[noemon]

Is there some other reason?

Your refusal to clarify yourself properly is the only reason, I assume that you are scared to be honest.

Still insisting I take a position on something that has nothing to do with me? Still insisting we discuss racism in a thread titled “community rights versus individual rights” instead of the actual topic?

You might think you are being funny but you are not, you are being ridiculous.

Fine, I believe laws should be enforced to prevent illegal immigration. The U.K. seems to have done that and it includes a process for hardship appeals. I see nothing wrong with that.

I asked you a particular question about the British Carribbean people affected by the Windrush Scandal.

]The Windrush scandal is a 2018 British political scandal concerning people who were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and, in around 63 cases,[1] wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office. Many of those affected had been born British subjects and had arrived in the UK before 1973, particularly from Caribbean countries as members of the "Windrush generation"[2] (so named after the Empire Windrush, the ship that brought one of the first groups of West Indian migrants to the UK in 1948).[3]

As well as those who were wrongly deported, an unknown number were wrongly detained, lost their jobs or homes, or were denied benefits or medical care to which they were entitled.[1] A number of long-term UK residents were wrongly refused re-entry to the UK, and a larger number were threatened with immediate deportation by the Home Office.

Please tell me why do you agree with this policy? And before you tell me: "this is not what I said, don't put words in my mouth", I am reminding you that you are indeed responding to this exact and precise question and you are also supposed to explain how all these wrongful deportations are not racist. Because you have spent numerous pages trying to tell us that this policy is not racist and that we should not be using the term to describe it because it hurts your feelings.

I never said you couldn’t use any words.

This entire topic even before it broke off from the immigration thread is about you objecting to the use of the word "racist" to describe the above policy. Your previous post rants and rants as to why the term should not be spoken again.

Wait a minute. You specifically told me I had to create my own thread...Now you disregard them here and insist on only racism being discussed.
I never censored anyone. I objected to ‘racist’ being used as a ‘battering ram’ to shutdown opponents on every issue.

I told you not to take threads off-topic as is my duty, this conversation would have taken place in the other thread had I not done that, this does not mean that this topic has no continuity as you are trying to pretend. I have not said that only racism can be discussed anywhere, in fact your own OP refers to racism and you have been talking about racism all this time. Suddenly, you no longer wish to talk about racism, is that your admission that you have been wrong all along? Second, I asked you a question about community rights and individual rights and you have ignored it. Once again you try to accuse me for your own misgivings:

here is an example that government does not always represent what you consider community rights such as for example government wanting to to put bigoted people in prison for expressing views that impede on the health, safety and right to life of others and those "individual rights" activists telling her, not to. What does the One Degree balance say there? What is the optimum solution and why would the racists and bigots individual rights trump the community rights?

As you can see I am not insisting on talking racism and ignoring the title-topic, in fact you are!

Second, it is you that is actually using racism as a battering ram to prevent people from expressing themselves. You are the authoritarian person trying to prevent me and others from using the term to describe a policy that is very much so, not just according to the definition of the UN but also...your own...

Only according to a new definition

As it has already been demonstrated:

It doesn’t matter if it is or not, but I have explained it is not racist because it is directed at illegals of all races

And I responded:

The policy is evidently racist even by your definition because it is directed at legal people of another race such as the Windrush victims.

invented for that very political purpose. That makes it political propaganda. Why do you not answer my questions? Why did they need a new definition?

Political propaganda is trying to censor people so that you can proliferate racist policies. Something you have been doing freely. This is not a new definition at all, nor is it contradicting any other definition as you pretend, if it did you would at least attempt to show the contradiction, but like always you have no argument just empty assertions.

As I already explained to you:

For the victims of racism, the excuse of the oppressor is totally irrelevant, a victim is never defined by the beliefs of the oppressor. Otherwise murderers would get to argue that in their own mind they are cleansing society or doing community service and hence "no murder" at all. A racist might believe that he is doing God's work or economic work or like in your case you might believe that you are doing a 'community service' as you keep arguing, but for the Black British Carribbean's who are being deported from their country, cut off from their families and denied their own home, your excuse for denying them their legal rights as people is totally irrelevant.

You:

"Hey guys I voted, supported and argued for the removal of your rights to live in this country but not because I think you are inferior, I just don't like you you know perhaps you are even superior to me even so that dont make me racist, hope you don't call me racist, cause you are ostracising* me guys and that's not cool at all, my feelings are hurt and my community rights challenged, we need to have balance between my community rights and your personal rights and the balance means that you don't get to have any rights to live near me cause my community of bigots(I repeat not racists but bigots, yeah, Bigots) decided so".

*ostracising is someone being forcefully removed from their community, which is exactly what you want for these people. You want them removed, yet you are literally whining that you are being ostracised when expressing these views. The irony does not even bother you which makes this whole exercise totally shameless.

People who argue that foreign people of other races, religions, and ethnicities should not have the same rights as them, are most usually motivated by the belief that these other people do not deserve equal rights as themselves because they are inferior but that is not necessary.

[Tainari88]

I think one should sum it all up with two words--@noemon words--, 'mogolla' nonsense, and arguments that are based on racist thoughts never acknowledged for what they are, plus @Drlee mentioning not understanding political categories. Mogolleria par excellence!



I say too much attention paid to overcooked rice that is inedible. No need to beat a dead horse argument.
Mogolleria, mogollon, mogollito, mogollin, en fin mogolla.