Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Craig B]

As to why they are less educated than average is anyones' guess. Having to pray five times a day isn't usually conductive to education, but I can't say if the practice of their faith is significant in this regard. It could be, but we don't know enough to say.

I think you're on a roll and you're "pushing the envelope" here.
Maybe they're incapable of learning because their mothers wore burkinis on the beach while pregnant, and the kids didn't absorb that vitamin you get from sunlight. I mean there's lots of fun theories about this sort of thing, why minorities are morons and stuff.

Used to be the Irish Catholics got that treatment. Now it's Muslims. Times change; bigotry is constant, OK? But what's this? Data from Scottish schools.
School Leaver Attainment Scotland 2014:15
% of school leavers attaining 1 or more at SCQF level 6 or better (by ethnic group)
White Scottish 59.8
Asian - Pakistani 71.1
Chinese did best at 88%
Hey, we better tell the Imams that Pakistani kids in Scotland aren't praying enough!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I didn't avoid it, I ignored it. I don't live in UK if that means so much to you.

That much was clear from your ill-informed view of the UK media.

You claimed there is some big media conspiracy to paint Muslims in a bad light. Your evidence is claiming three mediocre media outlets doing so, without any factual study behind it. The burden of evidence is on you.

Those 'mediocre' outlets are how millions of people get their news. The constant stream of lies printed by them is not even debated in the UK, it's a simple fact.

Now that we've cleared that up, you just admitted the leading medium in UK and one of the most respected media houses worldwide does not, in fact, do as you claim "the media" is doing. I say this is sufficient evidence your claim is BS until you prove it otherwise.

I have admitted no such thing. I have already told you that the BBC publishes articles on both sides. That doesn't mean they are given equal coverage, equal weight or equal prominence and that's before we even get into the idea of balancing 'reality' with 'lies and nonsense' as being fair coverage.

I'll interpret that as a "No, I do not". It speaks volumes about you that you're able to criticize a policy without ever considering it's merits, but are completely unable to come up with anything better. I believe there is a quote attributed to Einstein about people like you.

Your question didn't warrant an answer. You seriously propose acting on lies and false information as superior to not doing so and expect someone to take you seriously?

Perhaps you should read what I write on occasion and not simply pander nonsense continuously.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11617723&postcount=2245

Dig through that, then come up with something meaningful. Or not, your choice.

McHrozni

Are we just to ignore everything else you say then? This is the same crap we get from Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Dog whistle statements, lies and hyperbole, with a nice veneer of bigotry followed up by 'not me bruv, i love Muslims me, I'm a reasonable chap' BS which is lapped up by the ill-informed and in-particular the American right who couldn't care less about details like facts or human rights.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, but I'm certain anti-Muslim sentiments bring about 3-5 Brexit voters for every one the East Europeans bring. UKIP might focus elsewhere, but without Muslims they'd rack in maybe 40% at best. UK unemployment rate is at about 5%, down from a peak of 8% two years ago. There is no way the concern about lost jobs motivates nearly enough voters into an economic seppuku. Fear of terrorism has that power though, as demonstrated in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and USA to name a few.

McHrozni

Strongly disagree with your assessment, it really wasn't about Muslim immigrants it was mainly about the Poles, the Bulgarians and the like. Which is why it was about the EU immigration not the rest of the world.

 

[McHrozni]

Those 'mediocre' outlets are how millions of people get their news. The constant stream of lies printed by them is not even debated in the UK, it's a simple fact.

17 million people voted for Brexit, those three newspapers combined reach 1/3 of that if no one buys more than one newspaper and no one shares a newspaper - realistically the number is even lower.

Your question didn't warrant an answer. You seriously propose acting on lies and false information as superior to not doing so and expect someone to take you seriously?

I seriously propose you have no better alternative. Prove me wrong if you can.

Are we just to ignore everything else you say then? This is the same crap we get from Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Dog whistle statements, lies and hyperbole, with a nice veneer of bigotry followed up by 'not me bruv, i love Muslims me, I'm a reasonable chap' BS which is lapped up by the ill-informed and in-particular the American right who couldn't care less about details like facts or human rights.

As I said, dig through that and post something meaningful. Or not, your choice. You made your choice apparently, and that is fine

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Strongly disagree with your assessment, it really wasn't about Muslim immigrants it was mainly about the Poles, the Bulgarians and the like. Which is why it was about the EU immigration not the rest of the world.

It was about Johnnie Foreigner. Factual details are of interest only to a tiny AWOL elite living remote from the people in their ivory towers while Farage gets on with addressing the issues that are of concern to ordinary folk.

 

[McHrozni]

Strongly disagree with your assessment, it really wasn't about Muslim immigrants it was mainly about the Poles, the Bulgarians and the like. Which is why it was about the EU immigration not the rest of the world.

The people in this image were not Poles, Bulgarians and the like.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/41/590x/secondary/Ukip-advert-567064.jpg

Of course Brexitards campaigned on Poles, Bulgarians and the like, they would be obviously called out that EU doesn't regulate non-EU migration if they didn't. I'm saying the anti-Islamic feelings brought the anti-immigrant voters to a far greater extent than EU migration ever did.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

The people in this image were not Poles, Bulgarians and the like.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/41/590x/secondary/Ukip-advert-567064.jpg

Of course Brexitards campaigned on Poles, Bulgarians and the like, they would be obviously called out that EU doesn't regulate non-EU migration if they didn't. I'm saying the anti-Islamic feelings brought the anti-immigrant voters to a far greater extent than EU migration ever did.

McHrozni

That's pretty much what I just wrote in #2325!

 

[uke2se]

I blame it on their political opponents. Brexit is to a large extent a failure of those who campaigned for Bremain, Trump a failure of Hillary and DNC, FN a failure of the entire sane part of the French political spectrum. It's not a failure of their voters, but the actors who run opposite campaigns. They're the ones who need to get the message across, and they failed. In some cases this might've been unavoidable (FN?), in other cases it was a clear failure of getting the message across to the deplorables (Brexit), other times it was simply the mistakes done during the campaign (Hillary and her deplorables comment on tape for example, you can make such comments on a largely anonymous internet forum, but not when giving a speech FFS).

Voters are bit players. Yes it would be welcome if every sane voter would engage in the process to the best of their ability, but you can't just demand that of everyone.


Not to worry, you red it wrong

McHrozni

If the first part is what you are saying, I certainly read it right.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. It's nobody's fault but the people who campagined and voted for [Brexit/Trump/FN] that [Brexit/Trump/FN] happened. We can discuss what could have been done and what can still be done to limit or contain this apparent spread of outright stupidity and bigotry over the Western world, but to start blaming the people who actively oppose these things is ludicrous.

 

[uke2se]

Muslim migrants and refugees should be treated in the same manner as economic migrants of any other denomination in Germany, and helped as much as any other refugee if they remain as refugees.

No, refugees should not be treated in the same manner as economic migrants. There's a difference. Nations have a responsibility to aid refugees.

 

[catsmate]

On the actual subject of this thread I recommend watching CGP GrYy's video,
Brexit, Briefly.

 

[catsmate]

This chart is from the Huffington Post website:
<snip>

What have your anti-Muslim opinions got to do with Brexit?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Oh it's not complex at all. You are in favour of removing rights from innocent people in order to pander to bigots for no reason than it will make the bigots a bit happier. Let's just be clear on that rather than beat around the bush and pretend that you are adopting some kind of sophisticated position or moral high ground here.

I realize this was directed elsewhere, but please allow me to ask: Are you for or against actionable policies regarding civil and criminal law that explicitly deny human rights? Would you support such policies if, in the way of example, it aided in garnering social acceptance and in positioning your views as "proper?"

 

[The Don]

17 million people voted for Brexit, those three newspapers combined reach 1/3 of that if no one buys more than one newspaper and no one shares a newspaper - realistically the number is even lower.

I don't think that it's realistic to assume that no one shares a newspaper - and don't forget the online versions:

The Daily Mail/Mail Online remains the most read national newspaper in with a claimed monthly reach across print and online in the UK of more than 29m, slightly up quarter on quarter.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-r...mail-online-grows-uk-monthly-audience-to-29m/

How reliable those figures are is a good question however.

Then there's the effect of one person reading the Mail/Sun/Express and sharing their newly-acquired opinions with their friends and colleagues.

IMO of course their message is pushing at an open door.

 

[Greebo]

I don't think that it's realistic to assume that no one shares a newspaper - and don't forget the online versions:



http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-r...mail-online-grows-uk-monthly-audience-to-29m/

How reliable those figures are is a good question however.

Then there's the effect of one person reading the Mail/Sun/Express and sharing their newly-acquired opinions with their friends and colleagues.

IMO of course their message is pushing at an open door.

What I also found ironic was that those more likely to vote for Brexit were those more likely to receive some form of benefits from the EU in their area.

 

[Belz...]

This is becoming ridiculous. Good day.

Now, come on, Craig. A religion isn't a race. He was at least right on that.

 

[Tolls]

The combined circulation all these newspapers is about the traffic of BBC.com, if not dwarfed by it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldnews/bbc-world-news-web-figures.html

That's BBC World's figures.
Not the Beeb in the UK.

As for newspapers, you are also missing out on my mention of the Metro and Standard, both DMG papers, and with circulations that, together, are comparable to the Mail and almost reach the Sun.

As for reach, I believe the figure increases by between 50 and 100%.
http://www.nrs.co.uk/latest-results/titles-at-a-glance/quick-view/
The Mail almost doubles.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I realize this was directed elsewhere, but please allow me to ask: Are you for or against actionable policies regarding civil and criminal law that explicitly deny human rights? Would you support such policies if, in the way of example, it aided in garnering social acceptance and in positioning your views as "proper?"

I'm not sure I understood the question fully. As a general rule I would oppose any policy which denied any person or group human rights however I am not an absolutist and recognise that in some very limited cases there may be a very good reason to restrict human rights (at least in theory) however there would need to be a damn good case made that there is a need for it and a benefit from it.

I also acknowledge that in a number of cases there may in fact be a conflict of rights and some compromise may require to be made.

The argument being put forward for the Burqa ban above however was ridiculous.

1. There are bigots who object to Muslims wearing whatever clothes they like
2. These bigots might vote for parties who want to do bad things to Muslims

Therefore moderate people should jump on the bandwagon of denying Muslims rights otherwise they will be primarily to blame if bigots vote for bigotry.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think that it's realistic to assume that no one shares a newspaper - and don't forget the online versions:



http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-r...mail-online-grows-uk-monthly-audience-to-29m/

How reliable those figures are is a good question however.

Then there's the effect of one person reading the Mail/Sun/Express and sharing their newly-acquired opinions with their friends and colleagues.

IMO of course their message is pushing at an open door.

And lets compare that with people clicking online to read the BBC and provide one example of a story which doesn't castigate Muslims as evidence of balance... even if the clickers are just clicking to get the football results, or the result of Strictly or the local weather.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Now, come on, Craig. A religion isn't a race. He was at least right on that.

No it isn't but it becomes a semantic point. What you call the bigotry isn't the important part.

In any case the vast majority of hate is aimed at Muslims of a particular region and ethnic origin. Some posters may like to believe that this bigotry is a new thing driven by fear of terrorism but there have been racists targetting Pakistanis in the UK for a long time before anyone knew what a suicide bomber or Islamist extremist even was.

 

[Craig B]

Now, come on, Craig. A religion isn't a race. He was at least right on that.

You respond positively to invitations like this, to discuss these issues, do you?

I don't want nonsense however.​

And to suggest that treating as an emergency requiring immediate official intervention, the wearing by women of unrevealing garments on a beach, because their religious tradition prescribes it, has nothing in common with racism, is surely an attempt at humour on your part.

Another good example was the withdrawal from the menu of vegetarian meals in some French Schools. That's not racism either; what's the fuss? Aye, right.