I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
I am proudly British, English but profoundly MIXED RACE. Does that mean i'm not a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest?
you are a keyboard racist and the fact that nobody has called you out on your crap is a shame upon this site.
Well said.
It's odd how little Sean knows in his rabid racism and nationalism. Take Brunel: someone voted one of Britain's greatest people. He was a man with 'Kingdom' in his name was half-French, and got his initial opportunities from his French father.
Churchill, also widely seen as one of Britain's greatest, was half American.
In his own area of literature, in 2017 Japan-born Kazuo Ishiguro won the Nobel Prize for the UK last year. Tomas Lindahl won on chemistry a year or so earlier, and he was born in Sweden.
Our own Queen has roots that he might consider dangerously Germanic.
Now, going back 600 years any achievements in Britain were probably by 'whites' (as we'd judge them) because there were so few people of colour about. But immigration was occurring. For instance, he might also like to look at Britain's great cathedrals, some of which were built by Middle Eastern craftsmen brought over for their skills. Indeed, masonry is an area where people could travel extensively around the known world to where the work could be found.
Indeed, his own argument about the 'industrial revolution' ignores quite how lucky the UK was: we have extensive coal deposits, and just at the time when it was starting, our greatest rival decided to have a revolution and caused a large outflux of wealthy people and ideas.
If Britain has been successful over the last 600 years, it is because we have not only developed our own skills, but we have also taken in the best ideas and people from around the world. We have never been insular.
This does not mean we let our doors open to anyone to come in; but it does mean that Sean's racist claptrap is not only wrong, but also harmful to the country. Any country needs new ideas thrown into the great melting pot, and I fail to see how the colour of their skin matters.
I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
I am proudly British, English but profoundly MIXED RACE. Does that mean i'm not a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest?
you are a keyboard racist and the fact that nobody has called you out on your crap is a shame upon this site.
They won’t have anywhere near the numbers in the Senate to succeeed, but it will quite probably provide Trump with an excuse to sack him and appoint a more pliable replacement. Mueller should dust off his plans for handing over his investigations into the various criminals to state prosecutors....
I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
I am proudly British, English but profoundly MIXED RACE. Does that mean i'm not a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest?
you are a keyboard racist and the fact that nobody has called you out on your crap is a shame upon this site.
Well said.
It's odd how little Sean knows in his rabid racism and nationalism. Take Brunel: someone voted one of Britain's greatest people. He was a man with 'Kingdom' in his name was half-French, and got his initial opportunities from his French father.
Churchill, also widely seen as one of Britain's greatest, was half American.
In his own area of literature, in 2017 Japan-born Kazuo Ishiguro won the Nobel Prize for the UK last year. Tomas Lindahl won on chemistry a year or so earlier, and he was born in Sweden.
Our own Queen has roots that he might consider dangerously Germanic.
Now, going back 600 years any achievements in Britain were probably by 'whites' (as we'd judge them) because there were so few people of colour about. But immigration was occurring. For instance, he might also like to look at Britain's great cathedrals, some of which were built by Middle Eastern craftsmen brought over for their skills. Indeed, masonry is an area where people could travel extensively around the known world to where the work could be found.
Indeed, his own argument about the 'industrial revolution' ignores quite how lucky the UK was: we have extensive coal deposits, and just at the time when it was starting, our greatest rival decided to have a revolution and caused a large outflux of wealthy people and ideas.
If Britain has been successful over the last 600 years, it is because we have not only developed our own skills, but we have also taken in the best ideas and people from around the world. We have never been insular.
This does not mean we let our doors open to anyone to come in; but it does mean that Sean's racist claptrap is not only wrong, but also harmful to the country. Any country needs new ideas thrown into the great melting pot, and I fail to see how the colour of their skin matters.
I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
I am proudly British, English but profoundly MIXED RACE. Does that mean i'm not a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest?
you are a keyboard racist and the fact that nobody has called you out on your crap is a shame upon this site.
I agree, and while in favour of free speech, think that we do not need the toxic influence of Bannon on British politics. We have enough of our own bigots without needing to import them.
In particular it seems to demonstrate a failure of understanding of the evolution of Enlightenment thinking to praise such a man. The Enlightenment was a complex period, but the greatest of its thinkers saw their ideas as universal, not as British. They may have originated here in part, but saw themselves as citizens of the world.
@josias Jessup has listed some examples. I would like to add my own: Thomas Paine. He was a radical thinker, British by birth, but a key figure in the American war of Independence, and later a member of the Assembly in Revolutionary France. His books sold very well, with "The Rights of Man" selling a million copies and still being highly readable and relevant today. A couple of Paine quotes:
"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it."
"The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate."
The latter quotation also should apply to those claiming inheritance of ideas of which they have no understanding.
I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS.
I am proudly British, English but profoundly MIXED RACE. Does that mean i'm not a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest?
you are a keyboard racist and the fact that nobody has called you out on your crap is a shame upon this site.
Well said.
It's odd how little Sean knows in his rabid racism and nationalism. Take Brunel: someone voted one of Britain's greatest people. He was a man with 'Kingdom' in his name was half-French, and got his initial opportunities from his French father.
Churchill, also widely seen as one of Britain's greatest, was half American.
In his own area of literature, in 2017 Japan-born Kazuo Ishiguro won the Nobel Prize for the UK last year. Tomas Lindahl won on chemistry a year or so earlier, and he was born in Sweden.
Our own Queen has roots that he might consider dangerously Germanic.
Indeed, his own argument about the 'industrial revolution' ignores quite how lucky the UK was: we have extensive coal deposits, and just at the time when it was starting, our greatest rival decided to have a revolution and caused a large outflux of wealthy people and ideas.
If Britain has been successful over the last 600 years, it is because we have not only developed our own skills, but we have also taken in the best ideas and people from around the world. We have never been insular.
This does not mean we let our doors open to anyone to come in; but it does mean that Sean's racist claptrap is not only wrong, but also harmful to the country. Any country needs new ideas thrown into the great melting pot, and I fail to see how the colour of their skin matters.
Many modern geneticists, who trace the movement of peoples and the the development of ‘how’ the modern world consider that, genetically, the average “Briton’, and indeed Frenchman, Spaniard or Pole has a very mixed ancestry, including Neanderthal! It’s also believed, AIUI, that ‘white’ skin developed relatively recently and one wouldn’t have to go back very many generations to find the typical resident of these islands haveing a much darker skin than is typical now.
Mr. Jessop, I do find the concept of pride for things which one has done nothing to earn (race, gender, sexual orientation) rather odd.
However, people identifying as white and expressing pride as such is not merely to be expected, it was inevitable given how fashionable it's become in some quarters to knock white people. The poison of identity politics is not restricted to one ethnic group or one gender.
There's bound to be kick back when idiotic things like those cited in the video below become fashionable, literally rewriting history to remove white people (except for the villain, of course) and make it 'cooler' and more diverse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZH35n7SxW8
Whether Labour are just being incredibly careless and complacent or whether Corbyn really is a closet Nazi, it is quite clear that this goes way, way beyond Livingstone making stupid remarks on Zionism or a shadow equalities minister calling for ethnic cleansing. This is now a systemic issue that implicates the entire Labour movement.
And unfortunately for Labour it has come (1) at the moment people are fed up with Brexit and (2) at the start of the silly season when the papers are looking for stuff to fill column inches.
I've been told before that there are not many Jews in this country. That is of course true. But if people get it in their heads that Labour are racist (and potentially criminals in light of other events) it's going to hurt them badly. Look at what happened to Major's government.
However, people identifying as white and expressing pride as such is not merely to be expected, it was inevitable given how fashionable it's become in some quarters to knock white people. The poison of identity politics is not restricted to one ethnic group or one gender.
When will anyone shed a tear for the poor and oppressed white people?
Your lukewarm exculpation for ST's antics is, in some ways, worse than the original offence.
Many modern geneticists, who trace the movement of peoples and the the development of ‘how’ the modern world consider that, genetically, the average “Briton’, and indeed Frenchman, Spaniard or Pole has a very mixed ancestry, including Neanderthal! It’s also believed, AIUI, that ‘white’ skin developed relatively recently and one wouldn’t have to go back very many generations to find the typical resident of these islands haveing a much darker skin than is typical now.
I mentioned this on here a while back, but a decade or two ago there was a program on Radio 4 where they genetically investigated a certain Staffordshire village, which historically had been known as being 'black'. It was believed that this was because workers imported from the Middle East to build Lichfield Cathedral had been granted land there (out of the way, as it is). The investigation could find no evidence about this, but it was also stated that there had been a great deal of movement in and out of the village over the last hundred years.
Annoyingly, I cannot remember which village it was - I think it was one near Ashbourne. A town that has, as an aside, a hotel including the title 'Black's Head' - complete with a carved bust of a black man's head above the road.
Id love to listen to it again, but cannot remember what series it was in.
Many modern geneticists, who trace the movement of peoples and the the development of ‘how’ the modern world consider that, genetically, the average “Briton’, and indeed Frenchman, Spaniard or Pole has a very mixed ancestry, including Neanderthal! It’s also believed, AIUI, that ‘white’ skin developed relatively recently and one wouldn’t have to go back very many generations to find the typical resident of these islands haveing a much darker skin than is typical now.
I mentioned this on here a while back, but a decade or two ago there was a program on Radio 4 where they genetically investigated a certain Staffordshire village, which historically had been known as being 'black'. It was believed that this was because workers imported from the Middle East to build Lichfield Cathedral had been granted land there (out of the way, as it is). The investigation could find no evidence about this, but it was also stated that there had been a great deal of movement in and out of the village over the last hundred years.
Annoyingly, I cannot remember which village it was - I think it was one near Ashbourne. A town that has, as an aside, a hotel including the title 'Black's Head' - complete with a carved bust of a black man's head above the road.
Id love to listen to it again, but cannot remember what series it was in.
There was something similar a while ago about a Yorkshire village which was supposed to have descendants of an African unit of the Roman army, but IIRC the investigation came to few conclusions.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
Many modern geneticists, who trace the movement of peoples and the the development of ‘how’ the modern world consider that, genetically, the average “Briton’, and indeed Frenchman, Spaniard or Pole has a very mixed ancestry, including Neanderthal! It’s also believed, AIUI, that ‘white’ skin developed relatively recently and one wouldn’t have to go back very many generations to find the typical resident of these islands haveing a much darker skin than is typical now.
I wonder what 'skin colour' actually is? Mrs J is from Turkey, and has olive skin. I'm from the UK, and my ancestry is British on both sides back a fair few generations. If I spend a long time outdoors in summer, my skin goes darker than hers if she stays indoors. If she catches the sun she does not darken to black, but becomes more olive-skinned.
In fact, when I spend an entire year outdoors, my skin is much 'darker' than in winter, and also becomes like leather from exposure to sun, wind and rain. As well as racial mixing, people historically may have appeared 'darker' just because they spent more time outdoor were more weathered.
As an aside, when we were kids my brother and my hair would go from brown to blonde in summer, and I've always had a natural blonde streak in my hair (along with a muddy patch in my eye on the same side).
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
Well, you can, and I especially remember that Italy acted as our consulate in Libya until Cook restored diplomatic relations.
However, in how many countries does the UK not have diplomatic representation? I'm guessing it's very few. In fact, the only one I can think of is Syria.
That's a clause that's more important for those smaller countries that can't afford a full consular system in every country on the planet, allowing them to pool resources and target them more effectively.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
Many modern geneticists, who trace the movement of peoples and the the development of ‘how’ the modern world consider that, genetically, the average “Briton’, and indeed Frenchman, Spaniard or Pole has a very mixed ancestry, including Neanderthal! It’s also believed, AIUI, that ‘white’ skin developed relatively recently and one wouldn’t have to go back very many generations to find the typical resident of these islands haveing a much darker skin than is typical now.
I wonder what 'skin colour' actually is? Mrs J is from Turkey, and has olive skin. I'm from the UK, and my ancestry is British on both sides back a fair few generations. If I spend a long time outdoors in summer, my skin goes darker than hers if she stays indoors. If she catches the sun she does not darken to black, but becomes more olive-skinned.
In fact, when I spend an entire year outdoors, my skin is much 'darker' than in winter, and also becomes like leather from exposure to sun, wind and rain. As well as racial mixing, people historically may have appeared 'darker' just because they spent more time outdoor were more weathered.
As an aside, when we were kids my brother and my hair would go from brown to blonde in summer, and I've always had a natural blonde streak in my hair (along with a muddy patch in my eye on the same side).
Understand. I’m, like you, British (as far as I know) as far back as it goes, but I get very dark in the sun and have been mistaken for a Turk. One of the ‘issues’ about skin colour is as you describe; those who worked outside, especially females, tended to be darker skinned that the deicate flowers, the ‘milk and roses’ daughters of the rich. It was therefore desirable, if wishing to appear ‘upper class’ to keep as ‘white' as possible. Interestingly my Thai daughter-in-law is anxious to keep her daughters well protected against tanning, in order that they might be as light skinned as possible. However the combination of ‘my’ genes and her family’s means that they definitely look Thai.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
Do you regularly have to seek consular protection? I can't imagine this affecting more than a handful of people. And in cases where they'd normally go to an EU consulate, I am sure other arrangements would be made with other nations (the foreign office suggests such arrangements already exist with Australia and New Zealand).
King Cole, how many countries lack a British embassy?
Not many (any?) large ones, However, see Foxy’s post, upthread. It’s just another example of the rights and privileges we are carelessly throwing away.
King Cole, how many countries lack a British embassy?
Not many (any?) large ones, However, see Foxy’s post, upthread. It’s just another example of the rights and privileges we are carelessly throwing away.
Clearly not that important otherwise the Remain side would have focused on it more in the campaign. Might have swung a handful of votes, I suppose!
King Cole, how many countries lack a British embassy?
Not many (any?) large ones, However, see Foxy’s post, upthread. It’s just another example of the rights and privileges we are carelessly throwing away.
The list would include Congo, Niger, Libya, Syria, the Bahamas (surprisingly) Yemen, Nicaragua and French Guiana. There is even an embassy in Mogadishu although it doesn't provide consular services.
These have in common that they are mostly war zones, or places that are very small and can be covered by an embassy in a nearby country without duplication.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
Do you regularly have to seek consular protection? I can't imagine this affecting more than a handful of people. And in cases where they'd normally go to an EU consulate, I am sure other arrangements would be made with other nations (the foreign office suggests such arrangements already exist with Australia and New Zealand).
There aren't likely to be many of these places. But those there are will mostly be places in which the former colonial powers had interests (hence Italy in Libya) so the likelihood of Australia or NZ being present where the UK isn't must be close to zero.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
Do you regularly have to seek consular protection? I can't imagine this affecting more than a handful of people. And in cases where they'd normally go to an EU consulate, I am sure other arrangements would be made with other nations (the foreign office suggests such arrangements already exist with Australia and New Zealand).
There aren't likely to be many of these places. But those there are will mostly be places in which the former colonial powers had interests (hence Italy in Libya) so the likelihood of Australia or NZ being present where the UK isn't must be close to zero.
The smaller Pacific Islands and SE Asian states perhaps.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
Yes. The way to avoid the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages of this word it to do what they want ...
I agree about things like affirmative action, which I feel is divisive, blunt and extremely unhelpful. However that's only true if we try and fix the obvious imbalances in other ways: and the imbalances are not just one-, or even two-way.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
Do you regularly have to seek consular protection? I can't imagine this affecting more than a handful of people. And in cases where they'd normally go to an EU consulate, I am sure other arrangements would be made with other nations (the foreign office suggests such arrangements already exist with Australia and New Zealand).
There aren't likely to be many of these places. But those there are will mostly be places in which the former colonial powers had interests (hence Italy in Libya) so the likelihood of Australia or NZ being present where the UK isn't must be close to zero.
The smaller Pacific Islands and SE Asian states perhaps.
Pitcairn is linked to the British High Commission in Wellington. I think Polynesia is as well.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
Do you regularly have to seek consular protection? I can't imagine this affecting more than a handful of people. And in cases where they'd normally go to an EU consulate, I am sure other arrangements would be made with other nations (the foreign office suggests such arrangements already exist with Australia and New Zealand).
No, I have never needed Consular protection, but I would no more want to travel abroad with out, than travel insurance, which I have also never used.
There is also the issue of locality. The FCO has closed a number of UK Consular sites due to cuts, so it may well be more convenient to access an EU Consulate in the same City, than a UK one in the capitol, a thousand miles away. The nature of needing Consular assistance is that it happens at times of illness, injury or legal trouble so travel can be problematic.
I didn't need help in Russia, but the hype beforehand did reduce knowing that an EU consul would be available if needed.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
Your hyperbolic post is one of them.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
From a workining his unique credentials. He is deeply interesting.
I sense that you're working yourself into a frenzy of D'Annunzioesque fanboism.
Well spotted. The one person he reminds me of is D'Annunzio. Who had a similar incredible life, though less politically effective, yet was a much better poet (and lover, by all accounts).
Blah blah blah I must therefore be a fascist.
Whatevs. The fact is, white nationalist populism is rising across the West. It is an inevitable reaction to mass immigration and multiculti. We see it, for instance, in the more atavastic Bravehearty elements of, uh, the SNP. There it is oddly aimed at the English, just like quasi Fascist Irish nationalism, in its early days.
Whatever its origin, it is not a happy addition to the political bestiary. But it is real. And here. And we need to work out how to tame it, harness it, and turn its angers and complaints to the advantage of all, within a liberal and democratic framework. I don't want a UKIP government. I want a sensible rightwing government that doesn't appoint lawyers - who think ISIS-members are "simply naive" - as directors of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Right now that is not the Conservative Party. For a rightwinger like me, they are not fit for purpose.
You know nothing of Scotland or the SNP spouting that guff.
Whether Labour are just being incredibly careless and complacent or whether Corbyn really is a closet Nazi, it is quite clear that this goes way, way beyond Livingstone making stupid remarks on Zionism or a shadow equalities minister calling for ethnic cleansing. This is now a systemic issue that implicates the entire Labour movement.
And unfortunately for Labour it has come (1) at the moment people are fed up with Brexit and (2) at the start of the silly season when the papers are looking for stuff to fill column inches.
I've been told before that there are not many Jews in this country. That is of course true. But if people get it in their heads that Labour are racist (and potentially criminals in light of other events) it's going to hurt them badly. Look at what happened to Major's government.
So far , outside minor examples, it has not hurt them. Whether or not their qualified definition really is better or not, it is very poor politics to continually stoke this story in the way they have however.
King Cole, how many countries lack a British embassy?
Not many (any?) large ones, However, see Foxy’s post, upthread. It’s just another example of the rights and privileges we are carelessly throwing away.
If we don’t Brexit then we’ll be throwing away democracy.
Which, I think you’ll agree, is a much more important privilege...
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
Your hyperbolic post is one of them.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
I think the SeanT post was a joke, although you can never quite tell. But it is the inevitable conclusion of identity politics: white people start selectively identifying their own historical achievements, as well as creating their own narrative of grievances and repression. It is all grimly predictable and this is only the start of it. It will ultimately lead to war, death and famine, as nationalism has in the past.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
Your hyperbolic post is one of them.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
Ad hominem vice signalling....
I interested in signalling neither virtue nor vice. The fact you’ve framed my respones in such terms merely proves my point.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
If they can't be expressed how can you challenge them? If they are not expressed they gain strength, attract anger and resentment. Is it better to be able to insult someone openly or be forced to stay silent and secretly search out others, join together until you have a critical mass and emerge as a nazi party? Tolerance of views may be better than Censorship.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Expseeing however.
Indeed, it was
I happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Do you agree that skin colour was the determining factor in the achievements SeanT listed last night? Do you believe that British people with different colour skins have less right to claim those achievements or to feel pride in them?
Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe these things?
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. r.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
I too have no time for identity politics. But he espouses the politics of identity of the worst kind.
This site only works if we come to it with our wide range of opinions and debate them reasonably and respectfully. If everyone behaved like him this site would quickly degenerate into sort of pointless slanging match that afflicts many Internet forums. This site is guilty because it relaxes its standards for one particular poster on account of the apparent novelty and supposed amusement of a nightly drunken rant.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
If they can't be expressed how can you challenge them? If they are not expressed they gain strength, attract anger and resentment. Is it better to be able to insult someone openly or be forced to stay silent and secretly search out others, join together until you have a critical mass and emerge as a nazi party? Tolerance of views may be better than Censorship.
Totally agree. Racists should be allowed to demonstrate that they are racists. And people should be allowed to judge them when they do.
Whether Labour are just being incredibly careless and complacent or whether Corbyn really is a closet Nazi, it is quite clear that this goes way, way beyond Livingstone making stupid remarks on Zionism or a shadow equalities minister calling for ethnic cleansing. This is now a systemic issue that implicates the entire Labour movement.
And unfortunately for Labour it has come (1) at the moment people are fed up with Brexit and (2) at the start of the silly season when the papers are looking for stuff to fill column inches.
I've been told before that there are not many Jews in this country. That is of course true. But if people get it in their heads that Labour are racist (and potentially criminals in light of other events) it's going to hurt them badly. Look at what happened to Major's government.
So far , outside minor examples, it has not hurt them. Whether or not their qualified definition really is better or not, it is very poor politics to continually stoke this story in the way they have however.
SeanT likes to set the agenda on PB and be the centre of attention.
He has succeeded yet again.
On a more interesting note, it looks like we are about to have the first British-born winner of the Tour de France. However, this makes G no-more of a British winner than Wiggo and Froome.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
Your hyperbolic post is one of them.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
Ad hominem vice signalling....
I interested in signalling neither virtue nor vice. The fact you’ve framed my respones in such terms merely proves my point....
I merely applied your standard of argument to your own posts.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
If they can't be expressed how can you challenge them? If they are not expressed they gain strength, attract anger and resentment. Is it better to be able to insult someone openly or be forced to stay silent and secretly search out others, join together until you have a critical mass and emerge as a nazi party? Tolerance of views may be better than Censorship.
Totally agree. Racists should be allowed to demonstrate that they are racists. And people should be allowed to judge them when they do.
The number of times I have heard people say "You can't say that any more" when they are on the cusp of making a racist comment - clearly they haven't stopped being racist, they just know to keep their opinions to themselves.
This has just come up on a Facebook page. Anyone know anything about it?
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
How many people exercise this right every year?
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
It is a particularly useful right when we are in Diplomatic dispute with others. For example in Iran, or on my recent trip to Russia (there was talk at one point in the Salisbury tale that we might diplomatically withdraw) in such circumstance being assisted by the French or German Consuls may be very welcome indeed.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
Do you regularly have to seek consular protection? I can't imagine this affecting more than a handful of people. And in cases where they'd normally go to an EU consulate, I am sure other arrangements would be made with other nations (the foreign office suggests such arrangements already exist with Australia and New Zealand).
There aren't likely to be many of these places. But those there are will mostly be places in which the former colonial powers had interests (hence Italy in Libya) so the likelihood of Australia or NZ being present where the UK isn't must be close to zero.
Canada and the UK now have an arrangement, concluded under William Hague, that each nation will provide consular assistance to the other in the absence, unavailability or inaccessibility of their citizens embassies in any other nation.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
Indeed, it was inevitable once identity politics became ingrained, that there would be a backlash against it from the white men who were finding themselves discriminated against by policies of “affirmative action”. The “liberal” left have no idea how to react to people like Jordan Peterson, who is using their own arguments in a different way.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
Late evening Sean is sometimes a little forthright in some of his opinions, he’s certainly been moderated and sin-binned a number of times over the years.
SeanT likes to set the agenda on PB and be the centre of attention.
He has succeeded yet again.
On a more interesting note, it looks like we are about to have the first British-born winner of the Tour de France. However, this makes G no-more of a British winner than Wiggo and Froome.
He went to the same Cardiff comprehensive as Sam Warburton and Gareth Bale. It must have been around the same time as well. That is quite a thing.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. r.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
I too have no time for identity politics. But he espouses the politics of identity of the worst kind.
This site only works if we come to it with our wide range of opinions and debate them reasonably and respectfully. If everyone behaved like him this site would quickly degenerate into sort of pointless slanging match that afflicts many Internet forums. This site is guilty because it relaxes its standards for one particular poster on account of the apparent novelty and supposed amusement of a nightly drunken rant.
Whilst I agree with that I can’t say I’ve found his behaviour worse than a number of other posters.
Only yesterday we had a number of (presumably sober) posters f-ing and blinding at each other during the working day.
King Cole, how many countries lack a British embassy?
Not many (any?) large ones, However, see Foxy’s post, upthread. It’s just another example of the rights and privileges we are carelessly throwing away.
If we don’t Brexit then we’ll be throwing away democracy.
Which, I think you’ll agree, is a much more important privilege...
So you’ll be happy with another vote when we know what we’re likely to lose?
Meanwhile, in today's open and inclusive environment, we have a Conservative MEP touting conspiracy theories involving anti-Semites' number one hate figure:
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
I too have no time for identity politics. But he espouses the politics of identity of the worst kind.
This site only works if we come to it with our wide range of opinions and debate them reasonably and respectfully. If everyone behaved like him this site would quickly degenerate into sort of pointless slanging match that afflicts many Internet forums. This site is guilty because it relaxes its standards for one particular poster on account of the apparent novelty and supposed amusement of a nightly drunken rant.
Whilst I agree with that I can’t say I’ve found his behaviour worse than a number of other posters.
Only yesterday we had a number of (presumably sober) posters f-ing and blinding at each other during the working day.
I missed that.
There is however a difference between F-s and B-s aimed at another poster and F-s aimed at everyone of a certain skin colour, religion or gender.
Don't be the guy egging on the office joker and blind to the feelings of others in the room.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Expseeing however.
Indeed, it was
I happen.
The.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Do you agree that skin colour was the determining factor in the achievements SeanT listed last night? Do you believe that British people with different colour skins have less right to claim those achievements or to feel pride in them?
Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe these things?
No, and no. But it is a fact that during at least 500 of those 600 years the UK was an overwhelming White place, notwithstanding an ethnic minority of perhaps 1-2% and some immigrants making a disproportionately large contribution, and I think that fact causes problems on both sides of the argument today in a much more multiethnic and multicultural society.
I expect SeanT wasn’t being entirely serious anyway and resorting to hyperbole to illustrate how easily identity politics can work the other way too.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
Your hyperbolic post is one of them.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
SeanT wrote a post that I felt was disgusting, and I wrote a long (and hopefully thoughtful) reply that pointed out he was very wrong. In that I mentioned 'racist', as it clearly espoused views that were racist and (IMO) clearly incorrect.
Why was my post 'hyperbolic'? Especially compared to his original hyperbolic post.
I've also got no idea what planet you're on with "Your inability to self identify is part of the problem." Please expand.
In contrast, you have added nothing to the conversation except to argue. Perhaps after some consideration you might apologise?
Meanwhile, in today's open and inclusive environment, we have a Conservative MEP touting conspiracy theories involving anti-Semites' number one hate figure:
Meanwhile, in today's open and inclusive environment, we have a Conservative MEP touting conspiracy theories involving anti-Semites' number one hate figure:
Mr T's posts are provocative but words can never hurt anyone unless the recipient wants them to.
And much depends a lot on the motives of the speaker. In Mr T's case, I suspect they express exasperation rather than personal hatred. How can any hatred be personal when it's not even face-to-face?
You can all me an ignorant cunt, or a raddled old piece of gammon, if you like. It doesn't reflect on me, it reflects on your state of mind. There was no warning about those words because I assume you're all adults.
Social media can be corrosive when it's used to express hatred with the world and with other sections of the population in particular. Much of this is a result of feelings of helplessness.
I get impatient with some SJW's or so-called activists who virtue-signal continuously, but it's highly selective. That's hypocrisy. The sort who'd happily say "I'd never kiss a Tory" as if all Tories eat babies
Some may do. but that's true of every section of the population. It's all shades of grey and all shades of opinion out there.
Anyway, Sean T will probably change his mind tomorrow.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
r.
I happen.
The.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
"I am white. I am proudly British, English, proudly WHITE, a proud inheritor of the Enlightenment and universal suffrage and the Industrial Revolution and liberal democracy and the internet and feminism and the rest, and everything else we white people did, which is basically everything of value for the last 600 years. WE DID THIS."
Do you agree that skin colour was the determining factor in the achievements SeanT listed last night? Do you believe that British people with different colour skins have less right to claim those achievements or to feel pride in them?
Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe these things?
No, and no. But it is a fact that during at least 500 of those 600 years the UK was an overwhelming White place, notwithstanding an ethnic minority of perhaps 1-2% and some immigrants making a disproportionately large contribution, and I think that fact causes problems on both sides of the argument today in a much more multiethnic and multicultural society.
I expect SeanT wasn’t being entirely serious anyway and resorting to hyperbole to illustrate how easily identity politics can work the other way too.
So we're now down to the "he didn't really mean it" defence? Just a bit of fun?
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
Meanwhile across the channel we have racism, homophobia, free masonry and world war 3 all rolled in to one. English sensitive souls better cancel their holidays, assuming Michael OLeary hasn't already done it for them.
This site has worked because it's been interesting and challenging. SeanT is undeniably interesting. He isn't a racist; he's just provocative, often with tongue firmly in cheek and three bottles of wine empty.
Big news from F1! McLaren have poached Torro Rosso's technical director, James Key. He's seen by many as the heir to Adrian Newey so that's a huge win for McLaren. He's also officially got the TD title and has full control over McLaren's car development rather than have the roles split as they did previously.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
Big news from F1! McLaren have poached Torro Rosso's technical director, James Key. He's seen by many as the heir to Adrian Newey so that's a huge win for McLaren. He's also officially got the TD title and has full control over McLaren's car development rather than have the roles split as they did previously.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
Isn't it a little bit late in the year to have full design authority over a 2019 car? Haven't the basic design decisions already been made?
This site has worked because it's been interesting and challenging. SeanT is undeniably interesting. He isn't a racist; he's just provocative, often with tongue firmly in cheek and three bottles of wine empty.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The interesting question is not: "why are a load of alienated poor white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?" The interesting question is: "why are a load of pretty affluent well-integrated white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?"
This site has worked because it's been interesting and challenging. SeanT is undeniably interesting. He isn't a racist; he's just provocative, often with tongue firmly in cheek and three bottles of wine empty.
His drunken nightime posts that aim abuse at whole groups in society based solely upon on their identity are offensive, and I don't really care whether you find them interesting or not. Otherwise let's have a good debate.
Big news from F1! McLaren have poached Torro Rosso's technical director, James Key. He's seen by many as the heir to Adrian Newey so that's a huge win for McLaren. He's also officially got the TD title and has full control over McLaren's car development rather than have the roles split as they did previously.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
Isn't it a little bit late in the year to have full design authority over a 2019 car? Haven't the basic design decisions already been made?
I think McLaren are in a weird spot right now, they haves sacked or demoted a bunch of technical people recently, this is around the time when concept development for 2019 will start so I figure they want their team heavily involved given that the previous team delivered this year's shitbox.
Big news from F1! McLaren have poached Torro Rosso's technical director, James Key. He's seen by many as the heir to Adrian Newey so that's a huge win for McLaren. He's also officially got the TD title and has full control over McLaren's car development rather than have the roles split as they did previously.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
Ooh interesting. I’m assuming he’s going to have at least six months in the garden first though, so targeting 2020 might be better for McLaren if they can hold on to Alonso until then.
Big news from F1! McLaren have poached Torro Rosso's technical director, James Key. He's seen by many as the heir to Adrian Newey so that's a huge win for McLaren. He's also officially got the TD title and has full control over McLaren's car development rather than have the roles split as they did previously.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
Ooh interesting. I’m assuming he’s going to have at least six months in the garden first though, so targeting 2020 might be better for McLaren if they can hold on to Alonso until then.
It sounds like a deal has been done for him to start immediately, I'm guessing Lando Norris goes into the RBR young driver programme. Sainz might head in the opposite direction, McLaren are said to rate him.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
I too have no time for identity politics. But he espouses the politics of identity of the worst kind.
This site only works if we come to it with our wide range of opinions and debate them reasonably and respectfully. If everyone behaved like him this site would quickly degenerate into sort of pointless slanging match that afflicts many Internet forums. This site is guilty because it relaxes its standards for one particular poster on account of the apparent novelty and supposed amusement of a nightly drunken rant.
Whilst I agree with that I can’t say I’ve found his behaviour worse than a number of other posters.
Only yesterday we had a number of (presumably sober) posters f-ing and blinding at each other during the working day.
I missed that.
There is however a difference between F-s and B-s aimed at another poster and F-s aimed at everyone of a certain skin colour, religion or gender.
Don't be the guy egging on the office joker and blind to the feelings of others in the room.
The F-s and B-s were dividing on partisan lines and related to Brexit, as per usual.
I’m not looking to egg anyway on, and nor do I see any evidence of racial or sexual abuse.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
r.
I happen.
The.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe these things?
No, and no. But it is a fact that during at least 500 of those 600 years the UK was an overwhelming White place, notwithstanding an ethnic minority of perhaps 1-2% and some immigrants making a disproportionately large contribution, and I think that fact causes problems on both sides of the argument today in a much more multiethnic and multicultural society.
I expect SeanT wasn’t being entirely serious anyway and resorting to hyperbole to illustrate how easily identity politics can work the other way too.
So we're now down to the "he didn't really mean it" defence? Just a bit of fun?
My advice is to stop digging.
No. I just think you’ve risen to the bait and ended up shooting down a straw man.
But of course you love this, as do many others of your ilk, as it gives you a heaven sent change to parade your anti-racist credentials.
This site has worked because it's been interesting and challenging. SeanT is undeniably interesting. He isn't a racist; he's just provocative, often with tongue firmly in cheek and three bottles of wine empty.
Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing however.
Indeed, it was
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The interesting question is not: "why are a load of alienated poor white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?" The interesting question is: "why are a load of pretty affluent well-integrated white people voting for anti-immigrant populism?"
The problem I have with social media in general is that it seems no one has a right to a contrary opinion. Now that is childish. And not only that, but those contrary opinions must be banned.
I understand that most people think they are wiser, more experienced, and possess superior judgement to the average person. I do too, but you have to make allowances for others. They don't mean to be stupid, they just are. Without some degree of self-confidence, you'd struggle to survive. And it must hurt when others don't appreciate your brilliance.
I asked, some days ago, what was the opposite of populism? I think you have to define the word before you can give a sensible answer. My definition, for what it's worth, is that it stands for popular opinions that you disagree with. That makes the opposite either popular opinions that you agree with, or unpopular opinions that you disagree with.
But when you add in your own infallibility, the definitions change.
But can I end by saying that this particular site is guilty of this far less than many others.
I see the virtue signallers are out in force this morning.
Care to point out their posts, as I don't see any.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
Your hyperbolic post is one of them.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
SeanT wrote a post that I felt was disgusting, and I wrote a long (and hopefully thoughtful) reply that pointed out he was very wrong. In that I mentioned 'racist', as it clearly espoused views that were racist and (IMO) clearly incorrect.
Why was my post 'hyperbolic'? Especially compared to his original hyperbolic post.
I've also got no idea what planet you're on with "Your inability to self identify is part of the problem." Please expand.
In contrast, you have added nothing to the conversation except to argue. Perhaps after some consideration you might apologise?
I’m afraid you didn’t. You accused him of being a rabid racist.
I’ve added a lot to the conversation. In case it helps, by drawing attention to the central criticism SeanT was making about the corrosive effect of identity politics in sowing division rather than healing it.
People far too easily pile on the back of it to accuse each other of being racist and applaud anti-racism in turn. You seemed to be unable to perceive the part you yourself played in this and, I’m afraid, got rather hyper emotive about it, which is when your posts are at their worst.
And on the R4 prog it is absolutely required listening for PB as right now it is dealing with eg. news reports mentioning or not mentioning attackers' racial origins.
Comments
Churchill, also widely seen as one of Britain's greatest, was half American.
In his own area of literature, in 2017 Japan-born Kazuo Ishiguro won the Nobel Prize for the UK last year. Tomas Lindahl won on chemistry a year or so earlier, and he was born in Sweden.
Our own Queen has roots that he might consider dangerously Germanic.
Now, going back 600 years any achievements in Britain were probably by 'whites' (as we'd judge them) because there were so few people of colour about. But immigration was occurring. For instance, he might also like to look at Britain's great cathedrals, some of which were built by Middle Eastern craftsmen brought over for their skills. Indeed, masonry is an area where people could travel extensively around the known world to where the work could be found.
Indeed, his own argument about the 'industrial revolution' ignores quite how lucky the UK was: we have extensive coal deposits, and just at the time when it was starting, our greatest rival decided to have a revolution and caused a large outflux of wealthy people and ideas.
If Britain has been successful over the last 600 years, it is because we have not only developed our own skills, but we have also taken in the best ideas and people from around the world. We have never been insular.
This does not mean we let our doors open to anyone to come in; but it does mean that Sean's racist claptrap is not only wrong, but also harmful to the country. Any country needs new ideas thrown into the great melting pot, and I fail to see how the colour of their skin matters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44962120
They won’t have anywhere near the numbers in the Senate to succeeed, but it will quite probably provide Trump with an excuse to sack him and appoint a more pliable replacement.
Mueller should dust off his plans for handing over his investigations into the various criminals to state prosecutors....
He gets tremendous license on this site.
In particular it seems to demonstrate a failure of understanding of the evolution of Enlightenment thinking to praise such a man. The Enlightenment was a complex period, but the greatest of its thinkers saw their ideas as universal, not as British. They may have originated here in part, but saw themselves as citizens of the world.
@josias Jessup has listed some examples. I would like to add my own: Thomas Paine. He was a radical thinker, British by birth, but a key figure in the American war of Independence, and later a member of the Assembly in Revolutionary France. His books sold very well, with "The Rights of Man" selling a million copies and still being highly readable and relevant today. A couple of Paine quotes:
"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it."
"The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate."
The latter quotation also should apply to those claiming inheritance of ideas of which they have no understanding.
Mr. Jessop, I do find the concept of pride for things which one has done nothing to earn (race, gender, sexual orientation) rather odd.
However, people identifying as white and expressing pride as such is not merely to be expected, it was inevitable given how fashionable it's become in some quarters to knock white people. The poison of identity politics is not restricted to one ethnic group or one gender.
There's bound to be kick back when idiotic things like those cited in the video below become fashionable, literally rewriting history to remove white people (except for the villain, of course) and make it 'cooler' and more diverse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZH35n7SxW8
https://www.thejc.com/comment/leaders/three-jewish-papers-take-the-unprecedented-step-of-publishing-the-same-page-on-labour-antisemitism-1.467641
Whether Labour are just being incredibly careless and complacent or whether Corbyn really is a closet Nazi, it is quite clear that this goes way, way beyond Livingstone making stupid remarks on Zionism or a shadow equalities minister calling for ethnic cleansing. This is now a systemic issue that implicates the entire Labour movement.
And unfortunately for Labour it has come (1) at the moment people are fed up with Brexit and (2) at the start of the silly season when the papers are looking for stuff to fill column inches.
I've been told before that there are not many Jews in this country. That is of course true. But if people get it in their heads that Labour are racist (and potentially criminals in light of other events) it's going to hurt them badly. Look at what happened to Major's government.
Your lukewarm exculpation for ST's antics is, in some ways, worse than the original offence.
Annoyingly, I cannot remember which village it was - I think it was one near Ashbourne. A town that has, as an aside, a hotel including the title 'Black's Head' - complete with a carved bust of a black man's head above the road.
Id love to listen to it again, but cannot remember what series it was in.
Identity politics is dumb. Doing/believing stupid things is not the sole preserve of any one race.
Explaining something is not the same as suggesting it is (or is not) morally acceptable. You may be aware I've been banging on about the risks of the far right rising in this country for some time now. That's because I'm concerned about it happening and the dire consequences that would ensue (we're already seeing the effects of having the far left squatting on the opposition front bench). Trying to understand and explain something does not indicate support for it. Sun Zi wrote about the importance of understanding one's opponents (as well as oneself).
It may be easier to point at a group and call them fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists. Such a superficial comment may not prove useful in understanding them, and beating them democratically, however.
'If you get in trouble abroad, not being in the EU could make things that bit more troubling. Consular protection rights for EU citizens are not something that most people, however they voted in 2016, will have given any thought to. But in an age when far-flung international travel is more common than ever, there could come a time when it becomes very important.
This is another of those EU benefits, unmentioned in the referendum campaign, which we now look set to lose.
If UK citizens find themselves in trouble in a non-EU country where there is no UK embassy or other representation, they are entitled to protection under the consular authority of any of the other 27 EU member states. What’s more, we can expect to be treated the same as nationals from the relevant member state because we are EU citizens. The same applies vice versa for non-British EU nationals. This is enshrined in Articles 20 and 23 of the Lisbon Treaty and Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.'
In fact, when I spend an entire year outdoors, my skin is much 'darker' than in winter, and also becomes like leather from exposure to sun, wind and rain. As well as racial mixing, people historically may have appeared 'darker' just because they spent more time outdoor were more weathered.
As an aside, when we were kids my brother and my hair would go from brown to blonde in summer, and I've always had a natural blonde streak in my hair (along with a muddy patch in my eye on the same side).
Thankfully, the coverage of UK embassies is rather extensive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://twitter.com/shahmiruk/status/1021822665596784640?s=21
However, in how many countries does the UK not have diplomatic representation? I'm guessing it's very few. In fact, the only one I can think of is Syria.
That's a clause that's more important for those smaller countries that can't afford a full consular system in every country on the planet, allowing them to pool resources and target them more effectively.
Brexit Britain mostly means narrower horizons to me.
I see people pointing and laughing at the ridiculousness and stupidity of SeanT's post last night (which in itself could be seen as pathetic virtue signalling).
So go on: which posts do you mean?
One of the ‘issues’ about skin colour is as you describe; those who worked outside, especially females, tended to be darker skinned that the deicate flowers, the ‘milk and roses’ daughters of the rich. It was therefore desirable, if wishing to appear ‘upper class’ to keep as ‘white' as possible.
Interestingly my Thai daughter-in-law is anxious to keep her daughters well protected against tanning, in order that they might be as light skinned as possible. However the combination of ‘my’ genes and her family’s means that they definitely look Thai.
It’s just another example of the rights and privileges we are carelessly throwing away.
Are you in favour of such opinions, as that is what you appear to be signalling ?
These have in common that they are mostly war zones, or places that are very small and can be covered by an embassy in a nearby country without duplication.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/ian-lavery-received-165000-miners-13788425
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/02/17/ian-lavery-should-not-be-labours-elections-coordinator-or-anything-coordinator-with-his-toxic-past/
I agree about things like affirmative action, which I feel is divisive, blunt and extremely unhelpful. However that's only true if we try and fix the obvious imbalances in other ways: and the imbalances are not just one-, or even two-way.
It is tedious and toxic to our political debate. SeanT is not a racist by any stretch of the imagination.
There is also the issue of locality. The FCO has closed a number of UK Consular sites due to cuts, so it may well be more convenient to access an EU Consulate in the same City, than a UK one in the capitol, a thousand miles away. The nature of needing Consular assistance is that it happens at times of illness, injury or legal trouble so travel can be problematic.
I didn't need help in Russia, but the hype beforehand did reduce knowing that an EU consul would be available if needed.
Your inability to self identify is part of the problem.
Which, I think you’ll agree, is a much more important privilege...
So far I’ve not seen any meaningful rebuttal of his central point last night which is that identity politics, rather than breaking down barriers, is actually begetting identity politics in every direction. It’s also having a corrosive effect on public discourse and, increasingly, people are ceasing to be treated as individuals and judged and filtered more by category.
Rather than engage on this more posters seem interested in shouting “racist” at him, and shutting him down, just because he happened to mention pride in his own ethnicity rather than deal
With that point. I find it utterly moronic, that too easily leads to a toxic ‘are you one or us or one of them?’ orthodoxy, and it’s the sign of someone weak in their own arguments and more interested in signalling than debate when they are argue for closure and censure rather than rebut the central argument.
Try engaging your brain with the substance.
If they are not expressed they gain strength, attract anger and resentment.
Is it better to be able to insult someone openly or be forced to stay silent and secretly search out others, join together until you have a critical mass and emerge as a nazi party?
Tolerance of views may be better than Censorship.
Do you agree that skin colour was the determining factor in the achievements SeanT listed last night? Do you believe that British people with different colour skins have less right to claim those achievements or to feel pride in them?
Why do you have a problem with people who do not believe these things?
This site only works if we come to it with our wide range of opinions and debate them reasonably and respectfully. If everyone behaved like him this site would quickly degenerate into sort of pointless slanging match that afflicts many Internet forums. This site is guilty because it relaxes its standards for one particular poster on account of the apparent novelty and supposed amusement of a nightly drunken rant.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/05/i-was-jewish-labour-councillor-barnet-and-i-warned-jeremy-corbyn-what-was
I agree, in a sense. One council is not the Battle of the Somme. But it is very poor politics, not to mention reckless, not to mention stupid.
We're seeing here, today, where silly remarks can lead (SeanT isn't a racist, he's a drunk who likes trolling people). How much worse is this?
He has succeeded yet again.
On a more interesting note, it looks like we are about to have the first British-born winner of the Tour de France. However, this makes G no-more of a British winner than Wiggo and Froome.
Javid showing, again, that he is PM material. @SeanT will be happy with this investigation.
Only yesterday we had a number of (presumably sober) posters f-ing and blinding at each other during the working day.
https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1022101080136732672
And we have a leading Corbyn supporter telling Jews that they need to express themselves in a way that he considers appropriate:
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1022253196482371590
There is however a difference between F-s and B-s aimed at another poster and F-s aimed at everyone of a certain skin colour, religion or gender.
Don't be the guy egging on the office joker and blind to the feelings of others in the room.
I expect SeanT wasn’t being entirely serious anyway and resorting to hyperbole to illustrate how easily identity politics can work the other way too.
Why was my post 'hyperbolic'? Especially compared to his original hyperbolic post.
I've also got no idea what planet you're on with "Your inability to self identify is part of the problem." Please expand.
In contrast, you have added nothing to the conversation except to argue. Perhaps after some consideration you might apologise?
And much depends a lot on the motives of the speaker. In Mr T's case, I suspect they express exasperation rather than personal hatred. How can any hatred be personal when it's not even face-to-face?
You can all me an ignorant cunt, or a raddled old piece of gammon, if you like. It doesn't reflect on me, it reflects on your state of mind. There was no warning about those words because I assume you're all adults.
Social media can be corrosive when it's used to express hatred with the world and with other sections of the population in particular. Much of this is a result of feelings of helplessness.
I get impatient with some SJW's or so-called activists who virtue-signal continuously, but it's highly selective. That's hypocrisy. The sort who'd happily say "I'd never kiss a Tory" as if all Tories eat babies
Some may do. but that's true of every section of the population. It's all shades of grey and all shades of opinion out there.
Anyway, Sean T will probably change his mind tomorrow.
My advice is to stop digging.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1022385675453321216
Unusually, this year this means no change from day-to-day politics.
this year has been an absolute belter for twattery of the highest order
stick Trump on PB and he's soon look the sane one
As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
Meanwhile across the channel we have racism, homophobia, free masonry and world war 3 all rolled in to one. English sensitive souls better cancel their holidays, assuming Michael OLeary hasn't already done it for them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5993315/Emmanuel-Macron-says-fired-security-chief-Alexandre-Benalla-not-lover.html
This site has worked because it's been interesting and challenging. SeanT is undeniably interesting. He isn't a racist; he's just provocative, often with tongue firmly in cheek and three bottles of wine empty.
I think if they continue to make strong appointments like this and hold onto Alonso they are looking good for 2019 as a top running team.
I’m not looking to egg anyway on, and nor do I see any evidence of racial or sexual abuse.
a programme edited by the people who go to the University where you don't meet black people
I think I'll sit that one out
But of course you love this, as do many others of your ilk, as it gives you a heaven sent change to parade your anti-racist credentials.
https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/billy-bragg-jews-work-rebuild-trust-labour/
I understand that most people think they are wiser, more experienced, and possess superior judgement to the average person. I do too, but you have to make allowances for others. They don't mean to be stupid, they just are. Without some degree of self-confidence, you'd struggle to survive. And it must hurt when others don't appreciate your brilliance.
I asked, some days ago, what was the opposite of populism? I think you have to define the word before you can give a sensible answer. My definition, for what it's worth, is that it stands for popular opinions that you disagree with. That makes the opposite either popular opinions that you agree with, or unpopular opinions that you disagree with.
But when you add in your own infallibility, the definitions change.
But can I end by saying that this particular site is guilty of this far less than many others.
I’ve added a lot to the conversation. In case it helps, by drawing attention to the central criticism SeanT was making about the corrosive effect of identity politics in sowing division rather than healing it.
People far too easily pile on the back of it to accuse each other of being racist and applaud anti-racism in turn. You seemed to be unable to perceive the part you yourself played in this and, I’m afraid, got rather hyper emotive about it, which is when your posts are at their worst.
It’s to Sean you should apologise.