Snap General Election called

[Puja]

I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

[Puja]

Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

[cashead]

Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

Am I though?

The "can't you play nice with racists?" personification of the ineffectual decorum-lib of a mod can still go eat a fuck.

[Puja]

Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

Am I though?

The "can't you play nice with racists?" personification of the ineffectual decorum-lib of a mod can still go eat a fuck.

THE TRIUMPHANT RETURN!

Puja

[Stom]

I'm not even sure it's that. I think it's more: Look how terribly Obama has dealt with these dirty Hispanic foreigners, I can do it much better. Build me a monument to racism.

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

Doesn't matter if the building of the wall is, in and of itself, not racist if the reason for building the wall is racist.

The fence in Hungary, despite many people calling racism, was clearly not built for racist reasons. In fact, it was built for a single purpose and it served that purpose absolutely perfectly (sending a message to the EU about the inequities of their migrant redistribution system), resulting in a change of system.

The two things were built for the same visual purpose - keeping out brown people - but one was a monument built by a racist to keep out brown people and the other was a symbol built by a fascist to send a message to an organisation who weren't actually playing fair.

[Digby]

I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

[Stom]

I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

[Digby]

I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

In part because the EU has little power in this area. And those countries without or with less of a problem would prefer not to engage on the issue

[morepork]

Bitch pleeze....

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

Am I though?

The "can't you play nice with racists?" personification of the ineffectual decorum-lib of a mod can still go eat a fuck.

C’mon baby, stay around this time. You’ve got good things to say without getting in a FITE.

[Stom]

I'd be happier to say what Hungary has done with its wall whilst highlighting the EU is bad at sharing certain burdens isn't free of being racist at the same time.

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

In part because the EU has little power in this area. And those countries without or with less of a problem would prefer not to engage on the issue

The do, and they changed the regulations now.

[Digby]

The thing is, the wall doesn't stop anyone actually entering the country if they want to, it just funnels the migrants through another EU country to highlight the fact those migrants didn't want to settle in Hungary and therefore why should the country be burdened with supporting them?

It's problematic, sure, and it does add to a pretty poor narrative, but it can be tough to get the EU to listen to sensible proposals sometimes.

In part because the EU has little power in this area. And those countries without or with less of a problem would prefer not to engage on the issue

The do, and they changed the regulations now.

The EU often changes regs. Which is not quite the same thing as having power

[cashead]

I feel it might be for the best that cashead's still banned.

Puja

Am I though?

The "can't you play nice with racists?" personification of the ineffectual decorum-lib of a mod can still go eat a fuck.

C’mon baby, stay around this time. You’ve got good things to say without getting in a FITE.

Hey, I'll kick your butt





at Nintendo.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

[Stom]

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I was having a conversation about this with a friend. I asked him about the government here being fascist. He didn't like labelling another group, which is completely fair and it's something I've agreed with all my life.

However, we have lost the last 3 elections while not calling names, while trying to find compromises and trying to talk to government supporters about their actual wants and needs. All the while, the government has been name calling, labelling us as Communists and saying we want to bring the country back to the dark ages, take the country into recession, and allow the Muslims to Islamicise our good Christian country.

So I say fuck 'em. Being reasonable has not gained us power. In fact, it has led to us being further from power than ever before.

And what country am I talking about? It could be any of them, ffs!

So fuck 'em, label them. Call them out for what they are, do not be reasonable.

You're not going to convince hardcore Trump, Brexiteers, Fidesz, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Duda, Patrick Bateman (seriously, look at fucking Kurtz, the psycho-looking chancellor of Austria) fans that they should turn their back on their "saviour". We need to start getting the people who are not voting and those on the fence. And you do that by making them so goddamn uncomfortable with the idea of being labeled a fascist for supporting this cum bucket pieces of shit that they do not vote for them.

Don't be reasonable. Call it out and be fucking unreasonable.

They are racist. They are fascist. We do not want them leading the world. You do not want to be associated with them. They're labelling us as paedos? They're the ones attending fucking Epstein parties and being given "massages" by 14 year olds.

So yeah. It's racist.

[Puja]

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

[Digby]

Also why does commentary on here need to be fit for the purposes of lobbying people thick and/or racist enough to vote for Trump?

I get telling people actually seeking to bring across members of Team Thick as Shit Racist Arseholes back into the folds of humanity they need to use inclusive language, but whilst I can't speak for everyone here I know I'm only trying to take the piss

[Puja]

And the right wing media hit squads begin circling:


I'm not sure whether they've left this too late to begin undermining him. He appears to be a very popular person amongst a large swathe of the British people and there's a tipping point at which attacking him will make readers dislike the paper rather than the target.

Puja

[Digby]

Also it's the Mail. They love people owning houses and houses going up in value, ideally not Black people but they'll take what they can get.

They do have a point that he's now coming from a position of extreme privilege, but that's not going to change the story for the Mail. Which isn't to say Rashford isn't going to need some commentary on his own tax position, and probably his thoughts on his peers dodging tax from a position of great privilege

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I was having a conversation about this with a friend. I asked him about the government here being fascist. He didn't like labelling another group, which is completely fair and it's something I've agreed with all my life.

However, we have lost the last 3 elections while not calling names, while trying to find compromises and trying to talk to government supporters about their actual wants and needs. All the while, the government has been name calling, labelling us as Communists and saying we want to bring the country back to the dark ages, take the country into recession, and allow the Muslims to Islamicise our good Christian country.

So I say fuck 'em. Being reasonable has not gained us power. In fact, it has led to us being further from power than ever before.

And what country am I talking about? It could be any of them, ffs!

So fuck 'em, label them. Call them out for what they are, do not be reasonable.

You're not going to convince hardcore Trump, Brexiteers, Fidesz, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Duda, Patrick Bateman (seriously, look at fucking Kurtz, the psycho-looking chancellor of Austria) fans that they should turn their back on their "saviour". We need to start getting the people who are not voting and those on the fence. And you do that by making them so goddamn uncomfortable with the idea of being labeled a fascist for supporting this cum bucket pieces of shit that they do not vote for them.

Don't be reasonable. Call it out and be fucking unreasonable.

They are racist. They are fascist. We do not want them leading the world. You do not want to be associated with them. They're labelling us as paedos? They're the ones attending fucking Epstein parties and being given "massages" by 14 year olds.

So yeah. It's racist.

I'm very happy to call Trump and Johnson racists. There's good evidence for it. Trump also at least a would-be fascist dictator - that's clear from the last couple of weeks.

Agreed, no one is going to convince hardcore supporters to change their views. We do indeed need to work on people in the middle, those whose views are not strongly held. Of these (in the USA) there will be quite a few who voted Trump and thought the wall was a good idea (not saying they thought too hard about it, but let's say they were happy with it). However I take the opposite view from you - I think It's not going to help convert them if you call them racists (which is pretty much what you're saying if you say the wall was a racist policy). Are they going to turn the way of people who insult them?

I totally understand the frustration with one side lying and half-truthing and conflating and the rest of it. Why don't we do the same? It's tempting.

But 1) we lose the high ground. (Not completely because we're not racists etc, but still, part of the high ground is lost.) If voters can see we're all willing to lie or bend the truth, then they can reasonably think we're all the same.

And 2), who leads us under these circumstances? Someone of little principle, someone happy to say whatever it takes to achieve a result. And then, since we have a man of little principle, we have someone we can't trust. Who can say where that will lead?
In the UK we got Tony Blair. And he gave us the shift of UK politics to the right (or the consolidation of Thatcher's shift to the right), ~1M dead in Iraq, a destabilised Middle East and motivation for a generation of terrorists.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.

If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?

I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Also it's the Mail. They love people owning houses and houses going up in value, ideally not Black people but they'll take what they can get.

They do have a point that he's now coming from a position of extreme privilege, but that's not going to change the story for the Mail. Which isn't to say Rashford isn't going to need some commentary on his own tax position, and probably his thoughts on his peers dodging tax from a position of great privilege

It's funny how the Daily Mail doesn't explore the assets and tax position of this vastly more wealthy man:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_ ... Rothermere

[Digby]

Also it's the Mail. They love people owning houses and houses going up in value, ideally not Black people but they'll take what they can get.

They do have a point that he's now coming from a position of extreme privilege, but that's not going to change the story for the Mail. Which isn't to say Rashford isn't going to need some commentary on his own tax position, and probably his thoughts on his peers dodging tax from a position of great privilege

It's funny how the Daily Mail doesn't explore the assets and tax position of this vastly more wealthy man:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_ ... Rothermere

Not just the Mail. Look how quickly the Panama Papers stopped being a big story and never got followed up on again. Yet again don't ask don't tell looks dodgy practice

[Puja]

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.

If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?

I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the distinction that you clearly are. Just because it's nationalistic doesn't mean it can't also be racist - it's designed to stop non-Americans, because "those people are criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." It's like when people said, "The immigration ban wasn't a muslim ban because it didn't include all Muslim countries and might catch some non-Muslims too." Things don't exist outside of context or intent - it's clear and obvious what the intent of it is.

Oddly, I'd say that the border controls between the USA and Mexico make the wall *more* racist, because the border is not the point at which most illegal immigration into the US comes from, nor is the point on the border where the wall is where most of the immigration on the border happens (citation: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/68366269 ... ta-tell-us). So chucking a ridiculous amount of budget at something largely futile suggests that it's a symbol rather than an immigration tool.

I don't know; it feels like splitting hairs to me. One can be worried about immigration and not be racist, certainly. A wall in and of itself, might not be racist. However, I personally don't see how Trump's wall is not racist. YMMV

Puja

[morepork]

It was meant to be a massive veined spunking testament to a legacy of a masculine stand against the imagined threat to suburban women, but it the end it was a bit flacid and he just couldn't get it up.

[cashead]

And the right wing media hit squads begin circling:


I'm not sure whether they've left this too late to begin undermining him. He appears to be a very popular person amongst a large swathe of the British people and there's a tipping point at which attacking him will make readers dislike the paper rather than the target.

Puja

Was he also the one that the Daily Mail or whomever had a right go at, because he had the temerity to go out to get some breakfast one day?

Like, yeah, property ownership and prices going up and more and more young people locked out of home ownership sucks, but criticise the system.

It's this shit, basically.