General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

BonnieSituation

robinph wrote: »

Can't get the actual text of the article as it's behind a paywall, but the bits that are quoted in other articles clearly cross the line.

Saying that the wearing of the burqua is oppressive is something that can be debated with the people who wear it, demanding that people visiting him in his MP surgery adhere to what he thinks is acceptable dress is him trying to block access to certain parts of his constituency. Seeing someones face isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to his safety though.

Then there is a line which he leaps across and the quotes referring to people wearing a burqua as looking like bank robbers or letterboxes is not acceptable and is offensive language.

If he'd stopped at the point where he was saying that it was oppressive, and merely suggested that as a point to be debated, then it would be fine. Once he got into the letter boxes and bank robber comments it most definitely wasn't OK.



Separately, with the use of his language against LGBT people, just because they may use terms amongst themselves to refer to themselves does not mean that it is OK language for a politician/ journalist/ MP/ PM to be using. Try reading up a bit about use of the N word.

I listed out a few "humourous" utterings from BJ a while ago and naturally was met with a wall of silence by our resident contrarian.

I'll root them out again.

Here we go:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

Anyone defending him is deserving of scorn and ignorance.

Any chance we can get back to the GE. This has been an insufferable day or so on here with our new friend.

sid waddell

Labour are the only party who have released a race and faith manifesto, which directly sets out the party's commitment to fighting racism and religious bigotry in all its forms.

Given that, one could quite reasonably argue Labour are the only party who actually take such issues seriously.

Leroy42

I know in Ireland that Religions are supposed to stay out of politics, and there is certainly plenty of debate around it in the US.

So is it right that a religion basically endorses the Tory party two weeks before an election?

It makes me very uneasy I have to say.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Any chance we can get back to the GE. This has been an insufferable day or so on here with our new friend.

This is front and central to the character of the next Prime Minister. It's also a discussion about their positions when it comes to minorities.

Whilst the next election is dominated by Brexit, we should encourage discussion of these issues as they have already come up, many times, during this general election campaign so far.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic for a mispronunciation, that would be absurd.

But throughout his career, Corbyn has surrounded himself with devoutly anti-Semitic people and has, since taking over the Labour Party, invited those with anti-Semitic tendencies to thrive against the backdrop of that history.

He is a total and utter disgrace.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He should have been upfront about his dislike of Jewish people the way, Boris had it in for:

Gay men ("tank-topped bumboys")

Africans ("What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles.")

Muslim women ("it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes,")

Women in general ("semi-naked women playing beach volleyball ... glistening like wet otters.")

Sure look, here it all is. I'm sure you'll condemn this in the strongest of terms.


https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

Just japes I guess.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

This is front and central to the character of the next Prime Minister. It's also a discussion about their positions when it comes to minorities.

You're outright defending Boris Johnson's bigotry and have literally said "ridicule of religion is a positive thing".

You've proved you have zero credibility on this issue.

Stop moaning ffs

Nobody will be shocked to learn the rabbi that came out against Corbyn, is a long-standing friend of Johnson for years.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

This is front and central to the character of the next Prime Minister. It's also a discussion about their positions when it comes to minorities.

Whilst the next election is dominated by Brexit, we should encourage discussion of these issues as they have already come up, many times, during this general election campaign so far.

Boris Johnson is characterless and devoid of anything approaching statesmen or even, general likeability.

Meanwhile, you're tying yoursef into bizarre contrarian knots.

It must be exhausting being you.

See; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111864513&postcount=906

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn has himself stated that action has/is being taken to root out cases of anti-Semitism within the party. Some reports suggest there is 130 active cases of anti-Semitism. Why defy Corbyn and his own words? If he claims there is a problem and he's "working on it", then we should accept his word on the matter.

Second, yes, dressing up in the full burqa/niqab does resemble a black letterbox. It's ridiculing clothing and furthering the wider argument that we cannot have people in society who are not facially visible. You cannot integrate into society if you do not know what somebody looks like. It's antithetical to our values and it should be ridiculed and outright banned.

Similarly, we call the Catholic band a "dog collar"; again, ridiculing language that focuses on the clothing item, not on the character of the person wearing it.

Johnson was right.

1) Jeremy DOES acknowledge it - and is working to root it out - his entire front bench agree - as to 130 cases among Labour MP's and members - can you cite a few? if there are 130 cases, i dare say it shouldnt take you more than a moment to find a CLEAR CUT CASE of antisemitism in UK Labour Party

If you COULD cite a few examples we COULD THEN compare them to the example of Boris Johnson's comments on Muslims

Offense is in the eye of the Beholder Eskimohunt - a lady on the Question time debate stated she TOOK offense to Boris Johnson's comments and asked for an apology - all he had to do was something like this

Well i am sorry if you took offense at what i said back then, it wasnt meant offensively, and i dare say my views have evolved over the course of time


This would have been meaningful from the Prime Minster - (and truthful, for instance he once believed whole heartily in the single market:pac: )

He did NOT do that and instead defended his right to say as he wished, white washed it as being nonsense, and effectively told the lady that her offense taken be damned

Your comments throughout are right wing and again - it is OH SO SIMILAR to what members of the Far right say, and do around the world

Totally Glib - and i agree with this poster

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the contrary, I think this is simply and purely a debate for many posters - a debate of the university debating society type - say anything and everything to score points on a random topic which no-one present cares about one way or the other.

"This house would say no to dunking biscuits in tea".

There is no point in engaging such posters as if they actually believe the points they make, they are entirely insincere, constructed without any emotional content simply to score points.

In this case, people are simply arguing for the motion "This house would Get Brexit Done". Standard debating society tactics apply - overload the opposing team with walls of points (no matter how good or bad). Provoke them into getting emotional. Distract and derail. Exaggerate their position and attack that. Contradict facts confidently. Do not address winning points, move on to new ones.

It's a game.

You simply like arguing with People Eskimo, especially enjoy what you consider to be point scoring - especially when it comes to your loyalty to Donald Trump Boris Johnson, and your hatred of Corbyn, Labour, and anyone else against Brexit. You seem to be in the midst of a 'Romance with Brexit', and anything that attacks the result of the Referendum, or Brexit itself, is ridiculed and attacked by you

liamtech

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I listed out a few "humourous" utterings from BJ a while ago and naturally was met with a wall of silence by our resident contrarian.

I'll root them out again.

Here we go:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

Anyone defending him is deserving of scorn and ignorance.

Any chance we can get back to the GE. This has been an insufferable day or so on here with our new friend.

Eskimo will not address these points - Boris has a blank cheque in his view - to get Brexit done - all other considerations be damned

sid waddell

liamtech wrote: »

Eskimo will not address these points - Boris has a blank cheque in his view - to get Brexit done - all other considerations be damned

I can't remember him addressing a single substantial point on this thread.

This is Tory strategy among their online supporters, their associated media outlets and in the party itself - to turn debate into a mud-slinging contest because they cannot stand over any of ther policies or their time in office, which has been a complete disaster for the UK.

They are a sham and a fraud.

BonnieSituation

sid waddell wrote: »

I can't remember him addressing a single substantial point on this thread.

This is Tory strategy among their online supporters, their associated media outlets and in the party itself - to turn debate into a mud-slinging contest because they cannot stand over any of ther policies or their time in office, which has been a complete disaster for the UK.

They are a sham and a fraud.

And people continue to engage.

I'm done with it. Thread after thread ruined by his ilk.

Joe_ Public

Just listening to a young tory activist criticise labour spending promises for being 28 times greater than their ones. But surely this merely points to the tories complete absence of planning or vision for government as much as to any perceived lack of reality about labours proposals. A manifesto with £3bn of spending is just pointless and pretty much just taking the p!ss.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Just listening to a young tory activist criticise labour spending promises for being 28 times greater than their ones. But surely this merely points to the tories complete absence of planning or vision for government as much as to any perceived lack of reality about labours proposals. A manifesto with £3bn of spending is just pointless and pretty much just taking the p!ss.

Even someone like Brendan O'Neill admitted on Sky News on Sunday evening that the Tory manifesto is a complete joke : there's nothing actually in it.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Just listening to a young tory activist criticise labour spending promises for being 28 times greater than their ones. But surely this merely points to the tories complete absence of planning or vision for government as much as to any perceived lack of reality about labours proposals. A manifesto with £3bn of spending is just pointless and pretty much just taking the p!ss.

Particularly when the Tories can build 40 hospitals for GBP40 million, and get 50,000 new NHS nurses (including 18,000 who currently work for the NHS), and 20,000 new police officers to replace the 20,000 they got rid of in the last 10 years, while unemployment is at its lowest. They must expect some huge recession as the result of getting their oven ready Brexit done.

Of course the Labour manifesto carries more cost because they have included the costs.

sid waddell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And people continue to engage.

I'm done with it. Thread after thread ruined by his ilk.

It is a classic case of how online debate can be hijacked by somebody who is arguing in bad faith and to whom facts are irrelevant.

People can be as partisan as they want, but when facts cease to mean anything and one side creates an alternatiive reality, proper public debate cannot take place.

That is the Tory strategy to a tee, to create an alternative reality, to turn public debate into a Kafkaesque space.

There's a word for that, it starts with t.

That is now the world we live in.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Even someone like Brendan O'Neill admitted on Sky News on Sunday evening that the Tory manifesto is a complete joke : there's nothing actually in it.

The rumours were that they were only going to release it much closer to polling date but maybe they worried that might backfire so why not release it sooner on the basis there's nothing in it anyway? Wasnt even leading most news bulletins yesterday morning. Job done.

Stop moaning ffs

Makes for tiresome reading and the relentless stream of it in order to close down debate by tiring out honest contributors is just so obvious

liamtech

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Makes for tiresome reading and the relentless stream of it in order to close down debate by tiring out honest contributors is just so obvious

I dont really know what to say or do, personally.

FYI, i started this Antisemitism/Israel-Lobby/Tory/Labour/Smear arguement - last night

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111860729&postcount=812

I posted knowing we would have a chat about it - and that it would be interesting to see what people thought - im an atheist who would endorse secular politics - that said, others have differing views, and i wanted to see what we all thought

Simply posting that, however, has led to 15 odd hours of argument, one intervention by mod to correctly steer away from Israel/Palestine, with one specific user being at the center of the debate - i am tired of it.

But i do not know what to say - if someone posts something which is incredibly biased, but more importantly, without basis in fact, and without substantiated evidence, i tend to reply. And ask for facts and evidence..

And 15 hours later, here we are

(and by the way, this particular argument erupted right after the last one ended - the one about the BBC cutting parts of QT to omit the laughter and ridicule of BoJo, with the same user at the center of that too)

Again i dont know what to say - my instinct is to keep debating. But i am tired of it

BonnieSituation

liamtech wrote: »

I dont really know what to say or do, personally.

FYI, i started this Antisemitism/Israel-Lobby/Tory/Labour/Smear arguement - last night

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111860729&postcount=812

I posted knowing we would have a chat about it - and that it would be interesting to see what people thought - im an atheist who would endorse secular politics - that said, others have differing views, and i wanted to see what we all thought

Simply posting that, however, has led to 15 odd hours of argument, one intervention by mod to correctly steer away from Israel/Palestine, with one specific user being at the center of the debate - i am tired of it.

But i do not know what to say - if someone posts something which is incredibly biased, but more importantly, without basis in fact, and without substantiated evidence, i tend to reply. And ask for facts and evidence..

And 15 hours later, here we are

(and by the way it this particular argument erupted right after the last one ended - the one about the BBC cutting parts of QT to omit the laughter and ridicule of BoJo)

Again i dont know what to say - my instinct is to keep debating. But i am tired of it

Ignore your instinct in this case.

You make enough substantial contributions without having to "correct" their nonsense.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I listed out a few "humourous" utterings from BJ a while ago and naturally was met with a wall of silence by our resident contrarian.

I'll root them out again.

Here we go:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

Anyone defending him is deserving of scorn and ignorance.

Johnson is politically incorrect. That's why many people, and I include myself among that number, find his personality, wit, and humour style to be quite engaging.

If you are forever on the search to be "offended", Boris Johnson will never be your cup of tea.

That's just a difference of opinion between us.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Johnson is politically incorrect. That's why many people, and I include myself among that number, find his personality, wit, and humour style to be quite engaging.

If you are forever on the search to be "offended", Boris Johnson will never be your cup of tea.

That's just a difference of opinion between us.

So countless examples of boris being politically incorrect. And he’s your guy.

Not one example of Corbyn being anti Semitic and you’re branding him one ad nauseum.

So boring at this stage

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So countless examples of boris being investigated politically correct. And he’s your guy.

Not one example of Corbyn being anti Semitic and you’re branding him one ad nauseum.

So boring at this stage

I don't think Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic, but rather that since taking office, his leadership has attracted the scum of the Earth anti-Semites in overwhelming numbers - and he has, in my view, not done enough to quench that racist, blazing inferno.

Please don't misrepresent my views.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson is politically incorrect. That's why many people, and I include myself among that number, find his personality, wit, and humour style to be quite engaging.

If you are forever on the search to be "offended", Boris Johnson will never be your cup of tea.

That's just a difference of opinion between us.

Do you have, even a modest ability, to step back, and look at the type of language Boris Johnson uses - and at least say 'Im backing Boris, but i condemn the use of such language in relation to minorities in Britain'.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

:

Gay men ("tank-topped bumboys")

Africans ("What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles.")

Muslim women ("it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes,")

Women in general ("semi-naked women playing beach volleyball ... glistening like wet otters.")

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

Or are you seriously suggesting that the most you are willing to say about the above - is that it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Do you have, even a modest ability, to step back, and look at the type of language Boris Johnson uses - and at least say 'Im backing Boris, but i condemn the use of such language in relation to minorities in Britain'.

Or are you seriously suggesting that the most you are willing to say about the above - is that it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT

I find his language choice provocative, humorous and engaging.

You read the same language and consider Johnson a raging sexist, misogynistic, homophobe who hates black people and perhaps every other minority.

That's just an irreconcilable difference between us. You see malice where I see wit, humour and a flexible use of the English language in his descriptions.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find his language choice provocative, humorous and engaging.

You read the same language and consider Johnson a raging sexist, misogynistic, homophobe who hates black people and perhaps every other minority.

That's just an irreconcilable difference between us. You see malice where I see wit, humour and a flexible use of the English language in his descriptions.

You’re easily fooled in that case. He’s been found out. The shine is well and truly worn off. Even wearing an ear piece the other day for the manifesto launch.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I find his language choice provocative, humorous and engaging.

You read the same language and consider Johnson a raging sexist, misogynistic, homophobe who hates black people and perhaps every other minority.

That's just an irreconcilable difference between us. You see malice where I see wit, humour and a flexible use of the English language in his descriptions.

Hypothetically

If i walked up to an African Gay man, in a Gay friendly bar tonight. and commended him as being a 'Tank Topped, Bum Boy Pickaninny, with a Watermelion Smile' - that i would be viewed as having wit, humour and a flexible use of the English language?

I feel like this is going no where in any case - answer if you wish - but this is pointless at this stage

Boris is your boy in this election - he can do no harm, and is Teflon in your view

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because it's a straight person saying it shouldn't make it any different.

It makes it completely different. Do you see any difference between a black person and a white person using the N word?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Hypothetically

If i walked up to an African Gay man, in a Gay friendly bar tonight. and commended him as being a 'Tank Topped, Bum Boy Pickaninny, with a Watermelion Smile' - that i would be viewed as having wit, humour and a flexible use of the English language?

I feel like this is going no where in any case - answer is you wish - but this is pointless at this stage

Boris is your boy in this election - he can do no harm, and is Teflon in your view

Depends on context.

If it were a friend who is comfortable in their own skin and is self-deprecating and enjoys that type of humour, then yes, it may be said.

If it's somebody you do not know, then you wouldn't say it.

If you club together all his statements into one, and misrepresent what each quote refers to, then you will also be guilty of misrepresenting Mr Johnson's words and assuming malice from the outset.

Taken individually, I have no problem with the statements he has made in the contexts in which they were written.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends on context.

If it were a friend who is comfortable in their own skin and is self-deprecating and enjoys that type of humour, then yes, it may be said.

If it's somebody you do not know, then you wouldn't say it.

If you club together all his statements into one, and misrepresent what each quote refers to, then you will also be guilty of misrepresenting Mr Johnson's words and assuming malice from the outset.

Taken individually, I have no problem with the statements he has made in the contexts in which they were written.

Does Boris Johnson know every Muslim, every member of the LGBTQ community, every member of ethnic minority groups, in the UK?

Cause by that logic, given he clearly doesnt know them - he probably shouldnt have said what he said - should he Eskimohunt?