|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 12, 2022 13:12:40 GMT
As for your "black friend", words fail me One selfish Uncle Tom who slunk off to Gammon Island to cheat the taxman is hardly a representative sample of the Afro-Caribbean community. As I've already indicated, his main motivations for moving were crime, antisocial behaviour and multiculturalism in London. That said, he must make a pretty good living as a currencies trader, so the tax benefits could be considerable. However, he's not "cheating" anybody – he no longer lives or uses public services in the United Kingdom, so why should he pay any taxes there? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 12, 2022 13:44:54 GMT
I’m bowing out now
A culture of criminality that disproportionately afflicts black other?
That’s far too simplistic but neither of us is going to change the other’s mind
Your friend does exist but curious how you bond over his self-hating mindset
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 12, 2022 13:59:46 GMT
I’m bowing out now A culture of criminality that disproportionately afflicts black other? That’s far too simplistic but neither of us is going to change the other’s mind Your friend does exist but curious how you bond over his self-hating mindset Yes, better to agree to disagree. As for Bim, I don't think he's self-hating: I don't think he desperately wants to be white. He just prefers to live around white people, as I suspect he's witnessed behaviour from black people that he found disturbing. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 12, 2022 15:49:28 GMT
One selfish Uncle Tom who slunk off to Gammon Island to cheat the taxman is hardly a representative sample of the Afro-Caribbean community. However, he's not "cheating" anybody – he no longer lives or uses public services in the United Kingdom, so why should he pay any taxes there? Like all offshore tax cheats he's filled his boots in his home country and slunk off somewhere cheaper to hoard his pile  |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 12, 2022 15:54:58 GMT
Like all offshore tax cheats he's filled his boots in his home country and slunk off somewhere cheaper to hoard his pile He hasn't "filled his boots" anywhere or "cheated" anyone and the UK is no longer his "home country". Whilst he was residing in the UK, he used its public services and paid for them out of his taxes. I suspect he contributed considerably more than he consumed, given he is a high-earning professional. He then left the UK and does not contribute to its taxes or use its public services any longer – he now pays tax and uses public services here. You may think that people are nothing more than chattels of the state, but I disagree strongly: they may leave and live anywhere they choose in the world, at any time they wish, and for any reason they consider appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 12, 2022 16:27:06 GMT
Like all offshore tax cheats he's filled his boots in his home country and slunk off somewhere cheaper to hoard his pile He then left the UK and does not contribute to its taxes or use its public services any longer – he now pays tax and uses public services here. I presume his currency trading activities are now limited to the Isle of Man Groat, or whatever you use over there  |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 12, 2022 16:30:23 GMT
I presume his currency trading activities are now limited to the Isle of Man Groat, or whatever you use over there  If you're questioning whether he deals much in sterling, the answer is no. As he told me: "It's all dollars and euro now. Nobody uses the pound any more." |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jan 13, 2022 12:49:31 GMT
Your assertion that there might be more pertinent "other factors" specifically that some racial groups are more predisposed than others to commit crime remains lazy, dangerous and simplistic and reflects a lot of racist attitudes that sadly persist in 21st century Britain No, it's not "lazy" or "dangerous" or "simplistic". Not when it's correct. I have proved my case via official statistics, indicating that black people (and especially black people of non-African descent) commit significantly more crimes than any other ethnic group. I have also refused your argument that this is solely due to their socioeconomic status, again using official statistics. What is lazy and simplistic is you continuing to argue that I'm wrong without citing any data to back up your argument. As for these "racist attitudes" persisting: people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really is. As I mentioned in another thread, I have a black friend here in the Isle of Man who told me he moved here from London (which he describes as "a multicultural hellhole full of entitled minorities jockeying for position") to get away from black people. He also told me he didn't feel he could bring up children in London. Given that he's black himself, he clearly didn't have any issue with the black people in London due to their ethnicity – he had an issue with the behaviour he had witnessed and was extremely worried that his children would grow up aspiring to be gangsters or drug dealers or rappers if he didn't give them better role models. "As for these "racist attitudes" persisting: people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really" That's just like Rogue saying "if you weren't racist you'd agree with me", It's lazy debating, just a sweeping statement that everyone is wrong because they disagree. Seeing the "world as it is really" is yet more alt-right American nonsense of The Matrix "red pill" variety, if we weren't such "sheeple" we'd see the light and agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 13, 2022 14:16:07 GMT
No, it's not "lazy" or "dangerous" or "simplistic". Not when it's correct. I have proved my case via official statistics, indicating that black people (and especially black people of non-African descent) commit significantly more crimes than any other ethnic group. I have also refused your argument that this is solely due to their socioeconomic status, again using official statistics. What is lazy and simplistic is you continuing to argue that I'm wrong without citing any data to back up your argument. As for these "racist attitudes" persisting: people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really is. As I mentioned in another thread, I have a black friend here in the Isle of Man who told me he moved here from London (which he describes as "a multicultural hellhole full of entitled minorities jockeying for position") to get away from black people. He also told me he didn't feel he could bring up children in London. Given that he's black himself, he clearly didn't have any issue with the black people in London due to their ethnicity – he had an issue with the behaviour he had witnessed and was extremely worried that his children would grow up aspiring to be gangsters or drug dealers or rappers if he didn't give them better role models. "As for these "racist attitudes" persisting: people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really" That's just like Rogue saying "if you weren't racist you'd agree with me", It's lazy debating, just a sweeping statement that everyone is wrong because they disagree. Seeing the "world as it is really" is yet more alt-right American nonsense of The Matrix "red pill" variety, if we weren't such "sheeple" we'd see the light and agree with you. That line is nothing more than a personal opinion: I'll grant you that. However, it makes perfect sense in context: I'm saying that people who are not influenced by political correctness base their views on empirical data, whereas those who consider that any argument that intelligence or culture differ across races and nationalities is racist reject data that does not support their worldview. Equally, I have consistently backed my arguments with data and statistics, which nobody else has done in this debate, so there is nothing remotely "lazy" about my approach. As for "sheeple": I began to realise how malign Jeremy Corbyn's influence had become when that word migrated from the far-right to his followers, along with "Zios" and "MSM". Ten years ago, I could tell that a piece of writing was from a far-right source just from those linguistic cues; now it's more likely to be from a left-winger, as many have adopted a similarly extreme view. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jan 13, 2022 15:44:48 GMT
"As for these "racist attitudes" persisting: people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really" That's just like Rogue saying "if you weren't racist you'd agree with me", It's lazy debating, just a sweeping statement that everyone is wrong because they disagree. Seeing the "world as it is really" is yet more alt-right American nonsense of The Matrix "red pill" variety, if we weren't such "sheeple" we'd see the light and agree with you. That line is nothing more than a personal opinion: I'll grant you that. However, it makes perfect sense in context: I'm saying that people who are not influenced by political correctness base their views on empirical data, whereas those who consider that any argument that intelligence or culture differ across races and nationalities is racist reject data that does not support their worldview. Equally, I have consistently backed my arguments with data and statistics, which nobody else has done in this debate, so there is nothing remotely "lazy" about my approach. As for "sheeple": I began to realise how malign Jeremy Corbyn's influence had become when that word migrated from the far-right to his followers, along with "Zios" and "MSM". Ten years ago, I could tell that a piece of writing was from a far-right source just from those linguistic cues; now it's more likely to be from a left-winger, as many have adopted a similarly extreme view. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence and that seems to be be your criteria for "empirical data" when you claim that people would have been living in the stone age without slavery. If you don't see the sheer lazy arrogance of a statement like "people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really" then you really have let yourself get to a point where you just take your opinions, and any evidence that support them, throw out any inconvenient evidence or use lack of same to "prove" your argument. It is lazy because it's purposely coming from a place where you have already decided what you want to prove rather than if it is true. It all rather smells of the old "I'm not racist, but" conversations that we used to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 13, 2022 15:57:19 GMT
I don't think I am influenced by political correctness - which is often basic consideration for others anyway - yet know that ethnic minorities have a much tougher time of it than white people Advancing arguments that they have an innate predisposition to do x and y is lazy stereotyping The Lammy Report of a few years back showed jaw dropping levels of bias within the justice system Making broad brush assumptions does everyone a disservice As I keep saying, dig a bit deeper www.russellwebster.com/lammy-review-final/ |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 13, 2022 16:45:41 GMT
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence and that seems to be be your criteria for "empirical data" when you claim that people would have been living in the stone age without slavery. If you don't see the sheer lazy arrogance of a statement like "people who are not influenced by political correctness can see the world as it really" then you really have let yourself get to a point where you just take your opinions, and any evidence that support them, throw out any inconvenient evidence or use lack of same to "prove" your argument. It is lazy because it's purposely coming from a place where you have already decided what you want to prove rather than if it is true. It all rather smells of the old "I'm not racist, but" conversations that we used to see. Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence, but you're missing the point: my arguments are based on data and statistics. You're advancing arguments in spite of the data, and as such should not be accusing anyone else of "sheer lazy arrogance". You are the one who is "purposely coming from a place where you have already decided what you want to prove rather than if it is true". I have proved my points, citing statistics where appropriate; your arguments are increasingly without substance, relying on "well, you could be wrong" (of course I could, but I can present an argument, with supporting statistics, as to why that is almost certainly not the case), taking sentences out of context and, when all else fails, shouting "that's racist!". If you can come back with convincing arguments supported by statistics, I'll be delighted to continue this conversation with you. But as it is, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and I don't really see what either of us will gain by doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 13, 2022 16:49:01 GMT
Advancing arguments that they have an innate predisposition to do x and y is lazy stereotyping The Lammy Report of a few years back showed jaw dropping levels of bias within the justice system Making broad brush assumptions does everyone a disservice As I keep saying, dig a bit deeper www.russellwebster.com/lammy-review-final/It's not lazy stereotyping if it's true, and I've presented a clear argument, referencing crime levels among Bangladeshis, as to why it appears to be true. As for bias within the justice system, I discovered an interesting statistic whilst researching this debate – juries are less likely to convict black people than white people. Of course, there are two possible explanations for that: juries are not biased against black people, in fact quite the reverse; or alternatively that a racist justice system is taking black people to court on flimsier evidence than their white counterparts. Since I can't think of a way to answer that question via online research, it will have to remain open. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 13, 2022 20:15:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 13, 2022 20:33:13 GMT
I have read the summary you suggested. I may go on to read the full report. However, the summary gave me very little pause for thought, as – despite containing some interesting points – it largely consists of rhetoric and whataboutery. Lammy correctly identifies that black youths are convicted of disproportionate amounts of crime, then goes on to blame everyone except black youths for their offending. The man, who used to be our most promising black MP, has become the reincarnation of Bernie Grant, and I could have predicted the article's contents without even reading it. |
|
