Buddha's post is worrying.
It underscores the lengths some people will go to stifle free speech.
It merits early and firm rebuttal.
In what universe is this passage offensive ?
Surely it is "fair comment" ? (As Buddha breaks it down later, so will I)
By contrast "offensive" comment No.1 wished ill on an individual.
Some might construe that as "incitement to violence".
Assertion and opinion.
Again, assertion and opinion.
No attempt is made to explain "why" those words are "offensive"....
....or and implies that "all" of the "great many people" are offended.
Being "offended" on behalf of other people before those other people have expressed their own opinion is one of the scourges of Politically Correct censors.
e.g. Assuming that Muslims would be insulted by "Christmas".
Most Muslims seem to love a good knees up during those dark, miserable days !!
No attempt is made to explain why a comment on "culture" and "values" can only be interpreted as "racism" or "xenophobia".
"Culture" does not equal "race".
There are plenty of "cultures" within the UK, that some people like and others dislike (and many not bothered).
They may or may not express approval / disapproval.
Caribbean culture is different from West African culture - which is different form other parts of Africa.
Mediterranean culture is different form Scandi culture etc, etc,etc.
How is it wrong to say:
"With different cultures , came different values." ?
Let's debate whether those "different values" amount to much - but surely it is absurd to deny this as a "fact" ?
".....wasn't asked if they want it , or even consulted."
Surely this is a "fact" ?
Does it not matter if there is an imposition on people ?
This applies whether it around expressing a view .... or that a "culture" is somehow "imposed". (Surely that is a legitimate discussion - whatever "culture" we are talking about ? Not everyone appreciates football!!! )
A) " a great deal more members" is pure supposition - is an appeal to emotion.
B) "more offensive" still has not been explained but ...
C) .... should be irrelevant - if we have Free Speech (supposedly !)
As Nick Clegg told Nick Ferrari:
"No one has a right not to be offended".
(Incitement to violence, to commit a crime are explicit limitations on Free Speech.)
"context" "look a little deeper".
Go on then, do so - otherwise this remains just innuendo - another "appeal to emotion".
How is "vile rhetoric" not highly emotive ?
And unjustified.
"deliberately designed".... Supposition - and surely "emotive" ?
"Full of...." ? Isn't that "emotive" ?
Is "social experiment" "emotive" ? And if so, "bad" or "good" emotive ?
Surely it depends if you think "social experiments" are mostly good - or mostly bad ?
How about the "social experiment" on 12 y/o - shown on Channel 4 last Thursday - entitled:
"The School that tried to end racism" ?
Now that was "emotive".
i.e. The "experiment", not the description
"Multicultural paradise" is emotive.
Surely a "paradise" is intended to invoke pleasure ?
But here, there may be sarcasm. So what ?
Critics could easily point out that here, VG uses "argument by extreme".
Instead the motive behind the criticism seems censorious.
"No basis in truth fact ....?"
Which bits of VG's statement ?
By all means challenge something as "incorrect" (all-be-it prefaced by the emotive "perpetuate"...!!)
But tagging with "racist interpretation of history" is not only an assertion, it is an insulting one - intended to bully people into not discussing the matter.
It seems pretty obvious from the numbers that recent decades have shown MUCH larger numbers of immigrants.
In the 18th Century, around 50,000 Hugenots escaped persecution in France (many to Medway) .... over a decade.
Currently, 50,000 is about 2 months' worth of new arrivals.
So where are the counter "facts" ?
What is "racist" or "xenophobic" about discussing "culture and values" ?
This post is nothing more than a carefully crafted whinge:
- full of assertions and insulting innuendo
- full of "emotive language" while hypocritically criticising "emotive language"
.......to justify censorship.
I’m guessing you don’t have a Twitter account.