I do, because they are. If they aren’t an anti-Semite they enable and empower anti-Semites, and that’s just as bad. The only reason to be in Labour now is to remove the anti-Semites from power by using your member vote and to use your voice as a member to stand against what is happening. If you are willing to put Corbyn into power for your own reasons you do so because you do not care about anti-Semitism, and you are prepared to co-exist with it.
Similarly with Brexiters. It was an act of racism and xenophobia due to the campaign being entirely focused on immigrants, so they are racist and xenophobic, or enabled and empowered racists and bigots.
Yeah and this just proves my point, because when you do this the response is “Oh it’s pwk going off on one again.”
The campaign was not entirely focussed on immigrants. The offical campaign actually tried to downplay the immigration/race angle, although of course the Mail/Express/Farage were having none of that. Sure there was a big race angle, but it’s not like the EU had a good reputation in the UK if you put immigration to one side.
As a US centric forum, I think there just isn’t much awareness of UK politics. So, many reactions are mostly just “Uh, ok, I’ll take your word for it, I guess?”
Yikes, I understand why WoolySchmidt bailed for the games forum entirely.
A PhD friend of mine (please don’t dox him) recently wrote this on Facebook, in light of the Melania controversy:
I thought it was an important question. If someone simply does not care that families are being separated, because in their view that’s reasonable to do when the adult breaks a serious law and the child has nowhere to go, what then? Are they a moral monster who should be rounded up and shot? Should they me ignored forever? We see now that the concern has shifted from family separations, to incarcerating children at all. Are people moral monsters if they cared about separations, but not the HHS detentions? It goes on and on, and at some point, discussions are probably better than casting people out.
That’s because lots of people have these feelings, and it’s hard to feign concern if it’s simply not naturally there. Shaming and harassing them in irresponsible ways only reinforces their views that they’re being reasonable, and you’re the “fascist” bully who can’t tolerate an argument.
So, I have a friend. This friend posed an amazing question to me. Note, this friend is super smart. He has like, 5 or 6 PhDs. He also is an astronaut. He might also be President, but I’m not sure. No DOXXING.
Anyway, he said, “Is it morally wrong to be a serial killer?” I mean I see where he is coming from. The serial killer is doing what is in their best interest, killing others. Should those others have a right to infringe upon the killer’s happiness.
Great question, thoughts? (Please keep your liberal echo chamber nonsense out of here, serious discussion only)
You would be hard pressed to make a legitimate argument for that.
The Brexit movement was absolutely driven by racism and xenophobia. Now, certainly, some folks were effectively tricked into buying into that crap by other lies, like thinking it was gonna save the UK tons of money or something, but a major driving force was “dirty immigrants are taking our jobs”.
Hmm, that is a tough one. But I think I’m going to have to come down on the side of punching is acceptable even if they are super polite and like dogs.
OK, so far we have 1 point for nazi punching. I’d like to hear dissenting views, though, because right now it looks a bit too much like an echo chamber. We owe it to ourselves to listen to every possible opinion.
Half the country is the moral equivalent of serial killers? Yikes. If I didn’t think my friend was smart before, this comment has given me new appreciation.
I feel an obvious solution to the problem could be found (maybe expedited asylum claims and more asylum infrastructure.) But people are too busy with these irresponsible comparisons.