251–256 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What clue makes you think that ?
What better tool is there to divide and control people than something basically inconsequential that someone is willing to get worked up over?
Not wearing one implied a lack of care for others in your society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so; Keir Starmer is talking about cracking down on immigration and is certainly not far-right. You veer into the far-right when you dehumanise immigrants and use terms like "cockroaches", "Muslim invasion", or "great replacement".
Keir Starmer is pushing [0] pretty standard far-right conspiracy theories about how the government was running an open-borders experiment, by design, in contravention of stated policies. > ...and is certainly not far-right. He's quacking like a duck. Talking about open borders is fair game for being identified as a dog whistler for people who believe in the great replacement theory - particularly when it is framed as…
I mean, look, my position is that "far right" is a meaningful concept even if it's somewhat nebulous at the edges. And as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is well justified in its mention of far right influence on the riots. And the Wikipedia page defining the concept of far right is pretty cohesive and compelling. I don't think that simply wanting low immigration makes someone far right. But immigration control is a massive point for the far right because it's a low hanging fruit. It's easy to scapegoat immigration as the principle cause of crises in housing, cost of living, and the NHS. Lots of people are tempted to point fingers at the "other" in times of insecurity.
PS Does a policy/narrative stop being far right as it becomes more popular? Maybe in an "Overton window" sense, but obviously not at a global and historical level. Mussolini becoming popular in Italy did not mean he was no longer a far right fascist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That said, you don't get the point I understand the point you are making, I just don't agree with it. >it's arbitrary and there is no way to prove that it's true You aren't going to get a record on hearsay. >Yet, it will still be recorded. I don't think you understand how policing works in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-in... Well: - Criticizing a Islam and muslims is considered a NCHI. It's already amazing that criticizing religion is forbidden in democracy. And it's kinda funny given that said religion contains a lot non-avoidable rules that would make any liberal blush very hard (38). Saying "muslims should be stopped, by force if necessary, from practicing genital mutilat…
>https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2nm5jgxlko
Every time I read a link from you people it involves some racist thug either engaging in violence or encouraging someone else to do so. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
>They sent a man to prison for 20 months because he...shouted at a dog.
The police don't send people to prison, the CPS and courts do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What better tool is there to divide and control people than something basically inconsequential that someone is willing to get worked up over?
Not wearing one implied a lack of care for others in your society. Is a belief held only by one side
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the CCP won't allow any elections. If the CCP did, how many of them would get elected ?
You know, USSR had elections, and people actually went and voted.
(Sometimes you'd have the arrangement where there's token opposition that is similarly nominated, much like DPRK today.)
As for people going to vote, that was actually enforced. While there was no law about it, strictly speaking, not going to vote would likely earn you a reprimand at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, USSR had elections, and people actually went and voted.
In Soviet elections, most ballots had a single candidate - the one nominated by the local party committee. Typical example: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Ussr_... (Sometimes you'd have the arrangement where there's token opposition that is similarly nominated, much like DPRK today.) As for people going to vote, that was actually enforced. While there was no law about it, strictly speaking, no…
