UKIP moves further right, new manifesto is anti-Islam
72 replies, posted
UKIP is to the BNP what Coke Zero is to Coke
It was a turning point in BNP's brief history. My Gran's constituency voted BNP in but after this Question Time episode, they were lost to the sands of time. UK politics still has dog whistling, but we're generally less extreme than America.
It does work though. It worked on Milo, Richard Spencer cancelled his tour. Sure they continue being assbags but less of a platform means it's less profitable so at best it's no longer a viable source of income for them, at worst it means they have to work harder elsewhere and spend less time peddling their shit.
And what precedent is it setting? Are you worried right wing media will suddenly start deplatforming centrist/liberal/left wing speakers - like they didn't already? (and any left wing/liberal/progressive speakers invited to most right wing media are invited dishonestly anyway, not to sure views but to be mocked and derided)
I've tried this. It doesn't work.
They appeal to feelings over facts.
It's not about logic, it's about making people see patterns then reinforcing those patterns or appealing to what people want to believe.
They'll send you a video to watch/article to read, you spend time reading it to dismiss it, then they send another and another and another. - the aim isn't to make a good argument it's to bombard you with narrative.
They'll give you "facts" but when you try to employ facts in return the facts are dismissed because the interlocuter claims the source is bias/liberal agenda/generally invalid.
They'll try to distract you mid way through, construct straw men out of your arguments, direct discussion toward irrelevant points - each of these diversions needs to be addressed but makes no progress toward addressing the original point.
They'll purposefully send you ridiculously long reading material on the hope that you'll just go along with it.
When you successfully address an argument they'll change position slightly, give you a slight mutation of the argument or just give you another argument (in neo nazi's case they have the Library of Hate where they can p much copy and paste arguements)
They'll start with something well established and generally true, then slowly corrupt it to support their narrative - but if you address this they'll fall back to something like "there isn't enough information but it does explain alot"
Data they dislike are anecdotes, anecdotes they like are data.
Their arguements aren't about finding truth, it's about discrediting or "OWNING" the opposition so that they (the alt right speaker) look and feel right.
I've spent hours discussing this with the aforementioned friend (and also another friend who isn't at neo nazi propaganda level yet) and I've gotten nowhere. If it doesn't work with people you know what hope is there for strangers? Especially when I'm 1 stranger trying to convince someone that they and the community they immerse themselves in are wrong.
The "free market of ideas" "counter their arguements" thing doesn't work. They won't want honest discussion. They're looking to waste your time, till you give up or lose your rag.
It's a time sink. Nobody can realistically take hours trying to expose and counter arguement after arguement from alt right guy after alt right guy on the off chance that they decide they're wrong. The "expose and counter" thing is bs.
Honestly, they've always been anti-Islam, now they're just open about it. It was inevitable given they essentially cannibalised the BNP's small voterbase and those are the ones (primarily) who have stuck with them.
banning UKIP is probably the easiest way to cause mass street violence and rioting in Britain, and it would lead to a massive number of attacks on muslims
I'm not worried the right will try to de-platform the left, I'm worried anyone will attempt to de-platform anyone. I think the idea in itself is terrible, not just it's application.
Arguing might not be effective, but it's the only thing we can do. When we start silencing the enemies of democracy, we become just as bad as they are.
That's the sad situation we are currently in. No matter what path we take we lose.
No. Advocating for a nazi to not be invited into university to speak is nothing like a nazi advocating for an ethnostate and discriminating against people based on race.
This "you'll be as bad as they are" is utter nonsense.
I used to follow Sargon for quite a long time, some time after mending things with laci green he has moved so far to the right that any claim he has to being liberal is just one extra indicator that he's totally lost the plot. When he first started you could argue that he was center-left, but at this point he's just an old school conservative boomer.
Not to mention that his ego has spiraled completely out of control, he came straight out of the EU parliament and decided "yeah I'm gonna start a fight with some youtube loser over petty shit, but really I'm mostly just going to fake chuckle and brag about myself while sucking nigel farrage's dick, expose all my plans about changing ukip from the inside to the whole world like a boomer moron, and try to hide how butthurt I am over people making fun of my stupid suit".
Like, come the fuck on. At least count dankula is there solely to push for freedom of speech because no other party wants to pick up that angle, and he's naive enough to think that makes ukip worth it. Of course this new manifesto drops a load of eggs on both their faces.
I consider it a matter of principle. I will not deny anyone the right to speak, not even my worst enemy. De-platforming people is never a good idea.
Ever since Richard Spencer called him an idiot he has been desperately trying to prove how smart he is. I think his beef with Jim is due to him never getting over the fact that Jim thinks what he's doing is stupid. He has acquired a strange obsession with proving himself better and I think it's partly due to the fact that he used to enjoy Jim's content.
You're right, we should let them speak. We should give Alex Jones his power back, so he can convince more idiots to shoot people. We should let Nazi part leaders continue to convince people that the deaths of innocent people helps them win.
I am honestly so goddamn sick of this agrument. No, I don't think silencing these people makes us as bad as them. They have no place in society, all they exist to do is spread hatred and evil, and if you think that stopping them spread that message is a bad thing, then frankly I think you are pretty daft.
Like I said, It's a matter of principle and I will not back down on this. If you want to stop their message, counter it. As vile as they might be, neither we nor anyone has the right to silence them.
If I provide a service which they're using to spread their message I absolutely have a right to deny them that service.
I don't have such a service but those folks at youtube and the peeps who run universities do.
That came off a bit rude. I appreciate that you are so welcoming of everyone, and I agree that people's opinions should be heard. I also think there are exceptions though.
If your world view includes genocide, or complete segragation of an entire group of people, based on??? Then I really don't think your opinion should be heard or recognized anywhere.
Also with the actual Nazi party the BNP collapsed, they're seeing an influx of people from there. It's kinda funny in a way, UKIP paved the way for the alt right in the UK, and now they're getting purged like Brownshirts.
Deplatforming doesn't silence them though, it just means you aren't going to help them spread their message and they'll have to go elsewhere
In a constitutional monarchy, or a democratic republic - in any place that allows citizens to vote and upholds the values of equality and liberty, any party whose values run counter to those core beliefs should be outright outlawed. Else the republic or the constitution will not survive. It isn't simple shutting down someone you disagree with, it's dealing with threats to the very nation itself and the values that nation stands for.
Exactly, no one is silencing them. They're allowed to grab a megaphone and shout about how much they hate brown people in the streets.
However, private companies are free to give them the boot on their services, they have no intrinsic right to speak on those platforms.
Counter it with what? Truth and facts? You have to be pretty ignorant to have not seen how well that's been working.
They've managed to create a perfect shield from it, complete denial.
I have to think everyone supports deplatforming in some form and it's just about where to draw the line? Surely if a literal neo-Nazi turned up and wanted to use your space to talk about the need for a second Holocaust you'd say no?
While UKIP has always been laughable, they are a symptom of a real problem with immigration/integration in the UK and other parts of Europe.
We can expect to see much more of this in the future, the moderates on the issue have a point, UKIP and associates are breaking their own argument with their ultra nationalist sentiments and causing the problem to grow faster.
It's not like they don't have a point, their argument is just getting lost in uninformed hatred.
That is more or less where I stand. I draw the line at silencing someone in any place that could be considered a public forum. I believe that, in such an open place, silencing anyone's opinion is incorrect. But private spaces still have their own rules, the ruling body of an university has the right to decline speakers, I am not arguing against that. I argued against de-platforming in public spaces, not private ones.
Wait, I thought they already were anti-Islam in the first place :v
isn't muslim only prisons essentially how we got ISIS
Well, it's one of the ways ISIS gets recruits, that's for sure.
Imo immigrants aren't so much the issue, they're getting blamed for the bigger problems.
People lose their job to machines (or to a smaller degree out sourcing to foreign countires) and automation drive down their wages and make jobs less secure - easier to blame immigrants than address the issue.
People feel mildly alienated (too stronger word) in their community, we don't know or trust our neighbours much. In the past it'd go back generations and we'd go to church (meeting the whole village) and have to get over our differences to live together. Easy to blame foreigners but it's us moving around and not getting to know our neighbours, social media allows us to totally disconnect from those physically near us who we meet daily. Pubs close down because we aren't using them anymore, we'd rather drink at home watching friends on Netflix.
People feel their culture and identity fade slightly. What are we? We don't have many cultural festivals, traditional stuff like folk music and Morris dancing are dying off or being steadily replaced by meaningless commercial bs which plays on our need for that identity. We watch, eat and listen to massed produced stuff by people we will never meet. We feel a lack of this belonging, then see groups who have it (like Muslim peeps wearing traditional clothes and going to mosque together) and think "well obviously it's dying because other cultures are ruining it!" when really it's because we're consuming Commercial junk and not participating in community or traditional cultural things.
Immigrants might contribute in part to these issues but we are the problem. If immigrants weren't here the problem would remain and stopping them coming won't change it. And if we're pragmatic the cost of stopping immigration (both in real terms and human terms from immigrants being alienated) is too high to make it realistic. All this is ignoring the positives of immigration, how it can contribute to and improve our culture.
All this identity stuff probably sounds Conservative as hell but I legit think we need identity and culture, just I think we're to blame for losing it, not immigrants. Also I'm not religious but I think religion in the past served an important role in the community, we haven't found a way to fill that role yet
I've been wondering if this whole immigration issue seems to be in part fueling the far-right in recent years. The internet has seemingly made things even worse for us in terms of holding the far-right back from public discussion using the immigration issue.
The far-right did not come out of nowhere and I'm starting to think that reporting on immigration topics is one of the root causes for the upsurge of the far-right why they take feeling over fact. Many different media sources try to spin immigration related topics to fit what they want readers / listeners to hear which in turn feeds into the far-rights feelings on the subjects.
If we were to reduce or limit coverage of immigration related topics and only allow specific government officials to have access to that information (specifically how many people arrived on our soil or if they came legally). Would this possibly slow the far-right's growth or even better cause the popularity of the far-right's rhetoric to decline?
If these rules were to be enacted it should be a punishable offense to report false / misleading information by media sources within nations that have enacted these laws, so as not to have media sources still trying to drum up the far-right's feelings with false narratives. After all, is there really a point to reporting how many people have entered the country or wether or not they came through legal means? If any of us truly want to be unified we shouldn't have to worry if someone is a legal or illegal immigrant, or even if they're from a certain country. The coverage of immigration is divisive no matter how it's reported either factually or completely false, and the far right also thrives from this division of people (citizens vs immigrants).
The reason I say this is because many of the far-right's feelings are seemingly based upon what they read or hear about when it comes to immigration. If we make the immigration topic silent would they be still be able to feel good or bad about a subject they can't hear anything about anymore? The far-right's echo chambers wouldn't be able to report on this information without being held liable and I think this could put a stop to the rise of the far-right. I can't find many articles on the subject of limiting immigration material and it's effects on the far right so I thought I should just post and see what people think. The media plays a large part of our perception of the society we live in and we need to make sure that the reporting is truly necessary for people to hear, as the topic of immigration does not seem important to many people other than those intolerant of others who are now dragging the idea of fascism from it's grave.
You raise some really brilliant points, and while they are conservative, conservatism is not inherently bad, it just appears that most conservative type parties are absolute cunts to the highest order and for some reason push for Austerity which is actually something that I would more expect to come from Dems as it fits their general politics much better. It's odd that the conservatives have accelerated the closure of small businesses such as butchers and bakers by giving the larger produce corporations giant tax cuts so they can undercut all local vendors by a relatively huge margin.
That said, with regards to immigration I don't think these are the points the common man is concerned about. It's really no secret that most Muslims, even most moderate who are for a free and liberal society consider that Sharia Law is actually a better justice system for the world than the judiciary systems we already have. With the current yearly population increases through immigration and child birth rates this is actually quite genuinely threatening to British values and our way of life. Sharia Law is already a problem for British police in terms of crimes going unreported and concluded behind closed doors in private Sharia courts around the country. This means that our ability to protect domestic abuse victims and people forced into marriage is severely diminished.
We just can't have this kind of thing going on the UK, it transcends culture and starts interfering with the justice system, one that I am by and large rather proud of (when it comes to domestic public issues anyway).
Of course these points are used and proliferated by the far right as a main arguing point, that does not mean however that they are making this stuff up, it's there, and the less the larger moderate parties ignore this in favor of keeping the far right movement from growing further (such as by and large censoring the riots in France in Germany over the subject on daytime TV) the more that people will feel that they are not being listened to and turn to the parties that are dealing with the issues and placing them high on their agenda.
Regardless of what we do though, I am seeing the mass destabilization of Europe in coming 2 decades, which will involve both Nationalists and Globalists facing each other along with an Islamic uprising using the opportunity to spread Salifism widely in the streets if we don't start treating this problem as a very real one in general governance and mainstream conversation.
The question is, how do you draw a line that won't be abused?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
