Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

Nope. UKIP believes in controlled immigration. This is stated in its policies. Any racist claims you make against the party are either unfounded as they are based on this controlled immigration which in itself is blatantly not racist, or against those party members who have now been either suspended or expelled from the party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27437982

Mr O'Brien asked what the difference was between having a Romanian family and a German one as neighbours. "You know what the difference is," Mr Farage replied.

[Mr. Strange]

Spoiler: first one is my favorite (click to show/hide)

[Ultimuh]

Posting to keep watch on this thread.

[TD1]

"You know what the difference is," Mr Farage replied.

He added: "I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be."

He also said many migrants coming to the UK had been "forced into a life of crime" by "real poverty" in their country.

So the difference would be that Romanians, who are from a less well off country than Germany, are also more likely to go to a life of crime.

Romanians are much more involved in crime than Germans when they come here. It's thought that around 90% of ATM fraud is committed by Romanians, a figure not likely to be attributed to Germans.

Of course, he could have worded it better so that the media didn't pounce on it, as he himself acknowledges:
"I should have just hit back immediately and said, look, understand there is a real problem here, you can't deny it.

"Too much criminality from those gangs from Romania has come to London - I could have been clearer. But, do you know what? In life, sometimes we get things wrong."

[Graknorke]

Okay so you're saying that it's not racist to claim that Romanians are criminals? Keep in mind that is not about statistics, but about any given group of Romanians. All criminals, every last lot of them.

[TD1]

Nope.

Now show me where he says they are.

[Graknorke]

The thing that I linked. The one where he said that he would be concerned if a group of Romanians moved in next door to him. He's not saying that they're more likely to be criminals or anything, he's saying outright that because they're Romanian they're trouble.

If you can't see that you're being wilfully ignorant of what conflicts with your opinion.

[TD1]

Everyone is wilfully ignorant on some points, yourself included, but I don't think this is a case of it.

He says a group of men, not a family. He was talking in context of London, where there are problems with gangs of the Romanian variety. Besides, he didn't say "If they moved next to me I would hate that foreign scum." He said "I would e concerned" because it's a possibility, heightened by being in London, but not a certainty.

Later, he further cements this: "Too much criminality from those gangs from Romania has come to London," linking it yet again with the gangs, not the people.

[Graknorke]

Besides, he didn't say "If they moved next to me I would hate that foreign scum."

Well no shit he didn't say that, he was on the radio.

He said "I would be concerned" because it's a possibility, heightened by being in London, but not a certainty.

But is that a concern that makes sense? Just because 90% of ATM fraud is done by Romanians doesn't mean that 90% of Romanians are fraudsters. And being young men shouldn't be such a shocker, since they make up a significant portion of migrants to the UK.

Later, he further cements this: "Too much criminality from those gangs from Romania has come to London," linking it yet again with the gangs, not the people.

But intends to solve it by... punishing people no doubt. Unless he has some sort of secret criminal-detector up his sleeve, issues with cutting back on social security has shown that there is no way they're going to only target people with illegal intent. Or even have them be the majority of people affected.

[TD1]

Intends to solve(alleviate's a better word ) the problem by creating a more secure border.

It's a concern, and one that does seem reasonable. That 90% of ATM fraud is committed by them and that they are known for forming gangs in London is enough to make me concerned until I get to know them. That there is a house of young Romanian males- who, whilst being a significant portion of migrants, are also almost exclusively the ones that join gangs and commit the crimes- right next door is going to concern anyone.

[Graknorke]

It's more a case of... (some googling later) an Association fallacy.
"A lot of these criminals are Romanian, therefore Romanians are criminals."
It's not sound reasoning.


Anyway I think I'm done with my part of this tangent.
Thing that made me laugh: Spectator mode on Omegle. I ask legitimate, potentially conversation starting questions and get immediately disconnected every time. I put in an insult and my first conversation one of them tries to ERP.
Why even try.

[Tawa]

I just read the Pulling Report, where Mike Stockpole  thoroughly deconstructs all the D&D hysteria from the 80s.

The arguments that were made in that era were absolutely hilariously bad.

[TD1]

You attempt to call him a racist over a comment on the radio, where he is repeatedly told he has gone over his time limit by a substantial amount and is no doubt under a lot of pressure, and which upon further analysis the best you can stick on is Association Fallacy. He then goes on to amend his statement to make it easier to understand. Is it so far out of the question that he simply worded his sentence incorrectly? I wonder what we could dig up on [Insert Politician Grak Favours Here] if such insubstantial claims were suddenly a basis for being racist.

[Graknorke]

Oh, no, I still maintain racism. He justifies it via the association fallacy.

[TD1]

I think this is another case of "it's not the words that matter, it's the intent behind the words."

I see no reason in his parties' policies, nor in his actions, to accuse him of racism. There is a logical alternative to "He's racist!"

Association Fallacy only works if he were to say all Romanians are criminals. He doesn't. This is your own interpretation of his words, which he clarified to avoid such misinterpretation.