please? SJWs are just something else entirely, let's not bring them in to it and muddy the waters further.

 

(A few months ago, I'd have happily identified with SJWs but have since seen that there are just as many nut-jobs in that group as people genuinely trying to help - they're not a good representation of the average leftie IMO)

[Gatt]

Really? Many political views are abhorrent or offensive. Just look at the views of the BNP or National Front. They're political views, should we not discriminate against them, because we do - BNP supporters are fired from many jobs, for example....

 

No we shouldn't be discriminating against ANYONE's political views..

Firing people simply based on their political views is abhorrent

 

However, if someone is actively racist or anti-gay - then that is a different matter! There is no place for people like that

 

With the example of the BNP - they are branded as a racist party (any by all accounts they are) but supporting them and being racist are two different things

 

 

(Again before I get it in the neck: I DO NOT support the BNP, I am NOT racist and I am NOT anti Gay/etc!! - Got that?)

[localzuk]

No we shouldn't be discriminating against ANYONE's political views..

Firing people simply based on their political views is abhorrent

 

However, if someone is actively racist or anti-gay - then that is a different matter! There is no place for people like that

 

With the example of the BNP - they are branded as a racist party (any by all accounts they are) but supporting them and being racist are two different things

 

By definition, if you support the BNP, you support their policies - which are racist. Therefore, you are, by supporting them, racist also. So, not two different things at all.

[Garacesh]

With the example of the BNP - they are branded as a racist party (any by all accounts they are) but supporting them and being racist are two different things

Are they, though?

 

If somebody said, for example (and I'm being extreme for the examples sake) "We as a political party hate single mothers. All single mother and their children will be crucified under our government." I wouldn't support them because I don't agree with that. So when the BNP spout racist policies, to vote for that would have to be to support that, and to support that I would have to agree with it, and to agree with it would make me just as racist as them.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong (and as always, I honestly mean that).. I just can't see how you can support someone without agreeing with their core principles. Maybe a side policy or two, fair enough. I support the majority of what the Green Party are aiming for, but I seriously disagree with their nuclear policy. Would I say I support them? I guess so. But if I disagreed with their core policies, I couldn't say I support them.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Garacesh

[pcstru]

Really? Many political views are abhorrent or offensive. Just look at the views of the BNP or National Front. They're political views, should we not discriminate against them, because we do - BNP supporters are fired from many jobs, for example....

 

Yes, really. See Redfearn v. The United Kingdom. There is a difference between holding a political view and acting on those views in a way that is against the current law.

 

Imagine a cartel of employers turned round and said to their employees - "we will fire you if you aren't a paid up member of the X Party".

[andyturpie]

And this is why I have absolutely no interest in politics - another tool designed to divide and conquer and have the masses bickering at each other.The only two categories should people fall under, decent people and tw4ts.

[Garacesh]

The only two categories should people fall under, decent people and tw4ts.

Peoples' opinion of t:censored:s quite often differs

 

People will always have conflicting opinions and as long as they do, politics will exist, as people will always consider different solutions to a problem (some of which won't even see the problem at all)

[pcstru]

By definition, if you support the BNP, you support their policies - which are racist. Therefore, you are, by supporting them, racist also. So, not two different things at all.

It is against no law to be racist. It is against the law to act on those views, not to hold them. If the BNP were elected by a majority and the law changed, then acting on those views would perhaps not be against the law.

 

I would personally agree that the views of the BNP are abhorrent, but it is views that ARE abhorrent to you and me that are the true test of freedom of speech and freedom of belief and equality, not the nice views which everyone agrees with.

[andyturpie]

subtw4ts?

[Mako]

[Gatt]

It is against no law to be racist. It is against the law to act on those views, not to hold them. If the BNP were elected by a majority and the law changed, then acting on those views would perhaps not be against the law.

 

I would personally agree that the views of the BNP are abhorrent, but it is views that ARE abhorrent to you and me that are the true test of freedom of speech and freedom of belief and equality, not the nice views which everyone agrees with.

 

As always, someone else is able to get across what I was trying to say...

 

Anyway - time to bow out of this thread I think....

[andyturpie]

Peoples' opinion of t:censored:s quite often differs

 

People will always have conflicting opinions and as long as they do, politics will exist, as people will always consider different solutions to a problem (some of which won't even see the problem at all)

 

Ha - Was in the pub on Saturday night and as usual "the urinal small talk with a stranger" starts (why it has to start in the urinal and not by bars I don't know)

 

Him- How are you doing?

Me - Not bad

Him - What team do you follow?

Me - None can't abide anything which is tribal and promotes division.

Him - Really? That's a Scottish accent isn't it?

Me - Yes

Him - You must be happy with the outcome of the general election then?

Me - Not really as I said I really can't abide anything which is tribal and promotes division.

Him - Errr....

Me (Zip!) - See ya

[CAM]

It is against no law to be racist. It is against the law to act on those views, not to hold them. If the BNP were elected by a majority and the law changed, then acting on those views would perhaps not be against the law.

 

I would personally agree that the views of the BNP are abhorrent, but it is views that ARE abhorrent to you and me that are the true test of freedom of speech and freedom of belief and equality, not the nice views which everyone agrees with.

 

Good luck under thought-crime Tory law. Just saying something "offensive" online or looking at the wrong type of "harmless bedroom entertainment" is enough for a prison sentence these days.

 

But BNP membership breaches codes of conduct, especially in local government, to be a member of those parties. People aren't attracted to groups like the BNP for flowers and honey. UKIP on the other hand, whilst some of their MPs acted like complete morons, aren't a racist group and shouldn't attract the same criticism and alarm bells as the BNP (even though councils have tried).

 

Either way, hard-right and hard-left are both reprehensible and politics would be better off without crazy feminist extremists (yes I went there!) and racist borderline-if-not-already-Nazi/fascist groups. They are both damaging to the moral fabric of society.

[LosOjos]

Ha - Was in the pub on Saturday night and as usual "the urinal small talk with a stranger" starts (why it has to start in the urinal and not by bars I don't know)

 

Him- How are you doing?

Me - Not bad

Him - What team do you follow?

Me - None can't abide anything which is tribal and promotes division.

Him - Really? That's a Scottish accent isn't it?

Me - Yes

Him - You must be happy with the outcome of the general election then?

Me - Not really as I said I really can't abide anything which is tribal and promotes division.

Him - Errr....

Me (Zip!) - See ya

 

So you're passive aggressive to people before they have a chance to disagree with you, then?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in to football, I'm not a nationalist, I can't get my head around people getting offended when their home town is ridiculed (you happened to be born there, and that's where your ties end) but a simple "don't follow the football" is less likely to offend and thus start the fight I was avoiding by not aligning with a tribe in the first place - is it not?

[Garacesh]

but a simple "don't follow the football" is less likely to offend and thus start the fight I was avoiding by not aligning with a tribe in the first place - is it not?

Nobodies going to kick off with their winky in their hand.. I hope?? O_O

[andyturpie]

So you're passive aggressive to people before they have a chance to disagree with you, then?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in to football, I'm not a nationalist, I can't get my head around people getting offended when their home town is ridiculed (you happened to be born there, and that's where your ties end) but a simple "don't follow the football" is less likely to offend and thus start the fight I was avoiding by not aligning with a tribe in the first place - is it not?

 

I could be passive aggressive to those who assume that I should belong in a pigeonhole or their perplexity when I tell them I have no desire to conform. lol.

[andyturpie]

Nobodies going to kick off with their winky in their hand.. I hope?? O_O

 

I spend 37.5 hours a week with my winkey in my hand

[sonofsanta]

I am utterly against the BNP and everything they stand for, but it is their right and freedom to stand for it. The measure of our society isn't that we try to shut them down; it's that we let them spout their nonsense and agree, en masse, that they're insane and shouldn't be listened to.

 

A pertinent quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[pcstru]

But BNP membership breaches codes of conduct, especially in local government, to be a member of those parties.

Then they (local government) are acting against European law.

[localzuk]

Then they (local government) are acting against European law.

 

Police have operated this policy for some time also.

[CAM]

Not just the BNP as well, a number of councils operate policies that forbid membership of any party. Politically Restricted Positions.

[sonofsanta]

From the BBC:

 

 

How's that work then? Surely it's his decision what he does with his life, not theirs? (Not that he ever seemed particularly sincere about it, anyway.)

[beancole]

And the Army. (thank god)

[Garacesh]

O.o Good question.

 

"I quit"

"No you don't."

"

"