Bear in mind that my original post further above (where I mention your petty vindictiveness and trying to get a rise out of people on purpose) was more a general observation of the way you act at times. It’s a shame because when you don’t act like that, some of your posts are excellent (as shown in your reply about the Supreme Court).Darlogramps wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:49 pmThe depths to which DOTU has plummeted, having previously been a respectable poster on here, borders on the tragic.
I absolutely have. EDJOHNS made out-and-out xenophobic remarks. Xenophobia - the irrational fear or dislike of foreigners.
EDJOHNS: "I hate the arrogant warmongering bastards with a passion"
EDJOHNS: "I openly detest them as a race, that is my right. I "
On those two remarks alone, even someone with a moderate level of intelligence can see that easily fits the description of a xenophobe. EDJOHNS literally admits it himself. It's nothing to do with labelling, or woke faux-outrage, as you're feebly trying to claim. Nor is it anyhing to do with attempting to claim any sort of moral high-ground.
I'm simply calling out his xenophobia, and his unwillingness to justify himself. It's a dangerous state of affairs if we let people start making statements like that without being challenged.
He views them as a race. He openly detests them without justification, and believes he has a right to "detest them as a race". That's when he became a racist.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than exposing EDJOHNS for what he is. I'm simply not prepared to let someone get away with making xenophobic remarks and think he can provide no justification when challenged. That you fail to condemn him suggests you probably sympathise with his views.
I read every word of your pathetic explanation and laughed. It was feeble, an insult. At no point did you attempt to justify his remarks or explain why they were in anyway defensible. Just hysterical ranting about labelling. I've not referred back to it because I've treated your pathetic apologism for xenophobia with the contempt it deserved, and discounted it.
What an insight we have into your twisted beliefs.DarloOnTheUp wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 amEither way, it completely ruins the thread. Now I'm part of the same bloody pissing contest. You antagonise people on purpose in a vindictive manner, the thread descends into s***, all the while you play the victim and try and take the moral highground.
Xenophobia and racism - absolutely a person's right to do so, according to you.
Disagreeing with it on an internet messageboard - outrageous, not on. Absolute disgrace! - again according to you.
Your priorities are in entirely the wrong order fella.
For clarity, calling out xenophobia and racism is nothing to do with victim playing or claiming a moral high ground. It’s plain common decency, and you appear to have lost yours with your childish need to play the insurgent against system.
I have every right to. You might not dislike it, but getting involved in arguments and extending them is your choice, as is mine to reply. I'm going to call out and challenge xenophobia and racism. If you don't like that, tough s*** but that says more about you and your apologism than it does anything else.
With regards to the rest:
You mentioned dangerous rhetoric, but you don’t seem to realise how dangerous your own rhetoric is. You say certain things shouldn’t go unchallenged, well yeah, ditto.
I didn’t initially join this particular debate out of loyalty towards a fellow Brexiteer. I’ve agreed with you for most of the Brexit debate but not on this, and the same goes for al_quaker.
My problem is that too often these days, particularly by the left, these labels are thrown around so often that they lose all meaning. So whenever I hear someone use one, I’m now instantly dubious.
These labels are used to shut down debate, designate said person as not worthy of even common human decency (ironic that you mentioned this yourself, yet it doesn’t apply when someone has been designated as one of these labels or goes against the narrative: then everything is fair game), and generalise about certain groups (again, ironic that you’re raging against generalisation, but you do it constantly yourself about certain groups).
The terms are also far too vague, all-encompassing with no nuance or distinction, and they carry too much baggage. The goal-posts constantly change as well.
So people become wary of expressing their opinion on certain topics as the consequences are way worse than a simple disagreement, and it’s difficult to know what is acceptable. That doesn't make any concerns they have go away though, it merely serves to censor them.
This very topic proves my point: you’ve brought this up in 3 separate threads, tried to turn everyone against him, shame him into line, destroy his character, and blow things way out of proportion with no notion of perspective. A xenophobe is a xenophobe in your eyes and that’s all that matters.
Here’s an idea: how about instead of using one of those annoying bloody -isms, -ists, or -phobes, you simply call it like it is. Therefore in this case, he doesn’t like Germans (based on a lifetime of experience around German people, so not irrational after all). Then all of a sudden it loses the baggage, it’s specific, and it puts things in perspective. Challenge that if you want but have some perspective and treat it as a single issue. And less of the histrionics.