If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm suggesting that people are judged only by their actions, rather than opinions or percieved opinions. If someone, and I know many of these people, is anti-immigration or reads the Daily Mail, which I know is a racist newspaper even if I'm not entirely convinced that the cartoon is taken seriously by readers, but would never harm or deliberately offend any individual, then I believe we should be tolerant of their views. This is partly because (I hope) we live in a democratic society where the law limits actions, not opinions. It's mostly because if we can tolerate their views, we can listen to the experience they've had that led them to believe what they do, and there has been something, people with racist views are not evolutionary throwbacks who instinctively blindly follow the Daily Mail, and use that information to understand why people believe these insane views and ensure that things change.
I am not saying it's ok to hurt, intimidate or treat someone else as inferior, whatever the excuse is. No one convicted of racial abuse deserves tolerance, but many people labelled racist aren't convicted of racial abuse, because they just talk about unfair it is that certain people get more than others. If they were complaining about a certain age group, for example, I most people's response would be more like "why do you say that? In my experience this is the reason...." rather than "You're a horrible, evil person who doesn't deserve to breathe". I know there's a long history of racial discrimination which makes this more complicated, but the only consistency among these horrific societies we're trying so hard not to become is intolerance, and with that knowledge pointing to one group and saying "they're the reason we're an intolerant society. Look at how inferior their brains are. They clearly have nothing good about them." doesn't sound like the best solution. I think it needs to be remembered that racist opinions, and conservative views strangely enough, are unlikely to be held by just one person in a resedential area, it seems to be all or nothing. Teenagers who are just forming their political beliefs are not going to label their families as evil for the people they're told already get everything, even if they're not yet racist themselves. I think in many cases misguided would be a better word than many of the words Aladin uses, because these people see evidence to support their beliefs all the time, but unless they can freely express them in a political discussion, not as racist abuse, they'll never hear the other side.
I think we need to be intolerant of all abuse based on skin colour, country of origin, religion and political beliefs, but sometimes racism is just a political belief. Sexism, another political belief, is often adopted by political parties, and that's seen as ok.
There isn't any suggestion in this thread (from recollection) which suggests that such opinions should be outlawed. There is suggestion that they should be challenged and exposed for what they are.
History shows what happens if such views are left to fester - eventually they do lead to actions. Although those actions tend to be undertaken by a minority, the very fact that propoaganda like this foes unchallenged means that the victims of that abuse are dehumanised to such an extent that people stand by and allow the violence too.
As you say at the end of your post, we need to intolerant of abuse. The difference in our approach is the point at which you challenge the abuse. I say you do it before it reaches a point of violence, you seem to want to wait until afterwards.
I agree that these thoughts can't be left to fester, but people who have them need to be challenged rather than silenced. This means hearing things that you'd rather not hear, acknowledging any truth in them and actually dealing with the underlying situation rather than telling people to shut up because this is a democratic society.
My eyes hurt.
I don't think people are moaning that the immigrants are coming and sponging off the state (we've got enough indigenous who are adept at that); it's more that they're coming here in the first place. Now this isn't a "they took errrrrr jerrrrbbbs" point of view, merely that the accompanying strain on factors like housing, public services and the fact that we are a small island means that Labour's model of unfettered immigration is not a sustainable model.
But I guess that suggesting that mass immigration is anything other than totally awesome and will culturally enrich every aspect of my life means that I'm a black-shirted, goose-stepping racist, n'est pas?
It's when people only get concerned about the immigrants that are from east Europe, Africa and asia and not about those from Germany and the US (for example) that people start to question motives for the concern.
Of it's when blatant lies about the benefits and support that immigrants get - with the motive of creating a "them and us" culture - that the debate becomes questionable.
I don't think any of us would shy away from an honest debate about immigration, the benefits and the costs. Problem is that it's not honest.
Some useful facts worth considering about immigration:
7.5% of the UK population was born abroad
India and Pakistan are the biggest sources of the migration, followed by Germany and the USA.
Exactly. I'm an equal-opportunities racist
The Germany figure's a bit of fudge though because it's mainly the kids of British army personnel. But I get what you're staying. No-one is too concerned about all the Aussies overstaying their visa (more than any other nationality), but when a few Pakistanis are caught doing it, it's all over the papers. Incidentally, it's exactly the same situation in Australia, with Brits and Kiwis being the most likely to overstay their visas, but only brown people getting into the papers for it.
Having said that read the comments and many of the readers cannot see the irony ... in fact some point out that she won't like it here because of all our immirgants. Do you think the people who type that realise that she would be one too?
No comment about the nationality of the mother then? Convicted fraudster, convicted of sitting by and doing nothing whilst her child was systematically tortured and killed.
A) because the Judge commented himself and
I mean what would you have them do make the entire story about a Brit woman convicted of fraud and then at the end have a line about the chap being convicted ot torturing and murdering his daughter
Didn't the judge have anything to say about her actions? Didn't the Daily Mail think that it as necessary to even mention her natioanlity at all?
The actual story here is a man killed his child. Look at other recent stories about child killing and that is all they focus on...
Well I guess you have to wait until the next census.
I note that you didn't question the examples I gave, which you had asked for. Funny that.
Why would they mention her nationality? The BBC didn't
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8524167.stm
and in fact unlike the Mail don't even have a picture of her to show she is white. Nor do they mention what the Judge said about her, which again is hardly suprising as the story is about him committing murder, not her failing to stop him
Yeah she got five years in prison for the crimes she committed, which wasn't murder. And its hard to blame the Mail for sentencing guidelines.
We're exporting the criminals back to their own countries, which you'd think the Mail and it's readership would love. Think again.....
Look at the BBC headline. Compare it with the Mail one.
Spot any differences?
What was more important in the murder. The fact that the killer was an immigrant or psychopathic? Which do you hink was more likely to be the cause of the killing, his immigration status or his mental health?
The important aspect about immigration was about what the judge comments on in relation to the conception of the child, not it's death.
But both the BBC and Mail mention his immigration status. Its kinda obvious that anyone who murders a baby is a pyschopath, but his lack of concern which led him to murder it was a direct result of him only conceiving it to remain in the UK.
I think you've made a hypothesis and are trying to fit evidence into it as the differences between the BBC and Mail are minimal
Tough one, I don't think that was covered. It's an assumption. There's plenty of examples of the same lack of concern in fathers who aren't illegal immigrants.
It's not the perfect example (and I note that it's the only example that's been questioned) but it does highlight the prominence which the Mail give to one aspect of the case.
The Mail has a particular issue with immigrants, it's their agenda. So they highlight negatives as often as possible. Hence this headline. Draw attention to the immigration status or just mention it. Yes, it was part of the judges sentencing but as the BBC shows the death wasn't because the killer was an illegal immigrant, it was because he is a psychopath.
What a silly thing to say. Clearly just added in to divert attention away from your 9-year-old-facts-about-immigration blunder.
So you’re gonna claim some kinda internet victory based on what I haven’t said yet? Guilt by momentary silence? Jeez I better keep up with you in threads. :rolleyes:
Why are you expecting me to question your examples anyway? I asked for examples with an open mind and I even said that if your examples are valid then I will agree with you. I didn’t set out to be confrontational MoK.
Incidentally, the last time I sat down at my PC to write a lengthy reply on thesite was when I decided to respond in this thread. My previous one-liner post was posted from my Blackberry. Responding to your examples was in the pipeline, I can assure you.
I’ll tell you what’s funny. You condemning the Daily Mail for lying about immigration, but when you try to clarify the "facts" you publish data which is 9 years old.
You may think that the Daily Mail is bad, but I have a feeling that the Daily MoK would be much worse.
You mentioned the “mistakes” (ie the deliberately misleading or plainly untruthful) stories that the Daily Mail makes when it comes to immigration , the Islamic faith, and its followers.
^ So you mentioned 3 distinct things there, but now you’re trying to bunch Islam/followers together as though they’re the same thing (a bit of backtracking from you there I think).
Firstly, I did not ask you for any examples about immigration, so any examples you gave about immigration will be ignored, because I didn’t ask for them.
I specifically asked for examples about the Islamic faith and it’s followers (see here)
None of your examples highlighted any “mistakes” or deliberately misleading/untruthful stories about the Islamic faith. None of them. So would you like to retract that one?
So...
having stripped down your posts, that just leaves the examples you gave about the followers of Islam (ie Muslims).
It should be noted that none of your examples consist of any mistakes or deliberately untruthful things about Muslims.
You gave an example of 2 terror plots and you said that one consists of more detail and sensationalism. How does more detail and sensationalism equate to misleading/untruthfulness? If all of the information within the article is true then there can be no untruthfulness surely?
Also, if it’s true that the Daily Mail referred to a man as Asian and Muslim, then how is this misleading or untruthful? Surely both of these statements are true?
Some of the links in your examples didn’t work, so I can’t comment on them. Some of your evidence came from websites other than the Daily Mail, and I’ve learnt not to come to any conclusions based on 2nd hand information.
If you want to say that the Daily Mail is slightly BIASED, then fair enough, that could be explored. But to say that it's extremely untruthful or misleading is a bit of an exaggeration.
I'm just trying to get some perspective here. I mean, if the Daily Mail is, as Aladdin puts it, a "deeply bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, racist publication" then what does that make, say, the literature that the Klu Klux Klan publish???
On two occasions you used the comments posted in the comments section of the Daily Mail website to prove your point. Well that’s a very fallacious thing to do.
Comments posted on the comments section aren’t indicative of the Daily Mail. They are only indicative of people who post comments.
Indeed, on many occasions the most recommended comments have actually condemned the article in question. For example the most recommended comments on the infamous Jan Moir article about Stephen Gately were rightly condemning it.
Are you expecting the comments to be moderated to such an extent that the ones which you find objectionable be removed? That’s not moderating, that’s censorship.
Is it the Daily Mails fault that these are the comments that they receive? How can you use the comments section to prove your point? How can you use the “readers”, which you’ve deduced from the comments section, to prove your point? Are you not a “reader” too?
I think you’ll find that even the comments posted on the BBCs Have Your Say forum will be similar to those posted on the Daily Mail. If you arrange the comments on BBCs Have Your Say then on many occasions the most popular ones will, for example, support the BNP.
Some will say that you have a particular issue with the Daily Mail and that is your agenda, and you highlight negatives as possible.
Indeed it isn’t, it will tell you the sum of immigration between 2001 and 2011. Not that I claimed it was the only way. The census is, however, the best source to establish the epidemiology of the UK at a given point in time because it’s the only one which every household completes.
It has it’s faults though.
Or to draw attention to the fact that you asked for examples which were given and then ignored
No, I’m going to point out your selective approach when debating. Ignoring the substantive and picking up on the minor. But hey, it’s your choice.
You may not have done, but you challenged an assertion I was making because it wasn’t one which you were agreeing with. You quite rightly asked for examples, which I gave. You then ignored the response, but I’m looking forward to the eventual response.
You deny that what I posted is “fact”? You don’t see the difference between a lie and using the most recent census as a source of information?
It is. You might note that I am talking about “mistakes”, the quotation marks is important in the quote you reference. It highlights the fact that I am quoting someone else.
Erm not backtracking, more an example of how they don’t concentrate on one aspect but actually have a few targets of their vitriol.
Ah, so you narrow my argument down for me. Thanks. But then it’s no longer my argument is it?
As it’s a matter of record then you should be able to read the entire quote. You know the part where I also pointed out that the Mail highlights a person’s race or religion when it’s a negative story.
If you want to use my quotes then do it in context. They really point out what my assertion actually is and not what you appear to think it is.
I did use comments from their website. It’s their website, the control the content, hence why I also pointed out that they moderate the content.
Why do you think that is? When it comes to that story, why do you think that most of the recommended comments were those condemning the article. Perhaps the Daily Mail’s defence of the complain level is a good indicator for you.
I do. I’m open about it. Given that this is a debate about that topic then it’s pretty much in context wouldn’t you say?
“7.5% of the UK population was born abroad in 2001”
The 2001 bit is very, very relevant. And you talk about misleading headlines? The words pot, kettle, black and all that spring to mind...
^ That trio of quotes from you are all baseless. Everything you wrote there was built upon your false/unfair assertion of me supposedly “ignoring” your examples when it was merely a case of me not getting round to replying yet. Were you expecting an immediate Punch & Judy type response?
I inquisitively asked for examples, not because I was hell bent to refuting you or anything, but because I wanted the evidence to help me form my opinion. Incidentally, having looked at your examples I didn’t wholly agree with them.
You mean "facts" from 2001 which were misleadingly presented. I don’t like misleading headlines, whether it’s from the Daily Mail or the Daily MoK. It’s always good to turn the tables in order to get a perspective on things though...
If the Daily Mail had printed a headline today, with a figure from the 2001 census, highlighting a trend which has probably gone against their agenda in the last 9 years, then you’d be up in arms wouldn’t you? You would consider it highly misleading wouldn’t you?
Yes I know the word “mistakes” had quotation marks and I included the quotation marks in my response and I know exactly what you meant by them and yes I know that you were responding to stargalaxy at the time. I know MoK I know. I took everything into consideration in my response.
You always manage to find that little bit of lee-way in your otherwise indubitable posts to weasel yourself out don’t you? Tying yourself into knots with extraneous points about semantics and whatnot (and let’s not forget the sarcasm).
What do you mean by they? I’m referring to your backtracking here, how did you manage divert this one onto the Daily Mail as well?
Yes it is still your argument. Of course it is still your argument.
If I specifically ask for examples regarding the Islamic faith and it’s followers, then I’m not obliged to respond to any other examples you cite.
It doesn’t mean that I’m narrowing down your argument, I’m just responding to the bits that are relevant to what I asked for... from what is still your argument.
I did slightly acknowledge the fact that sometimes the Mail does mention the individuals race/religion when it’s not really necessary, but one the whole I think it’s only done if it’s relevant to the story.
Does it matter why I think that is? Is it necessary for me to think that far ahead when I’m merely making the point that the comments section isn’t indicative of the Daily Mail? Just like the BBCs Have Your Say comments section isn’t indicative of the BBC. Don’t explore my point more than you need to.
Indeed, but you should get some perspective on the whole thing.
Like I said in my very first post in this thread, the Daily Mail, like any newspaper, consists of articles that I agree with, articles that I disagree with, and articles that I am indifferent to.
What I highly object to however is the way in which some people will look at someone reading the Daily Mail as if they're reading Mein Kampf or something. FFS it's not that bad.
(I'm not directing that last statement at you specifically, it was just a general statement to finish off).
I agree. Mein Kampf is a much maligned piece of literature and comparison of said to the Daily Mail is frankly insulting.