Elon Musk

[Turkish]

18 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

In the last 3 days, we've had:-

That's about it for first hand human exploration.
Racing to score points from the New Orleans attack.
Our first of our many 2025 "What Tommy and Katie did next" posts.

Less a mask, than a lopsided Christmas hat worn by a drunk, throwback relative at this point.

2025 has started on fire 🔥 

[sadoldgit]

More Musk fun

https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-uk-backlash-boost-far-right-activist-tommy-robinson/

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I did wonder where Soggy was….

The people who  support these champions of the far right either implicitly or otherwise need to be called out for what they are if we aren’t going to end up going down the same road as the US. The Farage bandwagon is already picking up stream and scumbags like Robinson do a lot of his dirty work for him. We have seen it all through history which is in danger of repeating itself in the West. It isn’t so much the people like Farage and Robinson that are the problem. More the gullible that give them credence or those like the people in the US who voted Trump in. The rise of the far right in Europe is very clear but is greeted by laughing emojis by the very people who are allowing it to happen. For the very person who told us on here that “socialism is dangerous” (hypochondriac for those that don’t know) far right politics, and those who support them, pose a far greater threat to us at this time.

[hypochondriac]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The people who  support these champions of the far right either implicitly or otherwise need to be called out for what they are if we aren’t going to end up going down the same road as the US. The Farage bandwagon is already picking up stream and scumbags like Robinson do a lot of his dirty work for him. We have seen it all through history which is in danger of repeating itself in the West. It isn’t so much the people like Farage and Robinson that are the problem. More the gullible that give them credence or those like the people in the US who voted Trump in. The rise of the far right in Europe is very clear but is greeted by laughing emojis by the very people who are allowing it to happen. For the very person who told us on here that “socialism is dangerous” (hypochondriac for those that don’t know) far right politics, and those who support them, pose a far greater threat to us at this time.

Is Trump far right? 

[sadoldgit]

On the basis that we apparently need to have another election already according to the biggest nut job in the US other than Trump, perhaps Musk will also call for another referendum on Brexit using the same argument?

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/elon-musk-calls-new-election-britain-labour-support-plummeting

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

On the basis that we apparently need to have another election already according to the biggest nut job in the US other than Trump, perhaps Musk will also call for another referendum on Brexit using the same argument?

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/elon-musk-calls-new-election-britain-labour-support-plummeting

Go and have a morning wank FFS

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Go and have a morning wank FFS

Hold up a copy of Tommy Robinson in the other hand to increase the pleasure. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Our SOGgy year continues at pace...

Wiser than all 77,168,458 Republican voters, who are all "gullible".

Anyone with a different view is "far right" and a "threat to us"

Pearl clutching and dog whistling over an existential far right crisis threatening us all. Mitigated somewhat as anyone supporting anything different is automatically far right.

Farage added to the Robinson/Hopkins tracker.

'Watch Hypo. Watch him close.' As they'd have said in The Thing to warn of the threat within our very midst!

Failure to understand that the laughing emojis are firmly at the poster, as pointed out numerous times.

Precious about labels on other threads, but free with nouns of "scumbag" and "nutjob." Way to bring different views to the table.

 

Previously...

That's about it for first hand human exploration.
Racing to score points from the New Orleans attack with 14 victims.
Our first of our many 2025 "What Tommy and Katie did next" posts.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I am viewing your laughing emoji through narrowed eyes of suspicion, Hypo. You're not getting to me that way. 🙂

Everyone else: Stay vigilant. Eat only canned food.  Keep those curtains twitching and stay glued to The Guardian and LBC for your only updates.

[Turkish]

19 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Our SOGgy year continues at pace...

Wiser than all 77,168,458 Republican voters, who are all "gullible".

Anyone with a different view is "far right" and a "threat to us"

Pearl clutching and dog whistling over an existential far right crisis threatening us all. Mitigated somewhat as anyone supporting anything different is automatically far right.

Farage added to the Robinson/Hopkins tracker.

'Watch Hypo. Watch him close.' As they'd have said in The Thing to warn of the threat within our very midst!

Failure to understand that the laughing emojis are firmly at the poster, as pointed out numerous times.

Precious about labels on other threads, but free with nouns of "scumbag" and "nutjob." Way to bring different views to the table.

 

Previously...

That's about it for first hand human exploration.
Racing to score points from the New Orleans attack with 14 victims.
Our first of our many 2025 "What Tommy and Katie did next" posts.

Is comments like this that are the root cause of the rise of the far right in Hungary you racist prick

stop the rise happening by posting about it on a Southampton football club fans forum. Thats how we ended global racism remember 

Edited Friday at 10:03 by Turkish

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Is comments like this that are the root cause of the rise of the far right in Hungary you racist prick

Sorry. Can't hear you over the sound of my boot polishing ahead of my flight to Budapest. 🙂 

I hope you're not posting before you've read the Guardian editorial and itemised your local civil defence unit plans for the day.

[SotonianWill]

15 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

He’s focused on being anti-Islam since 2016 trying to repudiate his racist to all EDL past https://www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/uk-who-is-uk-far-right-tommy-robinson

The EDL was also known, legally, as the jewish defence league for over 3 years from 2011. Tommy Robinson, a massive zionist (with possible Israel-based financing), called the BNP “backwards nazis who is against anything anti-White” in 2009. He said, at the same time, that Islam is the sole issue. Tommy Robinson has openly called for Hindu and Sikh immigration. 

 

The idea he’s racist to all, and didn’t focus on Islam until 2016, is for the birds. He’s an Islamophobe. 

[sadoldgit]

The definition of a racist is a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethic group.

Tommy Robinson is a racist.

Elon Musk is a racist too.

Edited Friday at 11:18 by sadoldgit

[swannymere]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Is Trump far right? 

He's pro anyone who licks his arse.

[SotonianWill]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Elon Musk is a racist too.

Interestingly, Bernie Saunders is to the right of Musk on immigration. One calls for the continuity of H-1B status, the other says it is undercutting Americans with servants from abroad.

 

Is the one who said the latter racist? https://x.com/SenSanders/status/1874918027982172626 

 

 

Edit:

@Gloucester Saint My 3 posts are up.  I don’t wish to accuse you of strawmanning, but my post was not saying Robinson isn’t racist. Nor did it say islamophobia isn’t racism. My post was purely a point of information regarding your idea that Robinson (personally) is racist against all who are not white. I do not believe he is.  

 

Edited Friday at 12:56 by SotonianWill

[sadoldgit]

19 minutes ago, swannymere said:

He's pro anyone who licks his arse.

Pretty much spot on, a classic narcissist who believes the world revolves around him. He uses the populist playbook - radical conservatism, authoritarianism, ultra nationalism, nativism, chauvinism and xenophobia superbly well because it is all based on on selfishness and narcissists understand that more than anybody else. He uses far right ideology as a trade off. He gives people what they want and in return they inflate his own ego.

[sadoldgit]

13 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

Interestingly, Bernie Saunders is to the right of Musk on immigration. One calls for the continuity of H-1B status, the other says it is undercutting Americans with servants from abroad.

 

Is the one who said the latter racist? https://x.com/SenSanders/status/1874918027982172626 

 

With respect you can have views on immigration that are not specifically racist. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, SotonianWill said:

The EDL was also known, legally, as the jewish defence league for over 3 years from 2011. Tommy Robinson, a massive zionist (with possible Israel-based financing), called the BNP “backwards nazis who is against anything anti-White” in 2009. He said, at the same time, that Islam is the sole issue. Tommy Robinson has openly called for Hindu and Sikh immigration. 

 

The idea he’s racist to all, and didn’t focus on Islam until 2016, is for the birds. He’s an Islamophobe. 

Islamophobia is still racism don't forget, the same way Islamists are racists. Opposing Islamic extremism is free speech, but misinformation and falsehoods to stir hatred and violence against an ethnic group is not on. His EDL support base were mostly ex-NF, BNP and football casuals, but became politically inconvenient for him. 
This piece captures him well https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2024/08/tommy-robinson-is-no-working-class-hero-luton

[Turkish]

29 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Pretty much spot on, a classic narcissist who believes the world revolves around him. He uses the populist playbook - radical conservatism, authoritarianism, ultra nationalism, nativism, chauvinism and xenophobia superbly well because it is all based on on selfishness and narcissists understand that more than anybody else. He uses far right ideology as a trade off. He gives people what they want and in return they inflate his own ego.

No wonder you hate him, it’s like looking in the mirror 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

The definition of a racist is a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethic group.

Tommy Robinson is a racist.

Elon Musk is a racist too.

Like you with Jews?

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, SotonianWill said:

The EDL was also known, legally, as the jewish defence league for over 3 years from 2011. Tommy Robinson, a massive zionist (with possible Israel-based financing), called the BNP “backwards nazis who is against anything anti-White” in 2009. He said, at the same time, that Islam is the sole issue. Tommy Robinson has openly called for Hindu and Sikh immigration. 

 

The idea he’s racist to all, and didn’t focus on Islam until 2016, is for the birds. He’s an Islamophobe. 

What's the definition of Islamophobe in this context? 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

The definition of a racist is a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethic group.

Tommy Robinson is a racist.

Elon Musk is a racist too.

Interesting. Do you have some examples of Elon Musk showing prejudice towards someone based on their race or ethnicity? While you're at it maybe show an example from Tommy Robinson. I assume you have one for him as you seem to know a lot about him. 

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Like you with Jews?

And brown women and “coconuts”……

[Gloucester Saint]

Tidy rebuttal without name calling from Streeting and more Tories distancing from Musk despite Kemi trying to cosy up to him https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxdzng92lno

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Islamophobia is still racism don't forget, the same way Islamists are racists. Opposing Islamic extremism is free speech, but misinformation and falsehoods to stir hatred and violence against an ethnic group is not on. His EDL support base were mostly ex-NF, BNP and football casuals, but became politically inconvenient for him. 
This piece captures him well https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2024/08/tommy-robinson-is-no-working-class-hero-luton

Hi Gloucester Saint. I appreciate you engaging with opposing views without resorting to insults. In that same spirit, can you explain to me how believing in extremist Islam is racist? Because that makes no sense to me. Similarly, how are you defining islamophobia? Because as I understand it, Islam is a religion comprised of a set of beliefs and ideas and not a race. You could discriminate against someone because they are a Muslim but that Muslim could be of any nationality. If I hated Christianity and so I hurled insults at a Christian or refused to hire a Christian for a job because they wrre Christian racism wouldn't come into it. 

Edited Friday at 13:20 by hypochondriac

[Gloucester Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hi Gloucester Saint. I appreciate you engaging with opposing views without resorting to insults. In that same spirit, can you explain to me how believing in extremist Islam is racist? Because that makes no sense to me. Similarly, how are you defining islamophobia? Because as I understand it, Islam is a religion comprised of a set of beliefs and ideas and not a race. You could discriminate against someone because they are a Muslim but that Muslim could be of any nationality. If I hated Christianity and so I hurled insults at a Christian or refused to hire a Christian for a job because they wrre Christian racism wouldn't come into it. 

If someone is of a mindset to proactively attack, harm, physically or otherwise someone with a different skin colour, faith, or as you say directly and deliberately damage someone's career, for me that’s racism. They are not by that stage seeing the person as an individual with their own values, views, they are just one of a whole diaspora, identity, faith etc that person despises. 

We all have biases - I must admit that I do - but it’s how we rationalise and manage them. And sadly some people go miles past that stage where what happens in Gaza, or Southport, even without having the facts, is a trigger.

The attack on Lee Rigby - the streets of Woolwich are not those of Gaza or Lebanon, Rigby is a civilian at that point. Southport and those trying to set fire to a hotel full of what they perceive as asylum seekers because a few people are stirring misinformation on SM. 

[hypochondriac]

35 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

If someone is of a mindset to proactively attack, harm, physically or otherwise someone with a different skin colour, faith, or as you say directly and deliberately damage someone's career, for me that’s racism. They are not by that stage seeing the person as an individual with their own values, views, they are just one of a whole diaspora, identity, faith etc that person despises. 

We all have biases - I must admit that I do - but it’s how we rationalise and manage them. And sadly some people go miles past that stage where what happens in Gaza, or Southport, even without having the facts, is a trigger.

The attack on Lee Rigby - the streets of Woolwich are not those of Gaza or Lebanon, Rigby is a civilian at that point. Southport and those trying to set fire to a hotel full of what they perceive as asylum seekers because a few people are stirring misinformation on SM. 

Right but factually it's not necessarily racism is it which I would define as prejudice or discrimination of an individual or group based on their membership of an ethnic or racial group. I can't agree with you that attacking someone solely because they have a different faith to you- even though it shouldn't happen- is racist. As objectionable as discrimination based solely on someone's religion would be, I don't follow the logic that says that that would be racism in all cases because race is not always a motive behind the attack (and any ethnicity can be part of a religion.) I think Scientology is an evil organisation and I would support types of attacks on that group in the hope that it was forced to disband but supporting this wouldn't make me a racist since race has nothing to do with it.

The Lee Rigby attack was clearly disgusting but was it motivated by Lee's skin colour and race? Or was it motivated by the attacker's extremist religious beliefs or what the British army represented to him? Southport I accept appears to have had racist elements, where people saw misinformation online and then used their own prejudice and racism to target individuals with the wrong skin colour. Clearly if you're searching for someone with a particular skin colour and then attacking them then that is very obviously motivated by racism.

The primary reason I bring it up is because some people are quick to label someone as something like Islamophobic if they believe that Islam is a bunch of fairy stories that do more harm than good and would prefer if its effects are lessened as much as possible in the UK and that many of the values of a proportion of its followers are incompatible with the UK. I'd also defend the right of someone to depict the prophet Muhhamed in offensive situations even if it's not something I would do myself and I believe that if it is the case that Muhammed had child brides then even allowing for social norms of the time that was not correct and is not something that should be emulated today. 

Edited Friday at 14:12 by hypochondriac

[egg]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right but factually it's not necessarily racism is it which I would define as prejudice or discrimination of an individual or group based on their membership of an ethnic or racial group. I can't agree with you that attacking someone with a different faith to you- even though it shouldn't happen- is racist. As objectionable as discrimination based solely on someone's religion would be, I don't follow the logic that says that that would be racism in all cases. The Lee Rigby attack was clearly disgusting but was it motivated by Lee's skin colour and race? Or was it motivated by the attacker's extremist religious beliefs or what the British army represented to him? Southport I accept appears to have had racist elements, where people saw misinformation online and then used their own prejudice and racism to target individuals with the wrong skin colour. Clearly if you're searching for someone with a particular skin colour and then attacking them then that is very obviously motivated by racism.

The primary reason I bring it up is because some people are quick to label someone as something like Islamophobic if they believe that Islam is a bunch of fairy stories that do more harm than good and would prefer if its effects are lessened as much as possible in the UK and that many of the values of a proportion of its followers are incompatible with the UK. I'd also defend the right of someone to depict the prophet Muhhamed in offensive situations even if it's not something I would do myself and I believe that if it is the case that Muhammed had child brides then even allowing for social norms of the time that was not correct and is not something that should be emulated today. 

Ha!! Love the defensiveness. 

I think the definition has stung.

Islamaphobia is a form of racism. 

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right but factually it's not necessarily racism is it which I would define as prejudice or discrimination of an individual or group based on their membership of an ethnic or racial group. I can't agree with you that attacking someone with a different faith to you- even though it shouldn't happen- is racist. As objectionable as discrimination based solely on someone's religion would be, I don't follow the logic that says that that would be racism in all cases. The Lee Rigby attack was clearly disgusting but was it motivated by Lee's skin colour and race? Or was it motivated by the attacker's extremist religious beliefs or what the British army represented to him? Southport I accept appears to have had racist elements, where people saw misinformation online and then used their own prejudice and racism to target individuals with the wrong skin colour. Clearly if you're searching for someone with a particular skin colour and then attacking them then that is very obviously motivated by racism.

The primary reason I bring it up is because some people are quick to label someone as something like Islamophobic if they believe that Islam is a bunch of fairy stories that do more harm than good and would prefer if its effects are lessened as much as possible in the UK and that many of the values of a proportion of its followers are incompatible with the UK. I'd also defend the right of someone to depict the prophet Muhhamed in offensive situations even if it's not something I would do myself and I believe that if it is the case that Muhammed had child brides then even allowing for social norms of the time that was not correct and is not something that should be emulated today. 

Forum is playing up for me since the IT updates so my replies may be intermittent.

OK, to be clear if someone has concerns rooted in evidence or their own experiences/those of family/close friends about an ethnic or faith group because of practices or acts eg women’s’ rights, FGM, DV, grooming gangs of young men, that’s certainly not racist per se. I’d defend anyone’s right to do that.

Also certainly the Rushdie and Denmark cartoon incidents are unacceptable with fatwas threatened etc. Disagree with the author by all means and push back (the British Empire has some very dark moments) but violence and death threats are just unacceptable, a former colleague of mine is/was subject to a Fatwa if he re-enters a certain Middle Eastern nation. 

These issues are discussed frequently in policy and academic circles, tackled by research grants, no doubt with some mutual unease at times but it’s important that these happen albeit objectively.

What is unacceptable is making up exaggerated and disproportionate social scenarios to stir hatred - Powell’s Rivers of Blood and some of the things Robinson has said about Muslims to incite others.

Only Rigby’s attackers truly know what their motivation was but I suspect the uniform was only part of it and what he represented. Driving a car into a crowd of people not caring who you hit would be another example. 

The frustrating thing about Musk’s comments is that the issue is one of the implementation of the various reviews into child safety in communities which the current government needs to tackle with the outcomes bouncing around since 2022 and into 2025 now. Instead, we’re discussing his daft views about a Luton Town football hooligan on his fifth prison term as some kind of hero.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxdzng92lno

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Ha!! Love the defensiveness. 

I think the definition has stung.

Islamaphobia is a form of racism. 

Thanks @Gloucester Saint for your considered reply. Unfortunately you get people like the post above that make it difficult to have conversations because they aren't interested in saying anything meaningful. Troll-like behaviour like this is unfortunate. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Forum is playing up for me since the IT updates so my replies may be intermittent.

OK, to be clear if someone has concerns rooted in evidence or their own experiences/those of family/close friends about an ethnic or faith group because of practices or acts eg women’s’ rights, FGM, DV, grooming gangs of young men, that’s certainly not racist per se. I’d defend anyone’s right to do that. 

I agree but I think it would be possible to have concerns without having any personal experience. I have zero experience of Scientology but I know it's evil and that it should be prevented from practising. 

Also certainly the Rushdie and Denmark cartoon incidents are unacceptable with fatwas threatened etc. Disagree with the author by all means and push back (the British Empire has some very dark moments) but violence and death threats are just unacceptable, a former colleague of mine is/was subject to a Fatwa if he re-enters a certain Middle Eastern nation. 

Agree 100%. People have the right to be offensive. My wife's uncle is a Muslim and is a wonderful bloke but he vehemently disagrees with me that someone in this country should have the right to be offensive about Muhhammed. For me that point is fundamental that someone should have the right to do so even though I do not want to myself. 

These issues are discussed frequently in policy and academic circles, tackled by research grants, no doubt with some mutual unease at times but it’s important that these happen albeit objectively.

What is unacceptable is making up exaggerated and disproportionate social scenarios to stir hatred - Powell’s Rivers of Blood and some of the things Robinson has said about Muslims to incite others.

Making up lies I agree should not happen, particularly if those lies are then used by someone to physically attack someone else. I'm not trying to catch you out but do you have an example of some of the things Robinson has said about Muslims to incite others? I'd like to see it so that we can all agree that it's unacceptable behaviour. 

Only Rigby’s attackers truly know what their motivation was but I suspect the uniform was only part of it and what he represented. Driving a car into a crowd of people not caring who you hit would be another example. 

I expect you're right. I still struggle to see how it's racist though unless he was targeting him because of his skin colour or Britishness which he may have done. My point was more that there clearly exists a scenario where someone's extreme religious beliefs could cause someone to attack someone else, how can that be described as racism if race and ethnicity are not motivating factors?

The frustrating thing about Musk’s comments is that the issue is one of the implementation of the various reviews into child safety in communities which the current government needs to tackle with the outcomes bouncing around since 2022 and into 2025 now. Instead, we’re discussing his daft views about a Luton Town football hooligan on his fifth prison term as some kind of hero.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxdzng92lno

I agree that the sooner the recommendations from the reviews are implemented, the sooner views about Tommy Robinson can be ignored. The fact they still haven't been adopted in full is another embarrassment on the last government and this one needs to implement it as soon as possible. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Thanks @Gloucester Saint for your considered reply. Unfortunately you get people like the post above that make it difficult to have conversations because they aren't interested in saying anything meaningful. Troll-like behaviour like this is unfortunate. 

As I say, stung by the definition. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

As I say, stung by the definition. 

I don't agree with the definition and gave clear examples as to why it doesn't work which you are unable to refute so you just go off on some trolling expedition which as I said is sad and unfortunate. 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Thanks @Gloucester Saint for your considered reply. Unfortunately you get people like the post above that make it difficult to have conversations because they aren't interested in saying anything meaningful. Troll-like behaviour like this is unfortunate. 

Whereas you bend over backwards trying to find someone not racist because, apparently, he only hates Muslims.

You have an issue with Scientology. Do you also have issues with the ideology of the National Front and the English Defence League? Robinson has been heavily involved in both organisations. Experts in this field (not keyboard warriors on a football forum) who deal with these issues day in, day out, say that he is racist. Any time anyone displays any animosity towards Muslims, no matter what their backgrounds, you find a way to play down their hate. By the same token, you tell us your Muslim uncle is wrong when he tells you that people should not take his prophet in vain. You cut Muslim haters slack but not Muslims. Your male is wrong but Tommy is okish because he only hates Muslims. That is what it sounds like from your posts over the years.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Whereas you bend over backwards trying to find someone not racist because, apparently, he only hates Muslims.

You have an issue with Scientology. Do you also have issues with the ideology of the National Front and the English Defence League? Robinson has been heavily involved in both organisations. Experts in this field (not keyboard warriors on a football forum) who deal with these issues day in, day out, say that he is racist. Any time anyone displays any animosity towards Muslims, no matter what their backgrounds, you find a way to play down their hate. By the same token, you tell us your Muslim uncle is wrong when he tells you that people should not take his prophet in vain. You cut Muslim haters slack but not Muslims. Your male is wrong but Tommy is okish because he only hates Muslims. That is what it sounds like from your posts over the years.

I don't know a lot about the national front or the EDL unlike you but if they are targeting someone because of their race then of course I have a problem with them, any person would do. 

And no you've misquoted me. The argument I have had with my wifes uncle is that someone should have the RIGHT to be offensive baiut Muhammed not that they should do. We should never have blasphemy laws I this country. Learn to read. 

[benjii]

Tommy Robinson: "I'm opposed to Islam".

Hypo: "show me something racist".

🤣🤣🤣

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, benjii said:

Tommy Robinson: "I'm opposed to Islam".

Hypo: "show me something racist".

🤣🤣🤣

"I'm opposed to Christianity." 

Racist? 

[egg]

40 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't agree with the definition and gave clear examples as to why it doesn't work which you are unable to refute so you just go off on some trolling expedition which as I said is sad and unfortunate. 

No trolling Hypo. You've shown yourself time and time again to be islamaphobic. That's what's 'sad and unfortunate'. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

No trolling Hypo. You've shown yourself time and time again to be islamaphobic. That's what's 'sad and unfortunate'. 

How can something that doesn't involve a race or ethnicity be defined as racist? It's nothing to do with me it's a definition. I predict you won't answer sensibly you'll just rattle on about how islamophobic I am. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

How can something that doesn't involve a race or ethnicity be defined as racist? It's nothing to do with me it's a definition. I predict you won't answer sensibly you'll just rattle on about how islamophobic I am. 

I'm not getting into an MLG style discussion with you. Others have covered it. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not getting into an MLG style discussion with you. Others have covered it. 

 

Where? Like I said you have no interest in a sensible discussion which is why you're just trolling. 

Edited Friday at 16:29 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

The Equalities Act defines racism as discrimination or action against a person on the basis of that person's "skin colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin".

 

Now, can the children please stop squabbling.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

The Equalities Act defines racism as discrimination or action against a person on the basis of that person's "skin colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin".

 

Now, can the children please stop squabbling.

So not religion then. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Where? 

I'm not what point are you trying to make. If by some people's interpretation, Islamaphobia is not a form of racism, it's no less unpleasant. The same applies to anti-Semitism. On the latter point, David Baddiel once wrote that 'jews are racialized whether they like it or not' and I think the same applies to Muslims. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not what point are you trying to make. If by some people's interpretation, Islamaphobia is not a form of racism, it's no less unpleasant. The same applies to anti-Semitism. On the latter point, David Baddiel once wrote that 'jews are racialized whether they like it or not' and I think the same applies to Muslims. 

I didn't say that abusing someone solely because of their religion is not unpleasant, I'm disputing the claim that something can be racist without involving an ethnicity or race. In what way is Muslim racialized? I could convert tomorrow. If someone then abused me because I'm a Muslim it doesn't make them racist clearly. Unpleasant, bigoted and an arsehole maybe but definitions of words are important. 

Judaism is more of a grey area since Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity. I would argue that abusing a recent convert to Judaism meets no sensible definition of racism as unpleasant as that would obviously be. 

Edited Friday at 16:49 by hypochondriac

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I didn't say that abusing someone solely because of their religion is not unpleasant, I'm disputing the claim that something can be racist without involving an ethnicity or race. In what way is Muslim racialized? I could convert tomorrow. If someone then abused me because I'm a Muslim it doesn't make them racist clearly. Unpleasant, bigoted and an arsehole maybe but definitions of words are important. 

Judaism is more of a grey area since Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity. I would argue that abusing a recent convert to Judaism meets no sensible definition of racism as unpleasant as that would obviously be. 

You're making a pointless point. You agree that Islamaphobia is unpleasant.

There's plenty of commentary on Wikipedia if the detail excites you, and Wes Streeting wrote an article years ago stating the case for it being racism. Whether it is or isn't though is an irrelevant detail imo - racism, anti semitism, Islamaphobia, etc, are all forms of discrimination against groups of people. 

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

You're making a pointless point. You agree that Islamaphobia is unpleasant.

There's plenty of commentary on Wikipedia if the detail excites you, and Wes Streeting wrote an article years ago stating the case for it being racism. Whether it is or isn't though is an irrelevant detail imo - racism, anti semitism, Islamaphobia, etc, are all forms of discrimination against groups of people. 

It's not pointless at all. Not least it's not pointless because many organisations try to silence legitimate cricism of Islam with the label of islamophobia. It's not a form of racism and it lessens the impact of that term by trying to say it is. Racism is an incredibly serious and damaging charge and if it can be defined as whatever you like then you're potentially leaving someone open to life ruining accusations that are unfounded. I certainly won't be using Wikipedia as an authority but I'd be interested in reading the Streeting article and how he makes that case if you have a link. 

I also didn't agree that "islamophobia is unpleasant" since I don't know what definition you're using for that. 

Edited Friday at 17:19 by hypochondriac

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not pointless at all. Not least it's not pointless because many organisations try to silence legitimate cricism of Islam with the label of islamophobia. It's not a form of racism and it lessens the impact of that term by trying to say it is. I certainly won't be using Wikipedia as an authority but I'd be interested in reading the Streeting article and how he makes that case if you have a link. 

Discrimination is discrimination. The title is just that. If someone is discriminating by skin colour they're racist. If they're discriminating a Jew then they are anti semitic and probably racist. If they're discriminating a Muslim then they're Islamaphobic and probably racist. If the probably part is wrongly attributed, it makes no difference to the presence of the actual prejudice. 

Streeting - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/15/islamophobia-racism-definition-free-speech-theresa-may

Baddiel re Anti semitism/racism -https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/david-baddiel-whoopi-goldberg-antisemitism-holocaust-the-view-b980696.html

I also read an article in I think the Jewish chronicle on the issue.

I'm with you re wiki as such being an authority, but the scholars who express a view are no less of an authority than Baddiel or Streeting. Here's the link if you have a change of heart - under the racism heading -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#:~:text=Several scholars consider Islamophobia to,Turkic and anti-Arab racism

[SotonianWill]

 

 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

 

 

Look hard enough and you'll find arguments for and against.

The concerning thing for me, as per that video, is the willingness of some not just to say that Islamaphobia is not racism, but to seek to argue that Islamaphobia is not a thing. That's nonsense.