The Future

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

So quickly quoting immigration as the fundamental source of our problems in the middle of an international financial crisis, and dismissing any other perspective seems at best simplistic, at worst deceptive and somewhere on that scale possibly racist – and any of those could prompt rolling eyes, not just racist

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

I stand by my challenge.. For anyone to show me where Terry’s initial immigration post was anyway racist or deserved the treatment it received.
The silence so far has been quite deafening.

Words, your theory here is based on no hard evidence from Terry’s post lol.
Truly astonishing really :lol:

Terry’s post was in direct response to Mrs Teapot’s reflection on Europe.
I don’t see him dismissing anyone in this post.
And what makes his post as conceived as “quickly” or quicker as anyone elses?
Are we down to judging whether opinions should be merited on how quick we can type them now?
What’s all this “fundamental” business?
And on what (or whose ) scale does supposed “deceptive” turn to “racism” in this post?

As for the whole “Guilt by association” well that’s ludicrous in relation to this and has more holes in it than a tea bag.. it could be argued it’s more discriminating than any of Terry’s remarks in his initial post.

I put it to you that it was panda and not Terry who jumped to too many conclusions here.. and that your retrospective sweep up is proving to be rather redundant.

Good.. but could try better.

Pepper with your astonishment and love for assessment you are spoiling me
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here are some “better” tries:

By “Quickly” I was referring to the early reference in the thread, not the speed of typing or reply. Terry was the first person to refer to Poles, which I think Panda took as a reference to immigration, it seems to have struck a chord with her as she explained.

Panda still didn’t call anyone racist and could have had other reasons for rolling her eyes.

The first person to use the word Racist was Mrs T.

Terry’s reaction to Panda’s comment, although it might have been to Sceptical guy’s agreement, was “Oh I’m so sorry for daring to bring my opinion into it.” I took that as being dismissive, you don’t have to agree. If Terry says I got it wrong I will apologise to him, but without his confirmation, my understanding isn’t any worse than yours.

Terry has replied to most comments with reference to immigration and how important it is, neglecting comments on other economic factors, I would describe that as making it fundamental to his arguments. You don’t have to agree.

As for guilt by association, I was referring to associations that people other than Panda or myself have made between Terry’s comments and various far right groups, if you see that as too discriminating, then please take it up with them.

In my comment, I put racism on a scale between simplistic and deceptive. Think about the times you’ve been subjected to racism and you might recognise the corellation.

Panda’s comment was “Just love the way that somebody has to bring immigrants into it. Typical. ” I’m not sure how that constitutes “too many conclusions”. Even her subsequent comments were to explain her reaction rather than to comment directly on Terry’s take on things. So if her statements outweigh Terry’s and yours, then I suggest she has skills we should all acquire because she’s said so much less than any of us.

Which leads to redundancy – I really don’t think anything I’ve said is any more vital than anything said by anyone else – or any less. But seriously the world would do fine without anything we said in here, it’s all redundant.

Strive To Be Happy!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

Thank you for “clarifying” Words.

Thing is, it all needed a little too much clarification didnt it?
Still not too clear to me though.

You say “Terry’s reaction to panda’s comment”..
Not the issue I’m dealing with here.
I want clarification on panda’s reaction to Terry.
You see? Yet again there’s an inherent bias here.
Then you muddy the waters further with ” it might have been to sceptical’s agreement”

” Panda still didn’t call anyone racist and could have had other reasons for rolling her eyes.”

In between stifling a laugh at the “could have had other reasons” parT there (she may have been watching footy) I never said she did.

But on the evidence of that one line she posted, she meant to at least dismiss Tel’s post in some fashion no?
Or have I missed something?
Was it a rational retort to a social opinion?

We are being told a lot of what it didn’t mean and a lot of what it might have meant.. yet conversely it seems we are meant to know EXACTLY what Tel meant?
We know exactly what big bad Tel meant why?
Because he isn’t the perceived “victim” in this supposed message boards injustice. He isn’t from the West Indies or Irish or Eastern European or Outer Mongolian or what not.
No.
He is English.
So it his HIS opinion that is assumed and discriminated against in panda’s crude, rolling eyes dismissal.
He shouldn’t breathe a word of what he perceives to be an erosion of his identity? Millions do. The French election is irrefutable proof of that, yet their ballot box right is rarely reflected in the “free” press or even places like here.
I’m not saying I agree with this.. truth be known, I don’t actually.
Yet I’m not lilly livered enough to dismiss the opinions of millions of like minded voters around Europe.
Anti immigration is no longer an extreme point of view.. it is representative.
It needs to be listened to and addressed.
That’s democracy.
Rolling eyes won’t help.

I’m with Myers on this.. and , as I said, he puts its far more eloquently than I ever could.
The language of victimisation and it’s apologists must be adhered to.. Any dissent is racism or homophobia or anti this or uncle that or homoracia (I’m assuming that’s hatred of non white gays.. ok, I’m making that up).

As for this…
“In my comment, I put racism on a scale between simplistic and deceptive. Think about the times you’ve been subjected to racism and you might recognise the corellation.”

I won’t grace such a stupendously idiotic remark with a response.
To attempt to subjectify in such a fashion is truly the refuge of poor argument and populism.
No.
This is not about me.
This is about language.
And one need not type a lot of it to reveal one’s prejudicial correlations.
Yet again, and in this regard, posts “outweighing” others etc is populist drivel.
A post regarding disagreements with levels of immigration should NOT be taken personaly in rational argument.. not in the absence of abuse.
Terry abused no one here.
Argue the facts, the figures.
Without the chip on the shoulder.

In saying that, Tel has been guilty of many misdemeanours on this thread.. and I will not defend them.. Very few have.
In fact I condemn them right here , right now.

But that should not give us the right to dismiss his earlier post as nothing but what it should have been.

And panda never even gave it a chance.

Goodnight pepper, sleep tight :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Blimmin’ ‘eck ’tis Sunday morning! :lol:

Just for Pepper as he seems somewhat confused.

Terry posted this:

What we need is an end to european integration.

The Poles have sent home – according to a national statistics survey – £23 billion in the last seven years. It’s money our economy cannot afford to lose. It’s basic economic madness for this country to allow east Europeans to work here in the numbers they do.

In response, I posted this:

Just love the way that somebody has to bring immigrants into it. Typical. :roll:

Why? Because in my experience, I knew it was only matter of time before someone started to blame immigrants. The original post from Kenty did not mention immigrants or the EU but focused on a lack of affordable housing and teen pregnancies.

Terry decided to bring immigration and the EU into the debate.

I hope I’ve clarified that for you Pepper – no need to perplex your brain anymore over it. I would say I’m rather flattered by all your attention, but I’m more confused by it, and in particular, your references to the rolling eyes icon. I guess I can explain the rolling eyes to mean, “oh God! Here we go again, blame the immigrants for al our social ills.”