In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On May 24 2014 05:45 Zaros wrote: UKIP success exaggerated they got 5% less votes than last years local elections they will probably fall down to a constant 10% come the G.E. along with the lib dems but the lib dems will have 30 mps and UKIP 0 a bit quirky with the voting system.
They gained 150 seats (they used to have 2) which is the most important thing, the party is getting bigger and their voters will have a voice in their local council. A 7750% gain (I think) in council seats is a big deal, look at it in the sense that in a certain council Labor used to have 70%, now they have 40%, they still won the council but they no longer have the majority.
What this means is that when the general election comes along it will be a coalition government, except this time UKIP will be the kingmaker (along with lib-dem if they don't collapse).
No they won't odds are they won't get a single MP come the General election their support is too widespread there isn't enough in a single area to gain a seat, i expect a conservative majority next election tbh, maybe a minority or coalition again with the lib dems.
But they got these results off of absolutely no campaign, the only thing UKIP talked about were the European elections and dodged or vaguely answered any questions concerning local plans. saying that they scrapped their old manifesto and all local plans were to be conceived after the EU elections.
edit: all this after one of the biggest smear campaigns against a single politician in a loong time. The amount of scrutiny this guy has come under is unbelievable, and he came out smiling.
On May 24 2014 05:45 Zaros wrote: UKIP success exaggerated they got 5% less votes than last years local elections they will probably fall down to a constant 10% come the G.E. along with the lib dems but the lib dems will have 30 mps and UKIP 0 a bit quirky with the voting system.
They gained 150 seats (they used to have 2) which is the most important thing, the party is getting bigger and their voters will have a voice in their local council. A 7750% gain (I think) in council seats is a big deal, look at it in the sense that in a certain council Labor used to have 70%, now they have 40%, they still won the council but they no longer have the majority.
What this means is that when the general election comes along it will be a coalition government, except this time UKIP will be the kingmaker (along with lib-dem if they don't collapse).
No they won't odds are they won't get a single MP come the General election their support is too widespread there isn't enough in a single area to gain a seat, i expect a conservative majority next election tbh, maybe a minority or coalition again with the lib dems.
But they got these results off of absolutely no campaign, the only thing UKIP talked about were the European elections and dodged or vaguely answered any questions concerning local plans. saying that they scrapped their old manifesto and all local plans were to be conceived after the EU elections.
edit: all this after one of the biggest smear campaigns against a single politician in a loong time. The amount of scrutiny this guy has come under is unbelievable, and he came out smiling.
they been campaigning for months and he just getting the scrutiny the other leaders have now its not any extra.
Well, at least the BNP lost there 2 MEP's ... silver lining and all. The EU parliament is still 70% made up of pro further integration MEP's.
The English Election results probably mark the beginning of the end for Britain now with the forth coming Scottish election. The vote is already on a knife edge and many undecided voters and even unionists view UKIP as simply representing "little England".
My university has this program of sending students abroad as assistant teachers for two semesters.
So far, I had planned on going to England, but these election results and the prognosis for 2015 have me worried a bit. With a large part of the population being so anti-immigrant and especially anti-European, is it perhaps inadvisable to go to the UK as a European immigrant?
It's not like they can see it on me, but obviously they'll peg me for a foreigner as soon as I speak. An English friend of mine says that British mainstream media is constantly harping on immigration issues and violent crimes done by immigrants, which could make for a rather hostile environment.
I'm sure it won't have reached Jews in Nazi Germany levels by then, but I wouldn't feel comfortable for an entire year if there's rampant anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and anti-European tendencies.
Could anyone from England, preferably not London, shed some light on how much these election results represent what the general public think.
On May 28 2014 19:47 SixStrings wrote: My university has this program of sending students abroad as assistant teachers for two semesters.
So far, I had planned on going to England, but these election results and the prognosis for 2015 have me worried a bit. With a large part of the population being so anti-immigrant and especially anti-European, is it perhaps inadvisable to go to the UK as a European immigrant?
It's not like they can see it on me, but obviously they'll peg me for a foreigner as soon as I speak. An English friend of mine says that British mainstream media is constantly harping on immigration issues and violent crimes done by immigrants, which could make for a rather hostile environment.
I'm sure it won't have reached Jews in Nazi Germany levels by then, but I wouldn't feel comfortable for an entire year if there's rampant anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and anti-European tendencies.
Could anyone from England, preferably not London, shed some light on how much these election results represent what the general public think.
There's certainly not a "rampant anti-foreigner" tendency. Sure, there's pockets of idiots here and there, but no more than what you'd find in any country. The ukip vote is primarily down to 2 factors - high levels of distrust with the mainstream parties, and general opinion that EU membership isn't beneficial to the UK. Immigration isn't as much of an issue if you ask me, and you'll likely find that the majority of ukip voters, myself included, only have an issue with the current levels being effectively unlimited, and would be perfectly fine with some sort of points system similar to what Australia has. Just don't mention the football
Where about were you looking to move? England's quite a diverse place
On May 28 2014 19:47 SixStrings wrote: My university has this program of sending students abroad as assistant teachers for two semesters.
So far, I had planned on going to England, but these election results and the prognosis for 2015 have me worried a bit. With a large part of the population being so anti-immigrant and especially anti-European, is it perhaps inadvisable to go to the UK as a European immigrant?
It's not like they can see it on me, but obviously they'll peg me for a foreigner as soon as I speak. An English friend of mine says that British mainstream media is constantly harping on immigration issues and violent crimes done by immigrants, which could make for a rather hostile environment.
I'm sure it won't have reached Jews in Nazi Germany levels by then, but I wouldn't feel comfortable for an entire year if there's rampant anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and anti-European tendencies.
Could anyone from England, preferably not London, shed some light on how much these election results represent what the general public think.
UKIP voters aren't especially anti-German. The leader of their party has a German wife. They're more skeptical about the loss of sovereignty and about the open border policies with Eastern Europe but they're fine with Western Europeans. UKIP aren't the BNP, whatever people in the media might claim. Incidentally this pissed me off. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/22/ukip-map-of-the-world-spoof_n_5370590.html
Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, made the Bongo Bongo land comment and yet UKIP get collectively grouped with it, despite never working with the BNP and actively engaging in a vicious war of words with them throughout this election.
On May 28 2014 19:47 SixStrings wrote: My university has this program of sending students abroad as assistant teachers for two semesters.
So far, I had planned on going to England, but these election results and the prognosis for 2015 have me worried a bit. With a large part of the population being so anti-immigrant and especially anti-European, is it perhaps inadvisable to go to the UK as a European immigrant?
It's not like they can see it on me, but obviously they'll peg me for a foreigner as soon as I speak. An English friend of mine says that British mainstream media is constantly harping on immigration issues and violent crimes done by immigrants, which could make for a rather hostile environment.
I'm sure it won't have reached Jews in Nazi Germany levels by then, but I wouldn't feel comfortable for an entire year if there's rampant anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and anti-European tendencies.
Could anyone from England, preferably not London, shed some light on how much these election results represent what the general public think.
UKIP voters aren't especially anti-German. The leader of their party has a German wife. They're more skeptical about the loss of sovereignty and about the open border policies with Eastern Europe but they're fine with Western Europeans. UKIP aren't the BNP, whatever people in the media might claim. Incidentally this pissed me off. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/22/ukip-map-of-the-world-spoof_n_5370590.html
Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, made the Bongo Bongo land comment and yet UKIP get collectively grouped with it, despite never working with the BNP and actively engaging in a vicious war of words with them throughout this election.
It was Godfrey Bloom a now ex UKIP MEP who said Bongo Bongo Land in a channel 4 interview.
On May 28 2014 19:47 SixStrings wrote: My university has this program of sending students abroad as assistant teachers for two semesters.
So far, I had planned on going to England, but these election results and the prognosis for 2015 have me worried a bit. With a large part of the population being so anti-immigrant and especially anti-European, is it perhaps inadvisable to go to the UK as a European immigrant?
It's not like they can see it on me, but obviously they'll peg me for a foreigner as soon as I speak. An English friend of mine says that British mainstream media is constantly harping on immigration issues and violent crimes done by immigrants, which could make for a rather hostile environment.
I'm sure it won't have reached Jews in Nazi Germany levels by then, but I wouldn't feel comfortable for an entire year if there's rampant anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and anti-European tendencies.
Could anyone from England, preferably not London, shed some light on how much these election results represent what the general public think.
There's certainly not a "rampant anti-foreigner" tendency. Sure, there's pockets of idiots here and there, but no more than what you'd find in any country. The ukip vote is primarily down to 2 factors - high levels of distrust with the mainstream parties, and general opinion that EU membership isn't beneficial to the UK. Immigration isn't as much of an issue if you ask me, and you'll likely find that the majority of ukip voters, myself included, only have an issue with the current levels being effectively unlimited, and would be perfectly fine with some sort of points system similar to what Australia has. Just don't mention the football
Where about were you looking to move? England's quite a diverse place
The irony is that anti-immigration is a deeply pro-establishment position. It's saying: "most of our problems are due to foreigners", when in reality it's because of decreased solidarity (especially from the richest part of society), unfavourable demographic trends and inefficient institutions.
For example 25% of doctors in NHS are foreign nationals. If you could get rid of most foreigners it would actually put more pressure on health services, not less. You might need to invest into training more doctors and start paying much higher wages to make it a more appealing career choice.
So ultimately you are back to the same dilemma: pay more taxes, accept worse service or make your institutions more efficient. Or, you know, do nothing and imagine that most of your problems are due to immigration.
On May 28 2014 19:47 SixStrings wrote: My university has this program of sending students abroad as assistant teachers for two semesters.
So far, I had planned on going to England, but these election results and the prognosis for 2015 have me worried a bit. With a large part of the population being so anti-immigrant and especially anti-European, is it perhaps inadvisable to go to the UK as a European immigrant?
It's not like they can see it on me, but obviously they'll peg me for a foreigner as soon as I speak. An English friend of mine says that British mainstream media is constantly harping on immigration issues and violent crimes done by immigrants, which could make for a rather hostile environment.
I'm sure it won't have reached Jews in Nazi Germany levels by then, but I wouldn't feel comfortable for an entire year if there's rampant anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and anti-European tendencies.
Could anyone from England, preferably not London, shed some light on how much these election results represent what the general public think.
It's quite sad that this is how people from the outside might be viewing us now.
None of this is even in the same ballpark as the reality I live in, at least. I'm pretty sure you'd experience few to no problems at all.
As an aside, don't conflate anti-european and anti-EU. They're quite different things.
On May 24 2014 07:00 Sokrates wrote: Somebody that uses words like "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" etc. without discussing the topic. Basically these words are just there to shutdown the discussion and silence opposition.
well because 95% of the people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are. Then they'll start blabbering about how everyone is supposedly politically correct and wants to stop them from spreading their glorious truth.
I've taken a look at the ukip manifesto and if someone seriously supports only half of the crap they're promising then racist and bigot are two of the more tamer expressions that come to mind.
But remember the principle of Enantiodromia; everything arises out of its opposite. In a normal organic society, we would have a few extreme racists, a few true non-racists, with the majority occupying the broad swath of middle-ground. What political correctness has created with its absolute propositions is the demand for a rigid ideological conformity, any revolt from which must automatically carry the mind towards the diametrically opposite tendency. What institutionalised doctrines do is polarise; they conduct opinions which would ordinarily flow along a spectrum into confined extremes.
Thus the claim that "95% of people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are." is to a certain extent true, but it is not because most people are extreme, but because most people are quite ordinary.
On May 24 2014 07:00 Sokrates wrote: Somebody that uses words like "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" etc. without discussing the topic. Basically these words are just there to shutdown the discussion and silence opposition.
well because 95% of the people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are. Then they'll start blabbering about how everyone is supposedly politically correct and wants to stop them from spreading their glorious truth.
I've taken a look at the ukip manifesto and if someone seriously supports only half of the crap they're promising then racist and bigot are two of the more tamer expressions that come to mind.
But remember the principle of Enantiodromia; everything arises out of its opposite. In a normal organic society, we would have a few extreme racists, a few true non-racists, with the majority occupying the broad swath of middle-ground. What political correctness has created with its absolute propositions is the demand for a rigid ideological conformity, any revolt from which must automatically carry the mind towards the diametrically opposite tendency. What institutionalised doctrines do is polarise; they conduct opinions which would ordinarily flow along a spectrum into confined extremes.
Thus the claim that "95% of people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are." is to a certain extent true, but it is not because most people are extreme, but because most people are quite ordinary.
You logic is flawed. The principle is correct enough, but is the opposite of a racist a non-racist, someone from a racial minority or an anti-racism campaigner? The scale is not that simple that it would work in the terms you have given. The issue isn't one dimensional enough to be explained in those terms IMHO.
On May 24 2014 07:00 Sokrates wrote: Somebody that uses words like "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" etc. without discussing the topic. Basically these words are just there to shutdown the discussion and silence opposition.
well because 95% of the people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are. Then they'll start blabbering about how everyone is supposedly politically correct and wants to stop them from spreading their glorious truth.
I've taken a look at the ukip manifesto and if someone seriously supports only half of the crap they're promising then racist and bigot are two of the more tamer expressions that come to mind.
But remember the principle of Enantiodromia; everything arises out of its opposite. In a normal organic society, we would have a few extreme racists, a few true non-racists, with the majority occupying the broad swath of middle-ground. What political correctness has created with its absolute propositions is the demand for a rigid ideological conformity, any revolt from which must automatically carry the mind towards the diametrically opposite tendency. What institutionalised doctrines do is polarise; they conduct opinions which would ordinarily flow along a spectrum into confined extremes.
Thus the claim that "95% of people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are." is to a certain extent true, but it is not because most people are extreme, but because most people are quite ordinary.
You logic is flawed. The principle is correct enough, but is the opposite of a racist a non-racist, someone from a racial minority or an anti-racism campaigner? The scale is not that simple that it would work in the terms you have given. The issue isn't one dimensional enough to be explained in those terms IMHO.
Your objection actually reinforces the original point. Racism is not a monolithic belief; the differences among racist beliefs are differences not only of intensity but of nature. To the extent that racism has become a monolithic belief, it has become one because of the solidarity of racists against the solidarity of anti-racists. The effect of political correctness is the simplification of all the issues which it touches.
I also don't see why a racial minority would be the opposite of a racist.
On May 24 2014 07:00 Sokrates wrote: Somebody that uses words like "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" etc. without discussing the topic. Basically these words are just there to shutdown the discussion and silence opposition.
well because 95% of the people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are. Then they'll start blabbering about how everyone is supposedly politically correct and wants to stop them from spreading their glorious truth.
I've taken a look at the ukip manifesto and if someone seriously supports only half of the crap they're promising then racist and bigot are two of the more tamer expressions that come to mind.
But remember the principle of Enantiodromia; everything arises out of its opposite. In a normal organic society, we would have a few extreme racists, a few true non-racists, with the majority occupying the broad swath of middle-ground. What political correctness has created with its absolute propositions is the demand for a rigid ideological conformity, any revolt from which must automatically carry the mind towards the diametrically opposite tendency. What institutionalised doctrines do is polarise; they conduct opinions which would ordinarily flow along a spectrum into confined extremes.
Thus the claim that "95% of people that claim not to be homophobic racists usually are." is to a certain extent true, but it is not because most people are extreme, but because most people are quite ordinary.
Well they're ordinary in a human sense, there's no reason to deny that(which is pretty awful). But ordinary doesn't equal justified. Just because most humans tend to be pretty intolerant that doesn't mean it should shape our society. Racism and homophobia are morally wrong and hurtful to our economy and society. So although these views might not be extreme in the sense that they don't occur very often, they're certainly extremely irrational.
Also I don't think political correctness creates polarized opinions. The US is among the most liberal countries when it comes to hate speech. Basically everyone is entitled to their opinion and can speak it out loud, still the American society is incredibly divided about even the simplest topics and also has a history of racism that continues till today.
Well they're ordinary in a human sense, there's no reason to deny that(which is pretty awful). But ordinary doesn't equal justified. Just because most humans tend to be pretty intolerant that doesn't mean it should shape our society. Racism and homophobia are morally wrong and hurtful to our economy and society. So although these views might not be extreme in the sense that they don't occur very often, they're certainly extremely irrational.
Are you saying that they are wrong in all situations and dosages?
Also I don't think political correctness creates polarized opinions. The US is among the most liberal countries when it comes to hate speech. Basically everyone is entitled to their opinion and can speak it out loud, still the American society is incredibly divided about even the simplest topics.
Legal constraints are not as powerful as social constraints in creating an atmosphere of political correctness. In the United States too, I think you will find regional differences in where people are most outspoken vs. political correctness.
The point however was that there is a difference between polarity and plurality in opinions. The former divides itself between two hostile camps. The latter is multilateral and non-standoffish.
EPT
