Anti-immigrant voters clarify what they mean

[SirGalahad]

Wow Sajid Javid is another in a long line of idiotic home office ministers.

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1074331242810753024/

Sajid Javid saying EU Migrants will have to earn £30k before coming to Britain. Looks like the plan to destroy the NHS is on track.

NHS starting salaries:

Nurse £23.0k
Paramedic £23.0k
Midwife £23.0k
Junior doctor £27.1k
Radiographer £23.0k
Healthcare assistant £17.5k
Physiotherapist £23.0k
Dietician £23.0k
Occupational therapist £23.0k

Are you actually *trying* to destroy the NHS, @sajidjavid?

 

[Bodd]

Neither knew what they were talking about.
The question should have been do we need quality brick layers., regardless of where they come from.

Yes we do is the answer. As long as they are good skilled tradesmen / women or other..

Do we need good qualified caring care workers, regardless of their nationalty

Careful - you are on thin ice there, as attitudes to immigration informed, at least partially, many voters' decision to vote Leave, so you are in danger of suggesting that people voted on the basis of not knowing about the things they claimed to know about.

Are you an expert on everything? No neither am I nor were they. He's a journalist the fella I'm sure was not a care worker or a brick layer.. What do all 3 of you know about both industrys

 

[EFLImpudence]

There you go again, with your not-so-hidden agenda of wanting anything and everything to do with "racism" to be turned into nonsense.

Stop being ridiculous.
I really can't believe you mean this. There must be an ulterior motive which I am missing.
Racism is the discrimination against someone based solely on their race.

What sort of person would want to do that, I wonder?

Pointing out that something is NOT racist does not make me racist.
It cannot because it is semantics; not discrimination against anyone; not even you.

Since we are all members of the human race,

There are several different races within the human race.
It is these races which determine whether racism can apply or not.

your position logically extends to that the word "racism" can never mean anything, in any circumstances whatsoever.

Nonsense.
As opposed to yours, which is devoid of any logic, where criticism of anyone, anywhere is racist.

Which is reducing the gravity of the word?

Do you really think the KKK stringing up a random black person and a joke about the French is the same?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you an expert on everything?

No, I am not.

But an either am I the sort of person who denies the existence of expertise in people who are experts when those experts are telling me things which I wish were not true.

What do all 3 of you know about both industrys

Not a lot.

But that isn't the point. Unless you want to make the claim that nobody had any "concerns about immigration" in their mix of reasons for voting Leave (good luck with that one) then when you say that people with those views don't know what they are talking about, what are you nudging towards saying about how valid their reasons were for wanting to leave?

Plus there is a dreadful skills shortage in this country. One doesn't have to be a housebuilder or a care home owner or a hospital manager or... or... to know that. In what way do you think that leaving the EU will fix that problem?

 

[durhamplumber]

Of that there can be no doubt.

Just as there can be no doubt that their concerns cannot be based on any objective analysis of negative implications of immigration.

Just as, therefore, there can be no doubt that their concerns are rooted in bigotry and prejudice.



What word would you rather was used to describe people who are concerned about other people coming here for no reason other than where they were born?

Shedzy talking his special form of nonsense again.

 

[durhamplumber]

Stop being ridiculous.
I really can't believe you mean this. There must be an ulterior motive which I am missing.
Racism is the discrimination against someone based solely on their race.


Pointing out that something is NOT racist does not make me racist.
It cannot because it is semantics; not discrimination against anyone; not even you.


There are several different races within the human race.
It is these races which determine whether racism can apply or not.


Nonsense.
As opposed to yours, which is devoid of any logic, where criticism of anyone, anywhere is racist.

Which is reducing the gravity of the word?

Do you really think the KKK stringing up a random black person and a joke about the French is the same?

Yes,the snowflake brigade find both v offensive,apparently.

 

[durhamplumber]

No, I am not.

But an either am I the sort of person who denies the existence of expertise in people who are experts when those experts are telling me things which I wish were not true.



Not a lot.

But that isn't the point. Unless you want to make the claim that nobody had any "concerns about immigration" in their mix of reasons for voting Leave (good luck with that one) then when you say that people with those views don't know what they are talking about, what are you nudging towards saying about how valid their reasons were for wanting to leave?

Plus there is a dreadful skills shortage in this country. One doesn't have to be a housebuilder or a care home owner or a hospital manager or... or... to know that. In what way do you think that leaving the EU will fix that problem?

How do you know which expert,with opposing views,to believe?? Especially when you consider yourself "expert" on many topics

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Stop being ridiculous.
I really can't believe you mean this. There must be an ulterior motive which I am missing.

No ulterior motive. A very overt one which is aimed at showing that your pseudo-scientific attempts to limit the use of the word "racism" to discrimination based only on what you consider "race" to be can only be because you don't want "racism" to mean what it is widely accepted to mean.

As you can propose no useful alternative, and therefore as if you had your way we had to stop using the word, we'd be left with no word to describe or proscribe racism.

What sort of person would want that?

Someone pedantically obsessed with "race" having a meaning which is biologically and sociologically unsound just because he believes it should mean it that?

Or someone obsessed with the destruction of our ability to use the word "racism"?

Racism is the discrimination against someone based solely on their race.

OK. So what is "race"?

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.​

There are several different races within the human race.

What is the biological definition of race?

If you find that the scientific definition does not match yours, feel free to expand into social interpretations.

It is these races which determine whether racism can apply or not.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.​

That UN Convention defines "racial discrimination" as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This definition does not distinguish between discrimination based on ethnicity and discrimination based on race, in part because the distinction between the ethnicity and race remains debatable among anthropologists. The inclusion of descent specifically covers discrimination on the basis of caste and other forms of inherited status.​

Nonsense.
As opposed to yours, which is devoid of any logic, where criticism of anyone, anywhere is racist.

No, I've never said that criticism of anyone, anywhere is racist.

What I say is that criticism of anyone purely based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is racist

Do you really think the KKK stringing up a random black person and a joke about the French is the same?

No more than beating someone so badly that they are hospitalised for a long time and left with life-changing problems, and a slap on the face are "the same". But they are both assault.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you actually *trying* to destroy the NHS, @sajidjavid?

Err... let's see.

Of which political party is he a member?

So that will be a "yes", then.

 

[durhamplumber]

No ulterior motive. A very overt one which is aimed at showing that your pseudo-scientific attempts to limit the use of the word "racism" to discrimination based only on what you consider "race" to be can only be because you don't want "racism" to mean what it is widely accepted to mean.

As you can propose no useful alternative, and therefore as if you had your way we had to stop using the word, we'd be left with no word to describe or proscribe racism.

What sort of person would want that?

Someone pedantically obsessed with "race" having a meaning which is biologically and sociologically unsound just because he believes it should mean it that?

Or someone obsessed with the destruction of our ability to use the word "racism"?




OK. So what is "race"?

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.​

What is the biological definition of race?

If you find that the scientific definition does not match yours, feel free to expand into social interpretations.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.​

That UN Convention defines "racial discrimination" as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This definition does not distinguish between discrimination based on ethnicity and discrimination based on race, in part because the distinction between the ethnicity and race remains debatable among anthropologists. The inclusion of descent specifically covers discrimination on the basis of caste and other forms of inherited status.​

No, I've never said that criticism of anyone, anywhere is racist.

What I say is that criticism of anyone purely based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is racist



No more than beating someone so badly that they are hospitalised for a long time and left with life-changing problems, and a slap on the face are "the same". But they are both assault.

Not the same,but both racist.what about beating someone with a bag over his head,and gloves on,so you cannot see his skin??? Is that racist?

 

[Bodd]

No ulterior motive. A very overt one which is aimed at showing that your pseudo-scientific attempts to limit the use of the word "racism" to discrimination based only on what you consider "race" to be can only be because you don't want "racism" to mean what it is widely accepted to mean.

As you can propose no useful alternative, and therefore as if you had your way we had to stop using the word, we'd be left with no word to describe or proscribe racism.

What sort of person would want that?

Someone pedantically obsessed with "race" having a meaning which is biologically and sociologically unsound just because he believes it should mean it that?

Or someone obsessed with the destruction of our ability to use the word "racism"?




OK. So what is "race"?

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.​

What is the biological definition of race?

If you find that the scientific definition does not match yours, feel free to expand into social interpretations.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.​

That UN Convention defines "racial discrimination" as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This definition does not distinguish between discrimination based on ethnicity and discrimination based on race, in part because the distinction between the ethnicity and race remains debatable among anthropologists. The inclusion of descent specifically covers discrimination on the basis of caste and other forms of inherited status.​

No, I've never said that criticism of anyone, anywhere is racist.

What I say is that criticism of anyone purely based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is racist



No more than beating someone so badly that they are hospitalised for a long time and left with life-changing problems, and a slap on the face are "the same". But they are both assault.

Did anyone actually read all that...

Hands up

 

[durhamplumber]

Did anyone actually read all that...

Hands up

I doubt it

 

[EFLImpudence]

Amended for relevance:

Ban-all-sheds once wrote:
I imagine grammarians face the same dilemmas as lexicographers and legislators - once upon a time they could argue that their role was to describe not prescribe or proscribe, but starting some time ago (long before any of us here were born) there have been a couple of very important innovations which affect the validity of the theory that language just changes and nobody should ever try to resist that.

Education and dictionaries.

Once everybody is taught what existing words mean, and how they are spelled and used, and their meaning etc is documented, it becomes a lot harder to say that "wrong" is just "evolution", and much easier and valid to argue that if, for example, 'race' is defined to mean 'a race of people' then to start using it to mean 'things other than race' is simply wrong, and remains wrong no matter how many people are wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Did anyone actually read all that...

People with a high enough reading age and a usefully long attention span.

 

[durhamplumber]

DP - are you ever going to realise that not everybody has the shortcomings which you do?

Lol...probably about the same time you realise you not the brains of britain....ie Never!