ROBBIE ANTI-BEEB GUERILLA
2004-03-01 22:53:20 UTC
MD took the debate off list. I assumed he wanted an end of it but no, he
merely wanted to save his blushes and carry on in private because he got
such a drubbing in public, which I think is rather egotistical to say the
least so this post brings you up to date:
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Beresford" <***@beresfordj.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "Nick Garrett" <***@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: BBC XXX: WELL SAID MEL
noticing that as your arguments faltered your indignation grew I mean are
you really pricked off at being called a Guardian reader when your own
satire of yourself was as a blinkered guardian reader? I have to say I'm
seeing someone here who is a dab hand at satrirical cussing until it comes
round to himself. Which reminds me of Swift: satire being a mirror in which
to see everyone's face but one's own. Or something like that.
I neither feel like i'm losing,
and smug because I disagree with them, I'm calling them lazy and smug
because they *are*. You obviously have speed read all my replies otherwise
you would have seen what I'm saying. You have never deviated from a vague
notion of an argument about 'state intereference' etc. That has been the
extent of your argument. That argument is demonstrably lazy. All the way
through this argument I have widened it with a more careful layin out of my
thoughts whereas you have become more and more hysterical and indignant at
being called a Guardian reader and lazy and smug in your view of
multiculturalism. I stand by my charges. All I can say is now we've had this
spat, you won't be as lazy and smug again. You have finally woken up and
realised that you can be against multiculturalism without being a racist.
The fact that you have only just woken up to this means that before you were
fully in the trite mindset of a trendy lefty: a breed for which-- as someone
who considers himself on the left remember-- I have total contempt for; more
contempt for, in fact, than the tories, who are plainly a reactionary force
and make no bones about it. Like I say, I shall be voting tory until the
left realises that ordinary Labour voters do not want the current ideology.
Ask any composer James: you do not create harmony by indulging dissonance.
The fact that at one point I bothered to read up on the subject
pro-multiculturalist stance you ignored the request and declared you were
bored. You have a right to do that, as an alleged criminal has a right to
remain silent but it tells, it tells...
interesting to me? All that comment is supposed to signify, and again it
shows that rather airy one-upmanship you strive for in your posts, is that
whole thing is just too damn provincial for a high flyer like you. Well,
that sort of evasion don't wash with me fella.
, i'm going fucking mental at work
See above. Is that, as I strongly suspect, a signifying statement of: some
of us have to work mate? Because I work too.
and consequently i've
afterwards to spend hours researching it. However what I
BTW I know and have illustrated your 'floating bullshit'
and
assumptions, I will agree. All dissenters though are in a much more
difficult spot; largely thanks to a consensus formed of people like you.
about the
, which is
being used as a dikat in state and public services is a bad thing, a
divisive thing and a costly thing; it is working hand in hand with people I
regard as dangerous agitators such as Trevor Phillips whos is promoting the
highly sloppy and deeply dangerous pejorative 'racism' as a catch-all
compaint against anyone who stands in his way. You are of the same mindset;
it has worked on you, a reasonably intelligent englishman. Multiculturalism
can never 'work' because human nature is quite different to manifestoes, as
those apostates of Karl Marx found out in the USSR some 50 million corpses
later.
brainwashed with the idea that questioning PC and MC makes you a tory meany
or a skinhead that you'll never go looking for explanations because you're
frightened you'll find something that will drive a coach and horses through
your long-held shibboleths, and will continue to bask in the easy smugness
of the dominant media.
, just a lot of
I didn't want to win it or lose it: I wanted to *debate* it, but you were
not up to the task.
Retail therapy for you I think: may I reccommend the Trojan reggae
compendiums: they really are brilliant.
regards
Garrett
Yet you can't help using language to exacerbate the problem which is quite
obviously pissing me off. I'm sure you're capable of realising where the
line between blunt and offensive lies. Accusing someone of arguing because
of 'ego' - be it true or not - is only going to annoy the other participant.
Which is what you are repeatedly doing, hence my withdrawal from the public
debate, in the hope that anything subsequent would be less filled with
posturing from either side. I also hoped it would go as far as to elicit
some sort of acknowledgement that you were getting on my tits and some sort
of grudging admittal that you'd been a bit excessive. I'm not even asking
for an apology, just some sort of evidence of respect for my intelligence.
Back to the meat and gristle of internet arguing - to wit - the line by line
deconstruction and rebuttal.
caricature of myself as a Guardian reader was done more to poke fun than as
a serious statement of political stance. However you doggedly refused to let
this go once the discussion took a more serious turn and started arguing
against me as if I were a de facto feeble minded Grauniad lefty, which is a
gross and incorrect assumption. It's easy to tar the left with the Guardian
brush, and a pointless one at that - no more constructive than the US Rights
wilful description of their Left as 'liberals' as if it's a filthy word and
a concept worthy only of derision.
The main point being - find out what I think on a subject before attacking
me on it - there were a couple of points (the most recent being the
Croydon/Bradford one) where you just sneered art me for a behaviour that
isn't mine, but fit your caricature of the G reader.
with you?
exactly doesn't mean it's a lazy point of view. Unlike you who is so wise in
the mechanisms of state inteference in this area, I have never dug into it a
great deal largely because I don't care all that much. One assumes that the
CRE and local councils are doing their job reasonably well because racism
appears to be on the decline and integration seems to be improving from the
experiential view I take. People are taking the issue seriously, and racism
is less tolerated than it was when I were a lad. Purely because I don't
define the workings does not make it a lazy standpoint - just a practical
one - it is not apparent to me that there is a problem with the way these
things are functioning, so I don't investigate. I'm not particularly well up
on how the Environment Agency are functioning, nor can I define their
policies because again, to me there is no apparent problem. Am I lazy for
not knowing the inner workings of all government departments, or just the
one you are excited about?
your debating technique. Healthy doses of derision and a complete lack of
reputable sources make you nowt more than a columnist - a morass of opinions
with a wilful need to avoid any hard facts. I've heard opinions, and valid
ones - but nothing that actually indicates that MC is a threat to society.
my 'awakening' as triggered by you is somewhat oversold. I now know what it
is, and don't consider an anti stand racist, however it's in the 'bleedin
obvious' category that most that stand on an anti platform are racists.
There are a few reasoned thinkers in both camps but most people are using it
as a anti-immigration and generally racist lever.
plunge this further deeper into the divides which you so lament, but fail to
teach El Presidente any lessons.
meaningless.
policy based on half a mornings readings, and am not arrogant enough to
think that I can. My impression from the reading I did is simply that people
subscribe to different cultures, even within a nation and to hope they
homogenise or integrate without a bit of a 'push' from somewhere is both
naive and wishful. Cultures left to their own devices will oft come into
conflict - interior conflict is both undesirable and expensive for a nation;
therefore that nation's masters either have to divide (eg: apartheid,
Israels 'security fence') or integrate (eg: abolition of slavery) - the
former not being an overwhelming success. The latter is not perfect but is,
I hope you would agree, a better situation.
interesting to me? All that comment is supposed to signify, and again it
shows that rather airy one-upmanship you strive for in your posts, is that
whole thing is just too damn provincial for a high flyer like you. Well,
that sort of evasion don't wash with me fella.
More abuse.
What it was attempting to point out is not that i'm 'too good' for the
subject, merely that my expertise lies elsewhere. If you were wrong on a
matter of science, I would do you the courtesy of explaining the issue and
giving you a resource to check further - not instantly accuse you of being
'lazy' for not knowing about it.
I lacked patience or time, and when I got home thought more of sitting my
arse in front of the telly and drinking beer that farting about on usenet
and taking streams of abuse.
an essay to be marked. Your particular bullshit is of the threat to the
concept of Britishness by Johnny foreigner and those on the left who embrace
him.
matter until someone can cut through the crap and present some actual
research that indicates an problem other than a perceived one that makes
good headlines.
response to the ill thought out article by the Anti sides equally assumptive
article by Goodhart made him look the reactionary fool he palpably is, no
better that those who slated Morris for his 'Paedogeddon'. Both sides are
talking crap.
Good. We are, for once, in agreement.
at the detriment to the host. However where you and I converge is that I
think some MC is a good thing, you seem to be wholesale against it.
Moderation in all things, one could easily say.
throughout history - wherever it has happened it has been through
suppression and absorbtion by the host. We are living in a new world where
one may come across all manner of strange peoples from day to day where one
hundred years ago many folk would never venture much beyond their home town.
Fear arises out of ignorance, as does racism. MC as I understand it tries to
bridge the gap between homogenisation (a hopeless dream) and cultures
sharply divided within a nation (an undesirable state). I am not surprised
it fails in some areas, it is a new philosophy - however its aims as I
percieve them are both realistic and laudable. Its mechanics I leave to
those who have expertise in the field.
brainwashed with the idea that questioning PC and MC makes you a
tory meany
or a skinhead that you'll never go looking for explanations because you're
frightened you'll find something that will drive a coach and
horses through
your long-held shibboleths, and will continue to bask in the easy smugness
of the dominant media.
The smugness of the domninant media is at the whims of Murdoch, and seem
bent on whipping up fear and hatred.
I could hardly have been afraid of questioning MC as I only discovered it's
meaning a week or so ago, and PC has its successes and failures. I am
patient enough to let these things smooth themselves out, as inevitably they
will. Actors such as yourself will diminish the extremes of PC, and those
who stand to benefit (either directly or from altruism) from it will support
it so that its better elements survive.
how does that make me lazy? Should I take up a PhD to satisfy you? No. I am
no amateur at dissecting sociological research, indeed I treat it with far
more sceptcism as i'm trained to spot the bias and assumptions.
I didn't want to win it or lose it: I wanted to *debate* it, but you were
not up to the task.
No, I wasn't. I had better things to do than be abused. You could have taken
the chance to be enlightening and informative, but in your own smugness
decided to tell me what was right and denigrate my fledgling views. A real
vote winner.
that non-white british ethnic minorty but equally valid as any white british
produced music. Innit.
You lay off the abuse; and i'll happily debate. Leave it out of UCAW, tis
not the place, though.
James
to which i replied:
Do you know that every time you reply you say the same thing? That you
never, ever move from the spot of 'OH I AM *SO* INSULTED' to 'bring me
scientific evidence that MC is wrong'. All your protestations of abuse are
hollow: a muscular approach to debating is the norm in usenet and you bloody
know it. You took it off-list to protect your ego. Your 'rebuttals' are
ridiculous but here we go
off
obviously pissing me off.
I can't help that you're too dim to understand my arguments can I?
I'm sure you're capable of realising where the
progressed you performed a curious volte face: suddenly you needed respect
paid to you and you got very exercised about about 'abuse'; this was
transparently your way of trying to obfuscate as taking the argument
off-list was a way of obfuscating. It's all been obfuscation ever since that
moment when you knew you were out of your depth: the indignation and the
repetition of meaningless waffle. You made a cunt of yourself, to use my
horrid common language, in front of the newsgroup and that was why, in the
end, you were prepared to appear to let me get the last word so you could
take it out of public view. For my part I decided to argue the point to the
bitter end because you initiated the 'abuse'; you called me 'weirdo' because
I didn't like MC as a state project. You started it. I've got a bloody good
mind to put all this on the newsgroup.
Accusing someone of arguing because
But you know full well you've argued out of ego all the way; you argued when
you didn't, on your own admission, know what you were talking about. That's
ego.
just get deeper into the mire.
. I also hoped it would go as far as to elicit
bloody well didn't like it. Like I give two fucks if your upset because I
call you something YOU HAVE ALREADY CALLED YOURSELF. Grow up.
and some sort
a pejorative usually reserved for the mentally ill, all because I asserted
that i'd had enough of Blair and MC. I regard that as excessive.
I'm not even asking
enough to read broadsheets and do a job, which isn't saying much. What do
you want? A jim'll fix it badge? LOL
are
comes
It is still satire and in satire lies truth.
, and my original
then, just a few days ago, you thought you could get away with being
flippant and smug. In the intervening time you've been backpeddling so much
your fingers must ache. But no matter, you advertised yourself as a smug
always-right Guardian reader. So fuck sake leave off being offending at
being described at one when every thing you write advertisers you *as* one.
Can you really be this dunderheaded?
However you doggedly refused to let
. It's easy to tar the left with the Guardian
dolt here or pillock as you do to me but you've got all weepy in the corner
of the playground, so I won't.)
and a pointless one at that - no more constructive than the US Rights
root here-- have made the world liberal disgusting by their own stupid
shibboleths.
and
about white middle class liberals; I have boundless contempt for their
jejune attitude to other cultures and their hostile attitude to their own.
You are a splendid example of the in-the-street version.
never have called Bradford a shithole but you would willingly call Croydon
one. I stand by it. YOU KNOW IT JAMES. It's a common hypocrisy of people
your age with your political outlook.
with
lazy
All I can say is that arguments that are borne out of personal experience
delivered clearly go a lot further than flippant and vague notions of
governmental altruism from someone who admist they are in favour of
something they nothing about *and* calling people weirdos for not agreeing
with the thing they know nothing about. Now *that* is what I call smug;
stupid too.
Would be the ones that agree
exactly doesn't mean it's a lazy point of view
Define it then. Please be very explicit here.
. Unlike you who is so wise in
argue. Why did you argue if you didn't care.
One assumes that the
country in different ways. The CRE are hurling the word racist around quite
carelessly. Trevor Phillips is clearly an agitator. Local councils are
wasting tons of cash on MC and the CRE is promoting a landscape of debate
that equestes criticism of MC as 'racism'. This is enormously important. For
you to unaware of it says a great deal.
and integration seems to be improving from the
. People are taking the issue seriously, and racism
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1019774,00.html
. Purely because I don't
much is appearing all around us in the dominant media that you would need to
have your head up your arse to not notice a heavy pro MC agenda in public
services and BBC. The abuses of it are plain to see.
I'm not particularly well up
on
. Healthy doses of derision and a complete lack of
out clause: 'bring me some paper signed by an Oxford Professor of Maths that
MC doesn't work and I'll pipe down. Down be stupid- debating doesn't work
like that.
make you nowt more than a columnist - a morass of opinions
classes. It is not liked by the majority of people-- the silent majority who
pay for all those jobseeker's alowance forms in gujurati, hindi, urdu,
kosovan, albanian etc-- do not like it and do not except that these cultures
should have equal relevance in british society to, say, the C of E and so
on. MC says they should. In Burnley and similar places the BNP are getting
popular- people are going from Labour to fascism- that is a wake up call for
the Left. Are they listening? No they are not because they are pedagogic and
wealthy with an overweening hostility to their own country. 'Celebrating
diversity' is promoting dissonance and will result in disharmony. England is
still here you see and though Trevor Phillips and all the other quasi
marxist theorists think that if they keep this up for say 20 years they'll
be able to kill it off but they won't. At the moment all public money is
spent trying to show harmony whilst promoting difference: only the wealthy,
the smug and the lazy fail to see through this to the enormous resentment
and offense caused by state MC. When people came here and decided to behave
as the indigenous English behaved, at least in their public endevours, their
wasn't too much of a problem. When you start catering to immigrants,
rewarding them for their ignorance and laziness, well, then you have problem
s. My ancestry here only goes back to the 1870s (from Italy on one side and
eastern european jewry on the other-- so leave off calling me a fascist
yeah?) but they came here to be English not to refuse to integrate, or two
take money out of the country and most certainly not as benefit tourists.
. I've heard opinions, and valid
unicultural; that is the underpinning of an ordery society. The kind of
multiculturalism envisaged by the liberal elite isn't about coloured saris
in Brick Lane its about relativism: makingour culture, our advanced culture
that thought of the noble welfare state on an equal footing with some very
backward ones.This is wrong. A muticultural society is a weak and divided
society; a society with no culture because controls have to be implemented;
hence christmans carols being banned in some schools for fear of offense;
'Asian' style lavatories; black teachers meetings which legally exclude
white teachers; 'black writing' sections in bookshops; the vast ethnic
broadcasting system inplemented by the the non-public accountable BBC whom
you finance on pain of arrest. None of it looks like a country that is
integrating. It looks like a country dividing.
racist.
shut up and take it like a man that you shot your mouth off?
, so
problem so it can be estimated properly without the smokecreen of public
money. I call for the severe wing clipping of the BBC and savage cuts in
public spending.
, but fail to
dissonance.
The analogy is
unsurprisingly,
pro-multiculturalist stance you ignored the request and declared you
were
to
I'm not. I'm telling you something and you don't fucking like it because
you're used to mouthing off vageries and getting away with them and this
time you've been caught and you're fuming.
. I would hardly expect anyone to form a
. My impression from the reading I did is simply that people
is both
- interior conflict is both undesirable and expensive for a nation;
you on boy?
- the
that
'airy one-upmanship; is more description that abuse my sensitive flower.
you taking a nannyish, then flippant tone.
You started using the abuse before me. Check back.
And 'Be very explicit here please'? I'm not writing
Your particular bullshit is of the threat to the
matter until someone can cut through the crap and present some actual
research that indicates an problem
see above.
other than a perceived one that makes
. However where you and I converge is that I
able.
, you seem to be wholesale against it.
corpses
Huh?
will never work either, and has never done
- wherever it has happened it has been through
What the fuck has all this got to do with state MC?
. I am not surprised
were losing. You have the BIGGEST EGO Beresford! Seeya there. Bring a spade
for trench digging and some sensible boots.
regards
Garrett
merely wanted to save his blushes and carry on in private because he got
such a drubbing in public, which I think is rather egotistical to say the
least so this post brings you up to date:
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Beresford" <***@beresfordj.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "Nick Garrett" <***@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: BBC XXX: WELL SAID MEL
For fuck's sake, Nick, is it really that hard to realise i'm pissed off
with*you* for acting like a prick towards *me*? I neither feel like i'm
losing,or winning anything. I just find that every time I say anything, it's
automatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees with
your views. The fact that at one point I bothered to read up on the
subjectautomatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees with
your views. The fact that at one point I bothered to read up on the
because of the gaps in my knowledge seems to be of no relevance, i'm
somehowstill lazy for drawing different conclusions to you. So, unsurprisingly,
that pisses me off.
It's not a topic i've got a huge interest in (I prefer global politics and
science/technology), i'm going fucking mental at work and consequently
i'vethat pisses me off.
It's not a topic i've got a huge interest in (I prefer global politics and
science/technology), i'm going fucking mental at work and consequently
been too knackered afterwards to spend hours researching it. However what
Ihave seen is that there's a lot of bullshit floating on both sides and
neither of them can either present any research to indicate one way or the
other who is on the right side. Both make gross assumptions about the
increased division of society either attributing it to multiculturalism or
Thatcherite influences driving society towards that of the individual, and
assuming at one point we were all one big happy family, which is
questionable as whatever cohesion did arise in living memory is down to
wartime/post wartime national pride & fear.
"I have argued what I truly feel"
I'm not swayed by one man's emotions or righteuos indignation. I can't see
anyone out there who has any idea of what the truth is, just a lot of
opinions backed up by the findings of irrelevant studies.
I don't think I can either win, or lose, this debate any more than you
can.neither of them can either present any research to indicate one way or the
other who is on the right side. Both make gross assumptions about the
increased division of society either attributing it to multiculturalism or
Thatcherite influences driving society towards that of the individual, and
assuming at one point we were all one big happy family, which is
questionable as whatever cohesion did arise in living memory is down to
wartime/post wartime national pride & fear.
"I have argued what I truly feel"
I'm not swayed by one man's emotions or righteuos indignation. I can't see
anyone out there who has any idea of what the truth is, just a lot of
opinions backed up by the findings of irrelevant studies.
I don't think I can either win, or lose, this debate any more than you
James
For fuck's sake, Nick, is it really that hard to realise i'm pissed off
withFor fuck's sake, Nick, is it really that hard to realise i'm pissed off
*you* for acting like a prick towards *me*?
I know that and I think you're exhibiting a huge ego over it: I can't helpnoticing that as your arguments faltered your indignation grew I mean are
you really pricked off at being called a Guardian reader when your own
satire of yourself was as a blinkered guardian reader? I have to say I'm
seeing someone here who is a dab hand at satrirical cussing until it comes
round to himself. Which reminds me of Swift: satire being a mirror in which
to see everyone's face but one's own. Or something like that.
I neither feel like i'm losing,
or winning anything. I just find that every time I say anything, it's
automatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees with
your views.
You see this is what I find very worrying: I'm not calling your views lazyautomatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees with
your views.
and smug because I disagree with them, I'm calling them lazy and smug
because they *are*. You obviously have speed read all my replies otherwise
you would have seen what I'm saying. You have never deviated from a vague
notion of an argument about 'state intereference' etc. That has been the
extent of your argument. That argument is demonstrably lazy. All the way
through this argument I have widened it with a more careful layin out of my
thoughts whereas you have become more and more hysterical and indignant at
being called a Guardian reader and lazy and smug in your view of
multiculturalism. I stand by my charges. All I can say is now we've had this
spat, you won't be as lazy and smug again. You have finally woken up and
realised that you can be against multiculturalism without being a racist.
The fact that you have only just woken up to this means that before you were
fully in the trite mindset of a trendy lefty: a breed for which-- as someone
who considers himself on the left remember-- I have total contempt for; more
contempt for, in fact, than the tories, who are plainly a reactionary force
and make no bones about it. Like I say, I shall be voting tory until the
left realises that ordinary Labour voters do not want the current ideology.
Ask any composer James: you do not create harmony by indulging dissonance.
The fact that at one point I bothered to read up on the subject
because of the gaps in my knowledge seems to be of no relevance, i'm
somehowstill lazy for drawing different conclusions to you. So, unsurprisingly,
that pisses me off.
But you came to no conclusions. When I asked you to be explicit in yourthat pisses me off.
pro-multiculturalist stance you ignored the request and declared you were
bored. You have a right to do that, as an alleged criminal has a right to
remain silent but it tells, it tells...
It's not a topic i've got a huge interest in (I prefer global politics and
science/technology)
What does that prove or mean? How do you know those subjects are not morescience/technology)
interesting to me? All that comment is supposed to signify, and again it
shows that rather airy one-upmanship you strive for in your posts, is that
whole thing is just too damn provincial for a high flyer like you. Well,
that sort of evasion don't wash with me fella.
, i'm going fucking mental at work
See above. Is that, as I strongly suspect, a signifying statement of: some
of us have to work mate? Because I work too.
and consequently i've
been too knackered
Excuse or reason, as an old welsh cunt of a guvnor used to say to me.afterwards to spend hours researching it. However what I
have seen is that there's a lot of bullshit floating on both sides
What's my ' floating bullshit'? Be very explicit here please.BTW I know and have illustrated your 'floating bullshit'
and
neither of them can either present any research to indicate one way or the
other who is on the right side. Both make gross assumptions
It is becoming increasingly legal for the multic side to make grossother who is on the right side. Both make gross assumptions
assumptions, I will agree. All dissenters though are in a much more
difficult spot; largely thanks to a consensus formed of people like you.
about the
increased division of society either attributing it to multiculturalism or
Thatcherite influences driving society towards that of the individual, and
assuming at one point we were all one big happy family
I don't think that.Thatcherite influences driving society towards that of the individual, and
assuming at one point we were all one big happy family
, which is
questionable as whatever cohesion did arise in living memory is down to
wartime/post wartime national pride & fear.
Nobody seems to know the truth
Well you see I have laid out my arguments. I think multiculturalism which iswartime/post wartime national pride & fear.
Nobody seems to know the truth
being used as a dikat in state and public services is a bad thing, a
divisive thing and a costly thing; it is working hand in hand with people I
regard as dangerous agitators such as Trevor Phillips whos is promoting the
highly sloppy and deeply dangerous pejorative 'racism' as a catch-all
compaint against anyone who stands in his way. You are of the same mindset;
it has worked on you, a reasonably intelligent englishman. Multiculturalism
can never 'work' because human nature is quite different to manifestoes, as
those apostates of Karl Marx found out in the USSR some 50 million corpses
later.
"I have argued what I truly feel"
I'm not swayed by one man's emotions or righteuos indignation. I can't see
anyone out there who has any idea of what the truth is
Of course you can't because you're not really interested. You're soI'm not swayed by one man's emotions or righteuos indignation. I can't see
anyone out there who has any idea of what the truth is
brainwashed with the idea that questioning PC and MC makes you a tory meany
or a skinhead that you'll never go looking for explanations because you're
frightened you'll find something that will drive a coach and horses through
your long-held shibboleths, and will continue to bask in the easy smugness
of the dominant media.
, just a lot of
opinions backed up by the findings of irrelevant studies.
lazy lazy lazy lazy.I don't think I can either win, or lose, this debate any more than you
can.I didn't want to win it or lose it: I wanted to *debate* it, but you were
not up to the task.
Retail therapy for you I think: may I reccommend the Trojan reggae
compendiums: they really are brilliant.
regards
Garrett
For fuck's sake, Nick, is it really that hard to realise i'm pissed off
with*you* for acting like a prick towards *me*?
I know that and I think you're exhibiting a huge ego over itobviously pissing me off. I'm sure you're capable of realising where the
line between blunt and offensive lies. Accusing someone of arguing because
of 'ego' - be it true or not - is only going to annoy the other participant.
Which is what you are repeatedly doing, hence my withdrawal from the public
debate, in the hope that anything subsequent would be less filled with
posturing from either side. I also hoped it would go as far as to elicit
some sort of acknowledgement that you were getting on my tits and some sort
of grudging admittal that you'd been a bit excessive. I'm not even asking
for an apology, just some sort of evidence of respect for my intelligence.
Back to the meat and gristle of internet arguing - to wit - the line by line
deconstruction and rebuttal.
: I can't help
noticing that as your arguments faltered your indignation grew I mean are
you really pricked off at being called a Guardian reader when your own
satire of yourself was as a blinkered guardian reader? I have to say I'm
seeing someone here who is a dab hand at satrirical cussing until it comes
round to himself. Which reminds me of Swift: satire being a
mirror in which
to see everyone's face but one's own. Or something like that.
When one satires one's self it is self deprecating, and my originalnoticing that as your arguments faltered your indignation grew I mean are
you really pricked off at being called a Guardian reader when your own
satire of yourself was as a blinkered guardian reader? I have to say I'm
seeing someone here who is a dab hand at satrirical cussing until it comes
round to himself. Which reminds me of Swift: satire being a
mirror in which
to see everyone's face but one's own. Or something like that.
caricature of myself as a Guardian reader was done more to poke fun than as
a serious statement of political stance. However you doggedly refused to let
this go once the discussion took a more serious turn and started arguing
against me as if I were a de facto feeble minded Grauniad lefty, which is a
gross and incorrect assumption. It's easy to tar the left with the Guardian
brush, and a pointless one at that - no more constructive than the US Rights
wilful description of their Left as 'liberals' as if it's a filthy word and
a concept worthy only of derision.
The main point being - find out what I think on a subject before attacking
me on it - there were a couple of points (the most recent being the
Croydon/Bradford one) where you just sneered art me for a behaviour that
isn't mine, but fit your caricature of the G reader.
I neither feel like i'm losing,
and smug because I disagree with them, I'm calling them lazy and smug
because they *are*.
And what point of view isn't lazy, or smug? Would be the ones that agreeor winning anything. I just find that every time I say anything, it's
automatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees with
your views.
You see this is what I find very worrying: I'm not calling your views lazyautomatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees with
your views.
and smug because I disagree with them, I'm calling them lazy and smug
because they *are*.
with you?
You obviously have speed read all my replies otherwise
you would have seen what I'm saying. You have never deviated from a vague
notion of an argument about 'state intereference' etc. That has been the
extent of your argument. That argument is demonstrably lazy.
State interference is a loose concept, purely because I haven't defined ityou would have seen what I'm saying. You have never deviated from a vague
notion of an argument about 'state intereference' etc. That has been the
extent of your argument. That argument is demonstrably lazy.
exactly doesn't mean it's a lazy point of view. Unlike you who is so wise in
the mechanisms of state inteference in this area, I have never dug into it a
great deal largely because I don't care all that much. One assumes that the
CRE and local councils are doing their job reasonably well because racism
appears to be on the decline and integration seems to be improving from the
experiential view I take. People are taking the issue seriously, and racism
is less tolerated than it was when I were a lad. Purely because I don't
define the workings does not make it a lazy standpoint - just a practical
one - it is not apparent to me that there is a problem with the way these
things are functioning, so I don't investigate. I'm not particularly well up
on how the Environment Agency are functioning, nor can I define their
policies because again, to me there is no apparent problem. Am I lazy for
not knowing the inner workings of all government departments, or just the
one you are excited about?
All the way
through this argument I have widened it with a more careful layin
out of my
thoughts whereas you have become more and more hysterical and indignant at
being called a Guardian reader and lazy and smug in your view of
multiculturalism. I stand by my charges.
If that's your idea of careful laying out of thoughts, you need some work onthrough this argument I have widened it with a more careful layin
out of my
thoughts whereas you have become more and more hysterical and indignant at
being called a Guardian reader and lazy and smug in your view of
multiculturalism. I stand by my charges.
your debating technique. Healthy doses of derision and a complete lack of
reputable sources make you nowt more than a columnist - a morass of opinions
with a wilful need to avoid any hard facts. I've heard opinions, and valid
ones - but nothing that actually indicates that MC is a threat to society.
All I can say is now
we've had this
spat, you won't be as lazy and smug again. You have finally woken up and
realised that you can be against multiculturalism without being a racist.
To be honest, until you started on about it, I had no idea what MC was, sowe've had this
spat, you won't be as lazy and smug again. You have finally woken up and
realised that you can be against multiculturalism without being a racist.
my 'awakening' as triggered by you is somewhat oversold. I now know what it
is, and don't consider an anti stand racist, however it's in the 'bleedin
obvious' category that most that stand on an anti platform are racists.
There are a few reasoned thinkers in both camps but most people are using it
as a anti-immigration and generally racist lever.
Like I say, I shall be voting tory until the
left realises that ordinary Labour voters do not want the current
ideology.
I would rather you abstained, or voted MRLP - a victory for Howard wouldleft realises that ordinary Labour voters do not want the current
ideology.
plunge this further deeper into the divides which you so lament, but fail to
teach El Presidente any lessons.
Ask any composer James: you do not create harmony by indulging dissonance.
Ask any magnetic field theory expert - opposites attract. The analogy ismeaningless.
The fact that at one point I bothered to read up on the subject
pro-multiculturalist stance you ignored the request and declared you were
bored. You have a right to do that, as an alleged criminal has a right to
remain silent but it tells, it tells...
Stop being so fucking sactimonious. I would hardly expect anyone to form abecause of the gaps in my knowledge seems to be of no relevance, i'm
somehowstill lazy for drawing different conclusions to you. So, unsurprisingly,
that pisses me off.
But you came to no conclusions. When I asked you to be explicit in yourthat pisses me off.
pro-multiculturalist stance you ignored the request and declared you were
bored. You have a right to do that, as an alleged criminal has a right to
remain silent but it tells, it tells...
policy based on half a mornings readings, and am not arrogant enough to
think that I can. My impression from the reading I did is simply that people
subscribe to different cultures, even within a nation and to hope they
homogenise or integrate without a bit of a 'push' from somewhere is both
naive and wishful. Cultures left to their own devices will oft come into
conflict - interior conflict is both undesirable and expensive for a nation;
therefore that nation's masters either have to divide (eg: apartheid,
Israels 'security fence') or integrate (eg: abolition of slavery) - the
former not being an overwhelming success. The latter is not perfect but is,
I hope you would agree, a better situation.
It's not a topic i've got a huge interest in (I prefer global
politics andscience/technology)
What does that prove or mean? How do you know those subjects are not moreinteresting to me? All that comment is supposed to signify, and again it
shows that rather airy one-upmanship you strive for in your posts, is that
whole thing is just too damn provincial for a high flyer like you. Well,
that sort of evasion don't wash with me fella.
What it was attempting to point out is not that i'm 'too good' for the
subject, merely that my expertise lies elsewhere. If you were wrong on a
matter of science, I would do you the courtesy of explaining the issue and
giving you a resource to check further - not instantly accuse you of being
'lazy' for not knowing about it.
, i'm going fucking mental at work
See above. Is that, as I strongly suspect, a signifying statement of: some
of us have to work mate? Because I work too.
It's the busiest time of year for me, last week the most heinous of all - soSee above. Is that, as I strongly suspect, a signifying statement of: some
of us have to work mate? Because I work too.
I lacked patience or time, and when I got home thought more of sitting my
arse in front of the telly and drinking beer that farting about on usenet
and taking streams of abuse.
and consequently i've
You're no less of a cunt for repeating it. ;)been too knackered
Excuse or reason, as an old welsh cunt of a guvnor used to say to me.afterwards to spend hours researching it. However what I
I've not picked on you. And 'Be very explicit here please'? I'm not writinghave seen is that there's a lot of bullshit floating on both sides
What's my ' floating bullshit'? Be very explicit here please.an essay to be marked. Your particular bullshit is of the threat to the
concept of Britishness by Johnny foreigner and those on the left who embrace
him.
BTW I know and have illustrated your 'floating bullshit'
Like I said, both sides. I'm not taking a particularly firm view on thismatter until someone can cut through the crap and present some actual
research that indicates an problem other than a perceived one that makes
good headlines.
It is becoming increasingly legal for the multic side to make gross
assumptions, I will agree. All dissenters though are in a much more
difficult spot; largely thanks to a consensus formed of people like you.
Both sides are making gross assumptions - your loathed Trevor Philips, whoseassumptions, I will agree. All dissenters though are in a much more
difficult spot; largely thanks to a consensus formed of people like you.
response to the ill thought out article by the Anti sides equally assumptive
article by Goodhart made him look the reactionary fool he palpably is, no
better that those who slated Morris for his 'Paedogeddon'. Both sides are
talking crap.
assuming at one point we were all one big happy family
I don't think that.Well you see I have laid out my arguments. I think
multiculturalism which is
being used as a dikat in state and public services is a bad thing, a
divisive thing and a costly thing; it is working hand in hand
with people I
regard as dangerous agitators such as Trevor Phillips whos is
promoting the
highly sloppy and deeply dangerous pejorative 'racism' as a catch-all
compaint against anyone who stands in his way. You are of the
same mindset;
it has worked on you, a reasonably intelligent englishman.
To a certain extent I agree, and too much emphasis on other cultures comesmulticulturalism which is
being used as a dikat in state and public services is a bad thing, a
divisive thing and a costly thing; it is working hand in hand
with people I
regard as dangerous agitators such as Trevor Phillips whos is
promoting the
highly sloppy and deeply dangerous pejorative 'racism' as a catch-all
compaint against anyone who stands in his way. You are of the
same mindset;
it has worked on you, a reasonably intelligent englishman.
at the detriment to the host. However where you and I converge is that I
think some MC is a good thing, you seem to be wholesale against it.
Moderation in all things, one could easily say.
Multiculturalism
can never 'work' because human nature is quite different to
manifestoes, as
those apostates of Karl Marx found out in the USSR some 50 million corpses
later.
But patient integration will never work either, and has never donecan never 'work' because human nature is quite different to
manifestoes, as
those apostates of Karl Marx found out in the USSR some 50 million corpses
later.
throughout history - wherever it has happened it has been through
suppression and absorbtion by the host. We are living in a new world where
one may come across all manner of strange peoples from day to day where one
hundred years ago many folk would never venture much beyond their home town.
Fear arises out of ignorance, as does racism. MC as I understand it tries to
bridge the gap between homogenisation (a hopeless dream) and cultures
sharply divided within a nation (an undesirable state). I am not surprised
it fails in some areas, it is a new philosophy - however its aims as I
percieve them are both realistic and laudable. Its mechanics I leave to
those who have expertise in the field.
"I have argued what I truly feel"
I'm not swayed by one man's emotions or righteuos indignation.
I can't seeI'm not swayed by one man's emotions or righteuos indignation.
anyone out there who has any idea of what the truth is
Of course you can't because you're not really interested. You're sobrainwashed with the idea that questioning PC and MC makes you a
tory meany
or a skinhead that you'll never go looking for explanations because you're
frightened you'll find something that will drive a coach and
horses through
your long-held shibboleths, and will continue to bask in the easy smugness
of the dominant media.
bent on whipping up fear and hatred.
I could hardly have been afraid of questioning MC as I only discovered it's
meaning a week or so ago, and PC has its successes and failures. I am
patient enough to let these things smooth themselves out, as inevitably they
will. Actors such as yourself will diminish the extremes of PC, and those
who stand to benefit (either directly or from altruism) from it will support
it so that its better elements survive.
, just a lot of
Nick, grow up. If the research is absent or fails to draw any conclusions,opinions backed up by the findings of irrelevant studies.
lazy lazy lazy lazy.how does that make me lazy? Should I take up a PhD to satisfy you? No. I am
no amateur at dissecting sociological research, indeed I treat it with far
more sceptcism as i'm trained to spot the bias and assumptions.
I don't think I can either win, or lose, this debate any more than you
can.I didn't want to win it or lose it: I wanted to *debate* it, but you were
not up to the task.
the chance to be enlightening and informative, but in your own smugness
decided to tell me what was right and denigrate my fledgling views. A real
vote winner.
Retail therapy for you I think: may I reccommend the Trojan reggae
compendiums: they really are brilliant.
I'll pass, Reggae never was my thing. Prefer trance, i'm too white for allcompendiums: they really are brilliant.
that non-white british ethnic minorty but equally valid as any white british
produced music. Innit.
You lay off the abuse; and i'll happily debate. Leave it out of UCAW, tis
not the place, though.
James
to which i replied:
Do you know that every time you reply you say the same thing? That you
never, ever move from the spot of 'OH I AM *SO* INSULTED' to 'bring me
scientific evidence that MC is wrong'. All your protestations of abuse are
hollow: a muscular approach to debating is the norm in usenet and you bloody
know it. You took it off-list to protect your ego. Your 'rebuttals' are
ridiculous but here we go
For fuck's sake, Nick, is it really that hard to realise i'm pissed
with
Yet you can't help using language to exacerbate the problem which is quite*you* for acting like a prick towards *me*?
I know that and I think you're exhibiting a huge ego over itobviously pissing me off.
I'm sure you're capable of realising where the
line between blunt and offensive lies.
You were very flippant and smug at the start of the argument; as itprogressed you performed a curious volte face: suddenly you needed respect
paid to you and you got very exercised about about 'abuse'; this was
transparently your way of trying to obfuscate as taking the argument
off-list was a way of obfuscating. It's all been obfuscation ever since that
moment when you knew you were out of your depth: the indignation and the
repetition of meaningless waffle. You made a cunt of yourself, to use my
horrid common language, in front of the newsgroup and that was why, in the
end, you were prepared to appear to let me get the last word so you could
take it out of public view. For my part I decided to argue the point to the
bitter end because you initiated the 'abuse'; you called me 'weirdo' because
I didn't like MC as a state project. You started it. I've got a bloody good
mind to put all this on the newsgroup.
Accusing someone of arguing because
of 'ego' - be it true or not - is only going to annoy the other
participant.But you know full well you've argued out of ego all the way; you argued when
you didn't, on your own admission, know what you were talking about. That's
ego.
Which is what you are repeatedly doing, hence my withdrawal from the
publicdebate, in the hope that anything subsequent would be less filled with
posturing from either side
No, it was done in the desperation of knowing that if you argued further youposturing from either side
just get deeper into the mire.
. I also hoped it would go as far as to elicit
some sort of acknowledgement that you were getting on my tits
Course I was getting on your tits: you were losing the argument and youbloody well didn't like it. Like I give two fucks if your upset because I
call you something YOU HAVE ALREADY CALLED YOURSELF. Grow up.
and some sort
of grudging admittal that you'd been a bit excessive.
I haven't been excessive; I called you smug. YOU called me-- first as well--a pejorative usually reserved for the mentally ill, all because I asserted
that i'd had enough of Blair and MC. I regard that as excessive.
I'm not even asking
for an apology, just some sort of evidence of respect for my intelligence.
Aren't you the bloody big head? You seem to be reasonably intelligent--enough to read broadsheets and do a job, which isn't saying much. What do
you want? A jim'll fix it badge? LOL
Back to the meat and gristle of internet arguing - to wit - the line by
linedeconstruction and rebuttal.
See, you keep going. You started it- why the fuck should I stop?: I can't help
noticing that as your arguments faltered your indignation grew I mean
noticing that as your arguments faltered your indignation grew I mean
you really pricked off at being called a Guardian reader when your own
satire of yourself was as a blinkered guardian reader? I have to say I'm
seeing someone here who is a dab hand at satrirical cussing until it
satire of yourself was as a blinkered guardian reader? I have to say I'm
seeing someone here who is a dab hand at satrirical cussing until it
round to himself. Which reminds me of Swift: satire being a
mirror in which
to see everyone's face but one's own. Or something like that.
When one satires one's self it is self deprecatingmirror in which
to see everyone's face but one's own. Or something like that.
, and my original
caricature of myself as a Guardian reader was done more to poke fun than
asa serious statement of political stance.
Yes but it also advertised your political stance; it was short hand and backthen, just a few days ago, you thought you could get away with being
flippant and smug. In the intervening time you've been backpeddling so much
your fingers must ache. But no matter, you advertised yourself as a smug
always-right Guardian reader. So fuck sake leave off being offending at
being described at one when every thing you write advertisers you *as* one.
Can you really be this dunderheaded?
However you doggedly refused to let
this go once the discussion took a more serious turn and started arguing
against me as if I were a de facto feeble minded Grauniad lefty, which is
aagainst me as if I were a de facto feeble minded Grauniad lefty, which is
gross and incorrect assumption
see above. It's easy to tar the left with the Guardian
brush,
it's the house newspaper of the left fuck sake. (I was tempted to call youdolt here or pillock as you do to me but you've got all weepy in the corner
of the playground, so I won't.)
and a pointless one at that - no more constructive than the US Rights
wilful description of their Left as 'liberals' as if it's a filthy word
In many ways liberals-- esp. US ones though their ideas have firmly takenroot here-- have made the world liberal disgusting by their own stupid
shibboleths.
and
a concept worthy only of derision.
High watermark PC and MC *is* only worthy of derision. You see I am talkingabout white middle class liberals; I have boundless contempt for their
jejune attitude to other cultures and their hostile attitude to their own.
You are a splendid example of the in-the-street version.
The main point being - find out what I think on a subject before attacking
me on it - there were a couple of points (the most recent being the
Croydon/Bradford one) where you just sneered art me for a behaviour that
isn't mine, but fit your caricature of the G reader.
I would-- if it could have been proved-- bet everything I own that you wouldme on it - there were a couple of points (the most recent being the
Croydon/Bradford one) where you just sneered art me for a behaviour that
isn't mine, but fit your caricature of the G reader.
never have called Bradford a shithole but you would willingly call Croydon
one. I stand by it. YOU KNOW IT JAMES. It's a common hypocrisy of people
your age with your political outlook.
I neither feel like i'm losing,
or winning anything. I just find that every time I say anything, it's
automatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees
automatically slated as 'lazy' or 'smug', just because it disagrees
your views.
You see this is what I find very worrying: I'm not calling your viewsand smug because I disagree with them, I'm calling them lazy and smug
because they *are*.
And what point of view isn't lazy, or smug?because they *are*.
delivered clearly go a lot further than flippant and vague notions of
governmental altruism from someone who admist they are in favour of
something they nothing about *and* calling people weirdos for not agreeing
with the thing they know nothing about. Now *that* is what I call smug;
stupid too.
Would be the ones that agree
with you?
vagueYou obviously have speed read all my replies otherwise
you would have seen what I'm saying. You have never deviated from a
you would have seen what I'm saying. You have never deviated from a
notion of an argument about 'state intereference' etc. That has been the
extent of your argument. That argument is demonstrably lazy.
State interference is a loose concept, purely because I haven't defined itextent of your argument. That argument is demonstrably lazy.
exactly doesn't mean it's a lazy point of view
. Unlike you who is so wise in
the mechanisms of state inteference in this area, I have never dug into it
agreat deal largely because I don't care all that much.
If that ain't evidence of laziness I dunno what is. If you don't care; don'targue. Why did you argue if you didn't care.
One assumes that the
CRE and local councils are doing their job reasonably well because racism
appears to be on the decline
It is an enormous debate and there are problems emerging all over theappears to be on the decline
country in different ways. The CRE are hurling the word racist around quite
carelessly. Trevor Phillips is clearly an agitator. Local councils are
wasting tons of cash on MC and the CRE is promoting a landscape of debate
that equestes criticism of MC as 'racism'. This is enormously important. For
you to unaware of it says a great deal.
and integration seems to be improving from the
experiential view I take
Could you enlarge here?. People are taking the issue seriously, and racism
is less tolerated than it was when I were a lad
No. It is defined differently and more dangerously. See:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1019774,00.html
. Purely because I don't
define the workings does not make it a lazy standpoint - just a practical
one - it is not apparent to me that there is a problem with the way these
things are functioning, so I don't investigate.
Okay then, you don't like lazy, then howsabout ignorant of the zeitgeist? Soone - it is not apparent to me that there is a problem with the way these
things are functioning, so I don't investigate.
much is appearing all around us in the dominant media that you would need to
have your head up your arse to not notice a heavy pro MC agenda in public
services and BBC. The abuses of it are plain to see.
I'm not particularly well up
on how the Environment Agency are functioning, nor can I define their
policies because again, to me there is no apparent problem. Am I lazy for
not knowing the inner workings of all government departments, or just the
one you are excited about?
atpolicies because again, to me there is no apparent problem. Am I lazy for
not knowing the inner workings of all government departments, or just the
one you are excited about?
All the way
through this argument I have widened it with a more careful layin
out of my
thoughts whereas you have become more and more hysterical and indignant
through this argument I have widened it with a more careful layin
out of my
thoughts whereas you have become more and more hysterical and indignant
being called a Guardian reader and lazy and smug in your view of
multiculturalism. I stand by my charges.
If that's your idea of careful laying out of thoughts, you need some workmulticulturalism. I stand by my charges.
your debating technique
Well James, it was one hell of a lot clearer than yours.. Healthy doses of derision and a complete lack of
reputable sources
I don't quite know what you're after here. I think again you see it as a getout clause: 'bring me some paper signed by an Oxford Professor of Maths that
MC doesn't work and I'll pipe down. Down be stupid- debating doesn't work
like that.
make you nowt more than a columnist - a morass of opinions
with a wilful need to avoid any hard facts
The hard facts are these: MC is an invention of the white upper middleclasses. It is not liked by the majority of people-- the silent majority who
pay for all those jobseeker's alowance forms in gujurati, hindi, urdu,
kosovan, albanian etc-- do not like it and do not except that these cultures
should have equal relevance in british society to, say, the C of E and so
on. MC says they should. In Burnley and similar places the BNP are getting
popular- people are going from Labour to fascism- that is a wake up call for
the Left. Are they listening? No they are not because they are pedagogic and
wealthy with an overweening hostility to their own country. 'Celebrating
diversity' is promoting dissonance and will result in disharmony. England is
still here you see and though Trevor Phillips and all the other quasi
marxist theorists think that if they keep this up for say 20 years they'll
be able to kill it off but they won't. At the moment all public money is
spent trying to show harmony whilst promoting difference: only the wealthy,
the smug and the lazy fail to see through this to the enormous resentment
and offense caused by state MC. When people came here and decided to behave
as the indigenous English behaved, at least in their public endevours, their
wasn't too much of a problem. When you start catering to immigrants,
rewarding them for their ignorance and laziness, well, then you have problem
s. My ancestry here only goes back to the 1870s (from Italy on one side and
eastern european jewry on the other-- so leave off calling me a fascist
yeah?) but they came here to be English not to refuse to integrate, or two
take money out of the country and most certainly not as benefit tourists.
. I've heard opinions, and valid
ones - but nothing that actually indicates that MC is a threat to society.
The only reason we have the society we have today is because we wereunicultural; that is the underpinning of an ordery society. The kind of
multiculturalism envisaged by the liberal elite isn't about coloured saris
in Brick Lane its about relativism: makingour culture, our advanced culture
that thought of the noble welfare state on an equal footing with some very
backward ones.This is wrong. A muticultural society is a weak and divided
society; a society with no culture because controls have to be implemented;
hence christmans carols being banned in some schools for fear of offense;
'Asian' style lavatories; black teachers meetings which legally exclude
white teachers; 'black writing' sections in bookshops; the vast ethnic
broadcasting system inplemented by the the non-public accountable BBC whom
you finance on pain of arrest. None of it looks like a country that is
integrating. It looks like a country dividing.
All I can say is now
we've had this
spat, you won't be as lazy and smug again. You have finally woken up and
realised that you can be against multiculturalism without being a
we've had this
spat, you won't be as lazy and smug again. You have finally woken up and
realised that you can be against multiculturalism without being a
To be honest, until you started on about it, I had no idea what MC was
Why then were you arguing? Why do you continue to argue? Why don't you justshut up and take it like a man that you shot your mouth off?
, so
my 'awakening' as triggered by you is somewhat oversold. I now know what
itis, and don't consider an anti stand racist, however it's in the 'bleedin
obvious' category that most that stand on an anti platform are racists.
There are a few reasoned thinkers in both camps but most people
Most people? And you ask *me* for hard facts? Tskobvious' category that most that stand on an anti platform are racists.
There are a few reasoned thinkers in both camps but most people
I would rather you abstained, or voted MRLP - a victory for Howard would
plunge this further deeper into the divides which you so lament
Nope. It would simply cut off the money for MC which would expose theplunge this further deeper into the divides which you so lament
problem so it can be estimated properly without the smokecreen of public
money. I call for the severe wing clipping of the BBC and savage cuts in
public spending.
, but fail to
teach El Presidente any lessons.
He's fucking arrogant beyond belief: no one's going to teach him anything.Ask any composer James: you do not create harmony by indulging
Ask any magnetic field theory expert - opposites attract.
Maybe in rocks. In reality common ground is far more binding.The analogy is
meaningless.
No I think it is true. You do not create harmony from dissonant notes.The fact that at one point I bothered to read up on the subject
because of the gaps in my knowledge seems to be of no relevance, i'm
somehowstill lazy for drawing different conclusions to you. So,
that pisses me off.
But you came to no conclusions. When I asked you to be explicit in yourpro-multiculturalist stance you ignored the request and declared you
bored. You have a right to do that, as an alleged criminal has a right
remain silent but it tells, it tells...
Stop being so fucking sactimoniousyou're used to mouthing off vageries and getting away with them and this
time you've been caught and you're fuming.
. I would hardly expect anyone to form a
policy based on half a mornings readings, and am not arrogant enough to
think that I can
So why argue?think that I can
. My impression from the reading I did is simply that people
subscribe to different cultures
, even within a nation and to hope theyhomogenise or integrate without a bit of a 'push' from somewhere
How? Please be very explicithere.is both
naive and wishful. Cultures left to their own devices will oft come into
conflict
Not if the minority culture accepts that it has to integrate.conflict
- interior conflict is both undesirable and expensive for a nation;
therefore that nation's masters either have to divide (eg: apartheid,
Israels 'security fence') or integrate (eg: abolition of slavery)
so MC to you amounst to abolition of slavery? What the billy ray fuck areIsraels 'security fence') or integrate (eg: abolition of slavery)
you on boy?
- the
former not being an overwhelming success. The latter is not perfect but
is,I hope you would agree, a better situation.
moreIt's not a topic i've got a huge interest in (I prefer global
politics andscience/technology)
What does that prove or mean? How do you know those subjects are notinteresting to me? All that comment is supposed to signify, and again it
shows that rather airy one-upmanship you strive for in your posts, is
shows that rather airy one-upmanship you strive for in your posts, is
whole thing is just too damn provincial for a high flyer like you. Well,
that sort of evasion don't wash with me fella.
More abuse.that sort of evasion don't wash with me fella.
What it was attempting to point out is not that i'm 'too good' for the
subject, merely that my expertise lies elsewhere. If you were wrong on a
matter of science, I would do you the courtesy of explaining the issue and
giving you a resource to check further - not instantly accuse you of being
'lazy' for not knowing about it.
Ah but ya see James it didn't all start like that did it? It started withsubject, merely that my expertise lies elsewhere. If you were wrong on a
matter of science, I would do you the courtesy of explaining the issue and
giving you a resource to check further - not instantly accuse you of being
'lazy' for not knowing about it.
you taking a nannyish, then flippant tone.
What's my ' floating bullshit'? Be very explicit here please.
I've not picked on you.And 'Be very explicit here please'? I'm not writing
an essay to be marked.
You're having a debate which you chose to get into and to start.Your particular bullshit is of the threat to the
concept of Britishness by Johnny foreigner and those on the left who
embracehim.
No that is a gross simplification. See posts passim and particularly above.BTW I know and have illustrated your 'floating bullshit'
Like I said, both sides. I'm not taking a particularly firm view on thismatter until someone can cut through the crap and present some actual
research that indicates an problem
other than a perceived one that makes
good headlines.
whoseIt is becoming increasingly legal for the multic side to make gross
assumptions, I will agree. All dissenters though are in a much more
difficult spot; largely thanks to a consensus formed of people like you.
Both sides are making gross assumptions - your loathed Trevor Philips,assumptions, I will agree. All dissenters though are in a much more
difficult spot; largely thanks to a consensus formed of people like you.
response to the ill thought out article by the Anti sides equally
assumptivearticle by Goodhart made him look the reactionary fool he palpably is, no
better that those who slated Morris for his 'Paedogeddon'. Both sides are
talking crap.
Good. We are, for once, in agreement.
at the detriment to the host
Yes but that is MC you fool. You agreeing with me now.better that those who slated Morris for his 'Paedogeddon'. Both sides are
talking crap.
assuming at one point we were all one big happy family
I don't think that.Well you see I have laid out my arguments. I think
multiculturalism which is
being used as a dikat in state and public services is a bad thing, a
divisive thing and a costly thing; it is working hand in hand
with people I
regard as dangerous agitators such as Trevor Phillips whos is
promoting the
highly sloppy and deeply dangerous pejorative 'racism' as a catch-all
compaint against anyone who stands in his way. You are of the
same mindset;
it has worked on you, a reasonably intelligent englishman.
To a certain extent I agree, and too much emphasis on other cultures comesmulticulturalism which is
being used as a dikat in state and public services is a bad thing, a
divisive thing and a costly thing; it is working hand in hand
with people I
regard as dangerous agitators such as Trevor Phillips whos is
promoting the
highly sloppy and deeply dangerous pejorative 'racism' as a catch-all
compaint against anyone who stands in his way. You are of the
same mindset;
it has worked on you, a reasonably intelligent englishman.
at the detriment to the host
. However where you and I converge is that I
think some MC is a good thing
Which bit and how much and where? Please be very explicit here, if you'reable.
, you seem to be wholesale against it.
Moderation in all things, one could easily say.
You could *easily* say a lot of things; you specialise in it, it would seem.Multiculturalism
can never 'work' because human nature is quite different to
manifestoes, as
those apostates of Karl Marx found out in the USSR some 50 million
can never 'work' because human nature is quite different to
manifestoes, as
those apostates of Karl Marx found out in the USSR some 50 million
later.
But patient integrationwill never work either, and has never done
throughout history
Pre 1950 immigration? Huegenots?- wherever it has happened it has been through
suppression and absorbtion by the host. We are living in a new world where
one may come across all manner of strange peoples from day to day where
oneone may come across all manner of strange peoples from day to day where
hundred years ago many folk would never venture much beyond their home
town.What the fuck has all this got to do with state MC?
Fear arises out of ignorance, as does racism. MC as I understand it tries
tobridge the gap between homogenisation (a hopeless dream) and cultures
sharply divided within a nation (an undesirable state)
But MC *is* *for* highlighting the divides!!! LOLsharply divided within a nation (an undesirable state)
. I am not surprised
it fails in some areas, it is a new philosophy - however its aims as I
percieve them
Which are? Please be very explicit here.percieve them
You lay off the abuse; and i'll happily debate. Leave it out of UCAW
I'm taking it right back there because you only took it off list because youwere losing. You have the BIGGEST EGO Beresford! Seeya there. Bring a spade
for trench digging and some sensible boots.
regards
Garrett