Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

…I hope you fill this thread with your insults and childish inanities. That level of response is all you have when confronted with facts that are inconvenient.

Poo.

[ALB]

Hrothgar wrote:

In fact, to call this 'reasoning' is an insult to the common toad.

If the cap fits …

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

In fact, to call this 'reasoning' is an insult to the common toad.

If the cap fits …

Golly, how clever of you to decontextualise a statement of mine, and then cut and paste and re-post it to distort its meaning and make it appear the opposite of the original statement.  And how typical too. You know, if you have to resort to insults and distortions, that's the most graceless way of admitting you have lost the argument.

[alanjjohnstone]

When you were in  therapy didn't your counsellor explain to you that some of us untermenschen would not give you the respect your superiority deserves. 

[ALB]

I suppose he thought he could suggest that somebody was a "common toad" without being challenged just as he was when he laughed at people who he said were going to have "mixed race" grandchildren. He was wrong.

[Young Master Smeet]

Hwæt! Hrothgar, hit þencest þu þæt se walesh ne bide landas Angelfolc?  Hit me þinceth þæt þæt bith unrihtnes.  Angelfolc bith walesh to se walesh.As a supposedly so-called "White person" I can categorically state that I do have black skin.  'sTrue.  If you are "White" then there's a strong chance you have too.  They are known in common parlance as freckles, but what they are are patches of melanin in the skin.  All it means is that "White" people simply have less melanin pigmentation than so-called "black" people.  Indeed, I'd propose a terminological re-definition. "Black" people should be known as "Melanin Rich" and "White" as "Melanin poor" (or melanin deficient, even?).  This does tell us something, that skin colour is just a question of degree, not quality.

[DJP]

An interesting twist to the original story. Apparently the font they used on the vans was used without permission and its designer isn't too happy…http://www.designweek.co.uk/news/home-office-accused-of-illegal-font-use-on-illegal-immigrants-campaign/3037179.article

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm always impressed by the writings of Eugene Debs. This article from 1904 is a worthy contribution to this thread http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1904/negronemesis.htm

[alanjjohnstone]

An insightful article on Canada's multi-culturalism. I have visited Toronto twice and found it refreshingly cosmopolitan and tolerant. What i fail to get my head around is the contrast with Australia. Both countries are nations of immigrants, both devastated the local indigenous population but Canada has left behind the racism (although the First Nations still appear to be discriminated against)  while  Australia actively promotes it in with its xenophobic attitudes and policy to Asian immigration. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/2013915111722311111.html

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

When you were in  therapy didn't your counsellor explain to you that some of us untermenschen would not give you the respect your superiority deserves. 

I don't have a therapist and I have never been in therapy.  I have never had the need.However, two interesting points arises from your comment.First, you appear to find it acceptable to make fun of, or use as a means of ridicule, people with psychological problems or mental illness.  I normally wouldn't make anything of it.  I mention it here only because this type of thing is a stock-in-trade of yours. Due to the weakness of your position in this discussion, you and others have resorted to the tactic of assuming vicarious offence.  I encounter this frequently from people who feel very strongly about an issue but don't have any real arguments.  To an extent, it's understandable and we can all be guilty of it to some degree, but a certain type of person – normally with 'left-wing' views of the sanctimonious variety – has to rely on the tactic.  Calling someone a 'racist', 'Nazi', 'fascist', 'woman-hater', or whatever is felt appropriate, helps to distract attention from the substantive weaknesses in the position being argued.  It also helps if there are others with similar views who can post to the same thread to bully the truth-teller – using name-calling, threats, insults, lies, slander and distortion, or whatever will work – so as to prevent or stifle inconvenient discussion.Of course, people who engage in these tactics not only hold absolute faith in their own correctitude (a deluded and dangerous intellectual disposition), but also think themselves to be the righteous defenders of some vaguely humanistic ethos.  That's why it's fascinating to note how you and others here feel unhindered when ridiculing vulnerable people, be it those with special needs or those with mental or psychiatric problems.  This behaviour is at odds with your claim to believe in nice things.  It doesn't bother me, but I would offer the observation that this kind of double standard does typify people like you.  I encounter this frequently when discussing or debating any 'sensitive' topic with the self-righteous.  You are quick to assume offence on behalf of others and you become very angry in the face of even a moderate slight, but at the same time you think it is OK to insult opponents in various nasty ways.Is it because you have modish views and think that makes you exempt from showing good manners?  Whatever the reason, let's be clear – This is the real you.  These are your true colours.What's hilarious about it is that you are completely blind to the double-standard.The second interesting point that comes out of this is how frequently people like you use psychiatric allusions when referring to others who hold different views.  You seem to think that my views warrant a course of therapy.  I think you betray a great deal there and I find it quite sinister.Is this how a socialist society will work?  Will your opponents be confined to psychiatric hospitals?  I know it's become something of a cliché to make reference to the psychiatric detention of dissidents in the former USSR, but it's interesting how that 'solution' keeps being mentioned in all sorts of places and it's not difficult to see how well-intentioned but misguided people in the medical profession were persuaded to become involved in such outrageous political abuses.  The twisted Brezhnev dogma of 'philosophical intoxication' is not a great leap from your belief that political dissent is a condition requiring 'therapy'.May I ask what type of therapy you have in  mind?

[ALB]

Hrothgar wrote:

you go psycho at even a moderate slight

Can that be a demeaning reference to people with psychological problems?

[Hrothgar]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Hwæt! Hrothgar, hit þencest þu þæt se walesh ne bide landas Angelfolc?  Hit me þinceth þæt þæt bith unrihtnes.  Angelfolc bith walesh to se walesh.As a supposedly so-called "White person" I can categorically state that I do have black skin.  'sTrue.  If you are "White" then there's a strong chance you have too.  They are known in common parlance as freckles, but what they are are patches of melanin in the skin.  All it means is that "White" people simply have less melanin pigmentation than so-called "black" people.  Indeed, I'd propose a terminological re-definition. "Black" people should be known as "Melanin Rich" and "White" as "Melanin poor" (or melanin deficient, even?).  This does tell us something, that skin colour is just a question of degree, not quality.

We've already discussed how the race category is not simply a matter of skin colour, so your comment lacks relevancy.  However, I'd like to thank you for posting in support of my argument that there are racial differences.

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

I suppose he thought he could suggest that somebody was a "common toad" without being challenged just as he was when he laughed at people who he said were going to have "mixed race" grandchildren. He was wrong.

Where did I say that someone is a 'common toad'?

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

you go psycho at even a moderate slight

Can that be a demeaning reference to people with psychological problems?

No, because it's a well-known colloquialism.  And do I rely on such comments in making my arguments?  No.  Does the comment imply that the other person has a mental illness?  No.

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

you go psycho at even a moderate slight

Can that be a demeaning reference to people with psychological problems?

Also, isn't it interesting how you again seek to distract attention from the points I have taken the trouble to make.  Rather than looking at the matter even-handedly and perhaps admitting I have a point about your colleague's debating style, you instead try and turn the tables on me.What does that tell other people about you?

[Author]

Posts