Vegan fascists, or rather, fascists at a vegan food fayre (n/g)

[shotshy]

I get that argument, shotty.

I've already accepted that people who are not right wing may have justifiable concerns about uncontrolled immigration.

But those with far right views have always opposed all immigration. And they always will.

So whilst it is true to say that immigration is not necessarily about right/left politics, I think you're wrong to suggest that immigration has got nothing to do with right/left politics.

Actually it's got quite a lot to do with it.

Actually, it hasn’t.
Much research has been done and the evidence is that even in Labour dominated working class areas, uncontrolled immigration is an issue.
The Labour urban liberal type definitely has differing opinions, but they would do wouldn’t they.
Who would pour the Latte?

 

[Buddha]

Actually, it hasn’t.
Much research has been done and the evidence is that even in Labour dominated working class areas, uncontrolled immigration is an issue.
The Labour urban liberal type definitely has differing opinions, but they would do wouldn’t they.
Who would pour the Latte?

I'm not arguing against that! You are correct, i agree with you!

The point you are making and the point I am making are different, and they're not mutually exclusive.

The far right have always been opposed to immigration. They didn't want the Irish or the Jews here, they didn't want the blacks here, they didn't want Asians here and now they don't want East Europeans here. The far right didn't want them and still doesn't want them because far right politics is dominated by things such as racism and xenophobia.

The people you talk of, people who don't have far-right leanings and who might vote Conservative or Labour, some of them do indeed have genuine and justifiable concerns about uncontrolled immigration.

i'll try to put it simply. It is not racist or right wing to be concerned about immigration. However, racist, right-wing people are always concerned by immigration. So, if you meet someone who is concerned about immigration you can't just assume they are racist. But if you meet a right-wing racist it is safe to assume they'll be opposed to immigration

 

[ThreeSixes]

i'll try to put it simply. It is not racist or right wing to be concerned about immigration. However, racist, right-wing people are always concerned by immigration. So, if you meet someone who is concerned about immigration you can't just assume they are racist.

That's it, yes!!!!

 

[Buddha]

That's it, yes!!!!

That's not all of it though, you've cut the quote short.

If that was deliberate it's a bit disingenuous!.

Did you disagree with the final sentence?!

 

[ThreeSixes]

Did you disagree with the final sentence?!

No of course not. That seems pretty obvious

 

[Buddha]

No of course not. That seems pretty obvious

Fair enough.

Still would have preferred you to have included it in your quote, then the triple thumbs up would have somehow felt a little more meaningful.

But I bet you knew I wasn't gonna let you get away with it anyway?!

 

[ffsgills]

I'm not arguing against that! You are correct, i agree with you!

The point you are making and the point I am making are different, and they're not mutually exclusive.

The far right have always been opposed to immigration. They didn't want the Irish or the Jews here, they didn't want the blacks here, they didn't want Asians here and now they don't want East Europeans here. The far right didn't want them and still doesn't want them because far right politics is dominated by things such as racism and xenophobia.

The people you talk of, people who don't have far-right leanings and who might vote Conservative or Labour, some of them do indeed have genuine and justifiable concerns about uncontrolled immigration.

i'll try to put it simply. It is not racist or right wing to be concerned about immigration. However, racist, right-wing people are always concerned by immigration. So, if you meet someone who is concerned about immigration you can't just assume they are racist. But if you meet a right-wing racist it is safe to assume they'll be opposed to immigration

You won't be surprised when I say that I rarely agree with your politics Buddha. However, on this particular issue I think you've absolutely nailed it. A nicely balanced summary and aligns pretty much with the way I see it.
Are you ok fella? It's just I think I can detect a slight mellowing around the edges

 

[ThreeSixes]

Still would have preferred you to have included it in your quote, then the triple thumbs up would have somehow felt a little more meaningful.

No, I just didn't think it was worth commenting on a statement saying that racists would be against immigration. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous.

I'm glad that being concerned about immigration doesn't automatically make someone a racist. I thought that was the case, but it is good to have it confirmed by an expert.

 

[jokerman]

Always worth distinguishing political movements on methods as well as objectives and policies. In normal times, I’d sooner live under an easy-going crowd espousing whatever positions than a crowd who took themselves seriously, were in a hurry, and wanted us all jumping up and down with them.

 

[Buddha]

No, I just didn't think it was worth commenting on a statement saying that racists would be against immigration. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous.

I'm glad that being concerned about immigration doesn't automatically make someone a racist. I thought that was the case, but it is good to have it confirmed by an expert.

You just can't resist a sly dig, can you?

I haven't claimed to be an expert. Just offering my opinion.

Plenty of the opinions you've espoused in this board give an indication that you are a racist. But perhaps you're not? Maybe you just give a false impression, sometimes?

 

[Buddha]

You won't be surprised when I say that I rarely agree with your politics Buddha. However, on this particular issue I think you've absolutely nailed it. A nicely balanced summary and aligns pretty much with the way I see it.
Are you ok fella? It's just I think I can detect a slight mellowing around the edges

Thanks, t think!

I'm fine. Sometimes I'm militant and spikey, other times I'm mellow and fluffy.

Ultimately I always want the same thing. An end to hierarchy, control, exploitation and slavery, and a new future of freedom and equality for all.

We are so far away from it at the moment but it is not impossible. There is always hope. But it needs a lot of people to metaphorically open their eyes and have a revolution inside their own heads. It cannot just happen.

Paradoxically, it does just happen whenever there is a crisis or disaster. In those situations people can't just wait for the State to take control. People have to rally round and co-operate so as to deal with the disaster. A fantastic example is how the community reacted in the immediate aftermath of the Granfell Tower fire (though there are loads of other examples too). Think back to what was essentially, 'anarchy in action'. Where the fuck were the government or the the authorities?

What people need to get their head around is the fact that global capitalism and rampant consumption and consumerism is crisis. It is disaster. A minority benefit and prosper whilst a huge majority are exploited and suffer. Meanwhile the planet is raped and abused to sustain 'growth'. Yet the resources are finite.

The answer is for humanity to rid itself of hierarchies and work together to create a world where there is minimal suffering and maximum freedom. Living in peace and harmony not just with each other but also with our environment.

As I said, I don't see that happening any time soon, we're more likely to create Hell than Heaven. But the flame of anarchy is eternal. It simply cannot be extinguished. I am merely a torch bearer.

 

[Tarian]

Indeed I can. But I have much better things to do. I'm sure you know what these things mean anyway. But if you don't, educate yourself.

Where did the terms "left wing" and "right wing" come from?:
https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate

What does "far right politics" mean?:
https://www.definitions.net/definition/far-right politics

What is fascism?:
https://world101.cfr.org/historical-context/world-war/what-fascism

Thanks for this.
The second quote on "definitions" sums up exactly the problem with "far right" being defined by the left.

Apparently:
"Far right politics commonly involves support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. "

Plenty of people have little issue with the existence of "social inequality" as long as it hasn't resulted from acts of deliberate harm.
Some people are born with talent.

In any case, many cases of "social inequality" arise from the legal preservation of vested interests - things like Intellectual Property resulting in millionaire celebrities or certain protected professions.

The fact that mere "elements of social conservatism" can be defined as "far right" is exactly why millions of people who do not subscribe to the left are fed up with being slurred.

As for "liberalism and socialism"....
Genuine "liberalism" is incompatible with socialism - which is inherently authoritarian - hence the hijacking of "liberal" by socialists.
But as we are forced to accept the left's definition, millions of people do oppose "left-liberalism" - when they experience "liberals" constantly telling them how to behave, what to say, even what to think.

Similarly with any expression of patriotism or quiet "pride" in one's culture being deemed "extreme nationalism".

So when people who speak out against authoritarian ill-liberals are mis-characterised as "far right" and targeted for abuse, some of us push back hard against such bigotry.

 

[ffsgills]

Thanks, t think!

I'm fine. Sometimes I'm militant and spikey, other times I'm mellow and fluffy.

Ultimately I always want the same thing. An end to hierarchy, control, exploitation and slavery, and a new future of freedom and equality for all.

We are so far away from it at the moment but it is not impossible. There is always hope. But it needs a lot of people to metaphorically open their eyes and have a revolution inside their own heads. It cannot just happen.

Paradoxically, it does just happen whenever there is a crisis or disaster. In those situations people can't just wait for the State to take control. People have to rally round and co-operate so as to deal with the disaster. A fantastic example is how the community reacted in the immediate aftermath of the Granfell Tower fire (though there are loads of other examples too). Think back to what was essentially, 'anarchy in action'. Where the fuck were the government or the the authorities?

What people need to get their head around is the fact that global capitalism and rampant consumption and consumerism is crisis. It is disaster. A minority benefit and prosper whilst a huge majority are exploited and suffer. Meanwhile the planet is raped and abused to sustain 'growth'. Yet the resources are finite.

The answer is for humanity to rid itself of hierarchies and work together to create a world where there is minimal suffering and maximum freedom. Living in peace and harmony not just with each other but also with our environment.

As I said, I don't see that happening any time soon, we're more likely to create Hell than Heaven. But the flame of anarchy is eternal. It simply cannot be extinguished. I am merely a torch bearer.

I'll take the mellow and fluffy over the militant and spikey any old time.

 

[Buddha]

Thanks for this.
The second quote on "definitions" sums up exactly the problem with "far right" being defined by the left.

Apparently:
"Far right politics commonly involves support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. "

Plenty of people have little issue with the existence of "social inequality" as long as it hasn't resulted from acts of deliberate harm.
Some people are born with talent.

In any case, many cases of "social inequality" arise from the legal preservation of vested interests - things like Intellectual Property resulting in millionaire celebrities or certain protected professions.

The fact that mere "elements of social conservatism" can be defined as "far right" is exactly why millions of people who do not subscribe to authoritarian socialism / "liberalism" are fed up with being slurred.

Similarly with any expression of patriotism o quiet "pride" in one's culture being deemed "extreme nationalism".

So when people who speak out against authoritarian ill-liberals are mis-characterised as "far right" and targeted for abuse, some of us push back hard against such bigotry.

You give yourself away by saying, "some people are born with talent". I expect you also think that people who are poor are so because they lack talent or because they are lazy? Or that those who are rich have prospered simply because they are talented and/or industrious?

I believe that everybody is talented. Just at different things. You are right though, that some are born with exceptional talent. Problem is that many are never discovered or have the opportunity to make the most of their exceptional talent purely because of their circumstance. The 'American Dream' is a bullshit lie. It's not what you can do or what you know that is the most important thing, rather it's where you come from and who you know which is key to success for most.

I also know very well that many people who are anything but lazy find themselves in poverty and suffer as a result. And similarly, many who are rich are so because of privilege and circumstance, not because they are somehow more deserving.

 

[Buddha]

I'll take the mellow and fluffy over the militant and spikey any old time.

Just feed me the psychedelics and keep me away from the alcohol!

 

[ThreeSixes]

You just can't resist a sly dig, can you?

I haven't claimed to be an expert. Just offering my opinion.

Plenty of the opinions you've espoused in this board give an indication that you are a racist. But perhaps you're not? Maybe you just give a false impression, sometimes?

Yep, I think sly digs are more polite than direct abuse!

You sounded like an expert. You seemed to be making statements of fact rather than offering an opinion.

Maybe I'm a bit racist and a bit non racist? I don't think anyone that lives or works in a multicultural environment can truly be completely non-racist - it makes me cringe when I hear people say "I'm not a racist"!!
To be honest, I'm more offended when you say that I am ignorant. I'm definitely not ignorant on this subject!

You're prolific today. Day off?

 

[Buddha]

Yep, I think sly digs are more polite than direct abuse!

You sounded like an expert. You seemed to be making statements of fact rather than offering an opinion.

Maybe I'm a bit racist and a bit non racist? I don't think anyone that lives or works in a multicultural environment can truly be completely non-racist - it makes me cringe when I hear people say "I'm not a racist"!!
To be honest, I'm more offended when you say that I am ignorant. I'm definitely not ignorant on this subject!

You're prolific today. Day off?

Yep, I'm not working again til July, then I head West for about six weeks' hard graft in the sun (hopefully, though maybe hopefully not too hot!) with maybe one or two days off, if I'm lucky!

What about you, are you at work?

I only call you ignorant when you start saying stupid things about Islam. If you work in a multicultural office you must know some Muslims. Are they terrorists and/or child abusers too? And if not, why do you always imply that such things are intrinsically liked to Islam?

Incidentally, I prefer straight out abuse than sly digs. I've always been that way. Far more likely to to lash out so all can see than wait for an opportunity to get a sly dig in. But that's just me. And it takes allsorts.

 

[ffsgills]

Just feed me the psychedelics and keep me away from the alcohol!

If that's what it takes!

 

[ThreeSixes]

What about you, are you at work?

I only call you ignorant when you start saying stupid things about Islam. If you work in a multicultural office you must know some Muslims. Are they terrorists and/or child abusers too? And if not, why do you always imply that such things are intrinsically liked to Islam?

Yep working. Lot less busy than I was a few weeks ago though.

I said I wouldn't keep biting! I've already said it 20 times so it isn't going in, but I don't think that all Muslims are child abusers and terrorists. And if you don't think that Muslim grooming gangs and terrorist organisations like Islamic State, Al Qaeda and Taliban are linked to Islam, then I really don't know what to say.

 

[Buddha]

Yep working. Lot less busy than I was a few weeks ago though.

I said I wouldn't keep biting! I've already said it 20 times so it isn't going in, but I don't think that all Muslims are child abusers and terrorists. And if you don't think that Muslim grooming gangs and terrorist organisations like Islamic State, Al Qaeda and Taliban are linked to Islam, then I really don't know what to say.

Ok, good, we really are getting some where.

Of course I know that the grooming gangs and terrorist organisations are linked to Islam. But they do not represent Islam. They are a perversion of Islam.

Ask your Muslim colleagues and friends how they feel about the grooming gangs and the terrorists. You'll probably find that they despise them as much as you and I do.

Move away from blaming Islam. Realise that all religions have their fundamentalists and their fascists.

By all means criticise, even condemn, organised religion as a whole. Just stop blaming Islam for all evil. You can't be correct otherwise all Muslims would be guilty of such crimes, and you just said you know that to be untrue. You know that most Muslims are neither child abusers nor terrorists.

It's really, really simple.