Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

The people who have a problem with it are the people whose idea of travelling doesn't extend beyond a week in Tenerife or Magaluf - they don't want to be exposed to different cultures

What the?

 

Judging by the protests in Iran and all over the Middle East it's young Muslim women who actually don't want to be exposed to this piece of "culture".

Edited 7 August 2018 by MattP

[Max Wall]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Boris needs to think how he phrases things as we've seen how a politician can shape the type and manner of a discussion in a party. 

I struggle to understand why anyone would consider having such an oaf as a politician anything but a terrible idea.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

What the?

 

Judging by the protests in Iran and all over the Middle East it's young Muslim women who actually don't want to be exposed to this piece of "culture".

 

 

As is their right because they're directly affected by it.

 

Boris Johnson isn't.

 

 

[Izzy]

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

I don't think this is an accident mate. Boris knows he has no chance at the top job and is now aligning with far right people like Bannon who will have most likely advised him to go in hard with the far right comments to try and muster up support in the way that Trump has in America. 

 

Boris is a top **** and will do anything to get more power. He's our Trump and he's being advised by the same people. You'd like to think it'd have no traction here but you can already see people jumping on-board with it in this very thread. 

 

Sad times. Sad times and dangerous times. 

I don't get it mate.

 

If he knows he has no chance of the top job, why would he do anything to get more power? 

 

What power does he want if not the PM job?

Edited 7 August 2018 by Izzy Muzzett

[Guest MattP]

Jesus some of the conspiracy theory in here

 

You would think Boris had shouted Ban the Burkha from the top of the London Eye, it's literally a tiny comment in the middle of a satirical piece he wrote.

 

People are completely losing their minds.

[lifted*fox]

I should have been more clear. 

 

He has no chance of getting the top job in the current political, social climate so he's going to do his best to create a big enough division / raft of hatred in the population of this country to attain it that way - the same way Trump did. 

[Izzy]

5 minutes ago, Max Wall said:

I struggle to understand why anyone would consider having such an oaf as a politician anything but a terrible idea.

I used to like him in a 'funny uncle' type of way but he's in danger of becoming a younger version of Prince Phillip with his ill timed comments.

 

Thing is, I reckon there's a seriously clever and intelligent bloke underneath all the buffoonery. I wonder if he's just suited to a different job rather than politics where by definition you're supposed to be 'PC'? 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

I should have been more clear. 

 

He has no chance of getting the top job in the current political, social climate so he's going to do his best to create a big enough division / raft of hatred in the population of this country to attain it that way - the same way Trump did. 

It's just how Trump started, a small joke about a postbox in the middle of a article. 

 

Harry Enfield tried the same thing a few years ago but the populace just wasn't up for it.

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

I should have been more clear. 

 

He has no chance of getting the top job in the current political, social climate so he's going to do his best to create a big enough division / raft of hatred in the population of this country to attain it that way - the same way Trump did. 

Sounds a bit sad to me if that's really his mission in life now.

 

He doesn't seem the type to deliberately create hatred to me. I think he just doesn't realise his audience or his responsibility sometimes and puts his gob in gear when his brain's still in neutral.

 

Clearly a high IQ but lacking in emotional intelligence would be my guess.

[Max Wall]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I don't get it mate.

 

If he knows he has no chance of the top job, why would he do anything to get more power? 

 

What power does he want if not the PM job?

 

In my opinion Izzy, the PM's job doesn't really hold that much power in reality. Most of them seem to want it for what comes after. Look at Blair's earnings since he left the job. Incredible that these type of people are allowed to continue in high earning positions regardless of what they have been party to in their past.

Johnson is an manipulator, he will wheedle his way into positions of power and money throughout life. Whether that's in politics or not. It's his modus operandi and reason for existing.

As for his burka comments. They are the latest in a long line of attention grabbing statements. I'm of the generation that find the modern trend for being offended at everything extremely tiresome but I found his burka comments offensive. Especially given our imperial history.

If a Muslim women is forced to wear the burka, that doesn't fit with our ideals but it does theirs, who's to judge which one is wrong really? And, if a Muslim woman wants to wear a burka, in any country, I believe that's her right.

I ain't in the best of shape anymore and I wear a Leicester City shirt in public, no one tells me I shouldn't. Except the Mrs of course.

 

[lifted*fox]

Matt you know it's not the same as that so why do you choose to play it down?

 

Johnson's comments are not just ill timed grandad banter. They are planned, politically motivated, dangerous and give the racist far-right the signal that its OK to behave and talk in this manner. 

 

He is aligned with people like Bannon yet you're saying this is just innocent paper column buffoonery? Come on, you're smarter than that - why are you making excuses for his behaviour?

 

Johnson plays the buffoon but he is a dangerous, self-serving politician. You can all put it down to lack of awareness or whatever but mark my words - Johnson will continue this behaviour over coming months and will, most likely when ousted by the Tory party end up heading up UKIP or create something similar and head the rise of the outspoken far-right in this country. Watch it happen.

[Max Wall]

8 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I used to like him in a 'funny uncle' type of way but he's in danger of becoming a younger version of Prince Phillip with his ill timed comments.

 

Thing is, I reckon there's a seriously clever and intelligent bloke underneath all the buffoonery. I wonder if he's just suited to a different job rather than politics where by definition you're supposed to be 'PC'? 

There is no doubt he's clever, very clever..

I've always loathed him tbh. I guess you can tell.

I wouldn't want him as my figurehead anywhere but that's just my opinion. Plenty of people think the opposite.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

Matt you know it's not the same as that so why do you choose to play it down?

 

Johnson's comments are not just ill timed grandad banter. They are planned, politically motivated, dangerous and give the racist far-right the signal that its OK to behave and talk in this manner. 

 

He is aligned with people like Bannon yet you're saying this is just innocent paper column buffoonery? Come on, you're smarter than that - why are you making excuses for his behaviour?

 

Johnson plays the buffoon but he is a dangerous, self-serving politician. You can all put it down to lack of awareness or whatever but mark my words - Johnson will continue this behaviour over coming months and will, most likely when ousted by the Tory party end up heading up UKIP or create something similar and head the rise of the outspoken far-right in this country. Watch it happen.

I think you’re letting your imagination run away with you a bit there. I agree it’s rude and distasteful but it’s a big leap from there to the far right.

[lifted*fox]

Maybe Strokes mate but we'll see. 

 

It starts with a bit of toe dipping to see what traction he gets from distasteful, rude comments then it moves on a little bit with refusing to apologise for it. Then the comments get a little stronger and a little more distasteful and once it gathers momentum and most importantly power / following he'll open up the throttle. People like Bannon and Robinson will start to gravitate around Johnson because he gives them a more powerful voice here and it'll pick up speed. 

 

I guarantee you it's the same game Trump played. Give it another 6 months and I'll most likely be able to dish out a 'called it' in this thread. 

 

Or maybe not. Whatever, lol. 

[Guest MattP]

It shows where we are as a country really this with regards to so called tolerance,  if women are forced to cover up in public it's just brushed off with a so be it, we'd rather have that than any sort of serious questioning over culture attached to religion. Criticism of the burka is absolutely fine, it's only even a story because of the connection to Islam which so many want ringfenced from public debate. 

 

Are Muslims really that sensitive we can't mock certain aspects of the religion, let alone the actual religion itself? I would say very few are (and some completely crazy as Charlie Hebdo showed) and I'd imagine the vast majority would not be outraged at a joke about a garment looking like a letterbox.

 

There has been a very peculiar attempt in this country over the last few years to shut down any criticism or humour that revolves around this, always accompanied with the shriek of "Islamophobia" - a made up word intended to accuse people of having a mental illness who intend to debate the religion. Richard Dawkins was even labelled with this a few weeks ago for saying he preferred the sound of church bells to the Islamic call to prayer, which once would just have been classed as a perfectly normal opinion to hold, one of individual taste.

 

It really is time to get our serious heads back on when it comes to critique of religion. 

Edited 7 August 2018 by MattP

[Webbo]

If only we had this much passion about anti semitism.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Maybe Strokes mate but we'll see. 

 

It starts with a bit of toe dipping to see what traction he gets from distasteful, rude comments then it moves on a little bit with refusing to apologise for it. Then the comments get a little stronger and a little more distasteful and once it gathers momentum and most importantly power / following he'll open up the throttle. People like Bannon and Robinson will start to gravitate around Johnson because he gives them a more powerful voice here and it'll pick up speed. 

 

I guarantee you it's the same game Trump played. Give it another 6 months and I'll most likely be able to dish out a 'called it' in this thread. 

 

Or maybe not. Whatever, lol. 

Well I hope you’re wrong, I’d like to think boris has better intentions than that. Maybe I’m naive, we will see.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Matt you know it's not the same as that so why do you choose to play it down?

 

Johnson's comments are not just ill timed grandad banter. They are planned, politically motivated, dangerous and give the racist far-right the signal that its OK to behave and talk in this manner. 

But it is OK to talk in that manner.

 

If I want to say the burka makes people look like a postbox why shouldn't I? 

 

I think Rastafarians look like they have tea cosies on their heads, I think Jews with skullcaps look a bit daft, I think vicars wearing dog collars look like sex addicts, priests in a frock, comical.

 

What's wrong with taking the piss out of religious dress? Why shouldn't we say this?

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

But it is OK to talk in that manner.

 

If I want to say the burka makes people look like a postbox why shouldn't I? 

 

I think Rastafarians look like they have tea cosies on their heads, I think Jews with skullcaps look a bit daft, I think vicars wearing dog collars look like sex addicts, priests in a frock, comical.

 

What's wrong with taking the piss out of religious dress? Why shouldn't we say this?

 

I think you're a bit too concerned with what people look like and should probably find a hobby or two instead of wasting your time analysing people's religious dress; that has ZERO bearing on your own personal life, for humour.

 

You're trying to excuse something that just doesn't need talking about in the first place. Get over it, its someone else's business. 

 

Johnson isn't a comedian and isn't talking about the way a burka looks down the local comedy club for laughs - he's doing it in a newspaper column to stir up political and societal hatred and derision. 

 

You're making yourself look a fool to suggest otherwise, thqh. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

 

I think you're a bit too concerned with what people look like and should probably find a hobby or two instead of wasting your time analysing people's religious dress; that has ZERO bearing on your own personal life, for humour.

 

You're trying to excuse something that just doesn't need talking about in the first place. Get over it, its someone else's business. 

 

Johnson isn't a comedian and isn't talking about the way a burka looks down the local comedy club for laughs - he's doing it in a newspaper column to stir up political and societal hatred and derision. 

 

You're making yourself look a fool to suggest otherwise, thqh. 

You've completely ignored the question. I didn't mention comedy, whether it was my business or anything like that.

 

I asked why is not OK for people to "speak in this manner" as you claimed?

 

Why does a burka have such protection that other religious garments don't? 

[Guest MattP]

I am surprised at this, as Webb said earlier. However barbaric it is, the government has no place telling us what we can and cannot wear.

 

 

[lifted*fox]

As I've said before Matt, the burka shouldn't need any ****ing protection. It doesn't even need talking about AT ALL. The same way in which skull caps, rasta hats and priest robes don't need talking about AT ALL. 

 

The burka is talked about in this country because people are xenophobic, racist / scared of it / being ****ing busy-bodies about something they really needn't give a single flying **** about. 

 

If women in middle-eastern countries want to protest against wearing it then that is their business. From what I've seen in the news they appear to be perfectly capable of fighting their own corner on it at the moment. If they want to continue wearing it, here, there wherever the **** then great, wear it. 

 

As I've said in a previous post - you have to be a VERY sad individual to even give a **** about it, either way. Women wearing a burka is of absolutely zero interest to me, politically, racially, comically, etc. and it really shouldn't need to be to anyone else either. 

 

Plenty of other things to be concerned with / choose to make jokes about. 

 

Is that clear enough an answer for you? 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

As I've said before Matt, the burka shouldn't need any ****ing protection. It doesn't even need talking about AT ALL. The same way in which skull caps, rasta hats and priest robes don't need talking about AT ALL. 

 

The burka is talked about in this country because people are xenophobic, racist / scared of it / being ****ing busy-bodies about something they really needn't give a single flying **** about. 

 

If women in middle-eastern countries want to protest against wearing it then that is their business. From what I've seen in the news they appear to be perfectly capable of fighting their own corner on it at the moment. If they want to continue wearing it, here, there wherever the **** then great, wear it. 

 

As I've said in a previous post - you have to be a VERY sad individual to even give a **** about it, either way. Women wearing a burka is of absolutely zero interest to me, politically, racially, comically, etc. and it really shouldn't need to be to anyone else either. 

 

Plenty of other things to be concerned with / choose to make jokes about. 

 

Is that clear enough an answer for you? 

Well No as you haven't answered it.

 

Do you really think the liberal Muslim reformers in this country like Ali and Nawaz are doing this because they are racist and scared of it? No. They do it because they see it as a barbaric practice that has no place in modern society. Of course some racists will jump on the bandwagon but you don't not talk about it because of that, same with things like FGM - you don't just turn a blind eye to it because it's from a different culture and don't want to upset people. 

 

Of course there is a debate to be had about the burka in Western liberal democracies, it's asinine to try and shut that down under a misguided attempt at showing tolerance.

[Strokes]

How many women wearing burkas, are doing so out of free will? That would be something worth finding out surely, I mean they don’t exactly look comfortable. 

If it’s deemed oppressive shouldn’t we be looking at how best to approach and free them from it? I wouldn’t want a ban but equally I wouldn’t want women being forced into wearing clothing. 

[lifted*fox]

We'll leave it there Matt. 

 

My opinion is very clear whereas you seem to be changing your argument in every post. One minute you want the freedom to make funnies about the burka because you seem to have some weird comedic obsession with funny religious looking articles of clothing and the next your championing serious debate about it because it's barbaric. 

 

As always - no issue with you personally mate, love a good debate but we're clearly not on the same wavelength here and not going to agree. 

 

Sleep tight fam x