Just listened to the BBC Radio Ulster interview with the Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, Emma Little-Pengelly. I think it was a good response as she was condemning violence, but also acknowledging the problem and catalyst (a lack of social housing) and started talking about how she’ll try and work to create more social housing so people aren’t displaced by migration, etc. I think this was a common sense approach instead of just simply encouraging violence or declaring war on the rioters, which I feel like would just make things worse.
It is true, we should expand social housing. I think everyone can agree with that.
“The” catalyst is massively oversimplifying. I approve of the policy she’s attaching to this, but it seems something like a disingenuous rhetorical trick.
There are no excuses for racist violence.
Yes, let’s try to justify and appease the Nazis. It worked very well in history. Oh, wait…
Dismissing valid concerns about immigration as “nazism” is not constructive at all
valid concerns about immigration
That’s how to recognise a racist.
So it’s racist now to think letting criminals into the country unchecked is a bad thing? What are you going to tell me next, it’s racist to put people in prison? I’m not talking about a specific race. I don’t have a specific race in mind. In fact, I believe the current laws are far too harsh on good people who want to come here and actually contribute to society. But sure, just call everyone a racist so people stop taking the issue seriously. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
“Anyone I don’t like is a racist” you pig.
Using the phrase ‘valid concerns about immigration’ today is a little bit like waving a St. George’s cross in the 80’s though. I mean, it can be done with the purest of intentions, but you’re using a symbol that people (taking you at your read) you’d rather not be associated with use to identify each other.
So what should I say to refer to my literally valid concerns about immigration
It’s up to you. You could add context to those concerns, you could tweak the phrasing, you could undertake a heroic quest to reclaim the phrase if you want.
I’m just adding some context as to why some people react to the phrase.
Criminals are not being let into the country unchecked. That is not a valid concern.
A valid concern would be that foreign actors are feeding false information to the British public to destabilize the country.
The small boats?
You think that the small boats are unchecked? That they are not intercepted and the people detained?
In any case, that is only illegal because the last government made it so that you cannot claim asylum upon landing. They are not criminals in any other sense.
They don’t have a right to be here- They’re coming from France, a safe country. They’re not fleeing persecution, they’re just trying to cheat the system. And they’re paying criminal gangs and they keep causing deaths among their own people.
I believe the current laws are far too harsh on good people who want to come here and actually contribute to society
Of course you do, sweetheart 🙄
Ah, so you aren’t calling me racist because of what I’m saying, you’re calling me racist because you jumped to a conclusion, creating a headcanon of me, then rejecting anything I say because it contradicts your headcanon.
When you ignore people with moderate concerns about things, things get worse. I’ll never ever advocate for or justify violence, but like how the black lives matter riots happened, or the stonewall ones, I can see how these ones spawned. Because people are ignored and dismissed, whether as “nasty marxists”, “(homophobic slur)s” or “racists”
Apparently building social housing and reducing literal crime is “racist” now.
I am calling you a racist because you use racist language. And then you are lying pretending you are not a racist. You should have also said that “some of my best friends are Asians”, it would be as credible as your other statement.
What part of my language was racist? And how would me having an Asian best friend not be credible or believable?