That you don't care is beside the point; it was a silly thing to say. Furthermore it is, unfortunately, a view I have seen and heard replicated by many others.
I think you have missed the point about Liverpool somewhat:
You appear to have fallen into the trap of believing it to be appropriate to dismiss any analogy or comparison as "straw man".
You will note that I made no changes to the structure of your argument, only the subjects. "Chavs" was replaced with "Jews", "England" with "Germany" and "Boris" with "Hitler".
Given that no structural changes were made to the argument, the charge of straw man fallacy is entirely inappropriate.
The thing is though, people generally define a Chav by their behaviour, i.e. people say that a person is a Chav because they are 'a waste of space', not that they are 'a waste of space' because they are a Chav.
Whether that is right or wrong, it is very different from making attributing a characteristic to a group which is defined in a different way (eg. by race or religion).
If someone said "Boris said criminals belong in Jail", you wouldn't reply with "Hitler said Jews belong in Jail", as if that somehow were a sensible rebuttal.
The thing is though, people generally define a Chav by their behaviour, i.e. people say that a person is a Chav because they are 'a waste of space', not that they are 'a waste of space' because they are a Chav.
Whether that is right or wrong, it is very different from making attributing a characteristic to a group which is defined in a different way (eg. by race or religion).
If someone said "Boris said criminals belong in Jail", you wouldn't reply with "Hitler said Jews belong in Jail", as if that somehow were a sensible rebuttal.
Some people might define a "chav" by their behavior. Others by their clothing or accent. Many people use it to describe anybody collecting benefits and in doing so are making a socio-economic categorization.
The point is that Roger Mexico's tendency towards dehumanizing a set of people is entirely compatible with the actions of the Third Reich. "Sub-human" was the word he used. I find this behavior incredibly worrying.
No, Roger Mexico and the many others who air such views are not guilty of racism. But they are guilty of dehumanizing a group of people, the consequences of which are often atrocious. See Pol Pot and "intellectuals". See Lenin and "kulaks".
RM's rhetoric was incredibly reminiscent of Mein Kampf, hence all I had to do was substitute "Jew" for "chav" in order to produce a paragraph that, were it slighlty better written, might have been plucked straight from it.
Some people might define a "chav" by their behavior. Others by their clothing or accent. Many people use it to describe anybody collecting benefits and in doing so are making a socio-economic categorization.
Some people might define a "chav" by their behavior. Others by their clothing or accent. Many people use it to describe anybody collecting benefits and in doing so are making a socio-economic categorization.
The point is that Roger Mexico's tendency towards dehumanizing a set of people is entirely compatible with the actions of the Third Reich. "Sub-human" was the word he used. I find this behavior incredibly worrying.
No, Roger Mexico and the many others who air such views are not guilty of racism. But they are guilty of dehumanizing a group of people, the consequences of which are often atrocious. See Pol Pot and "intellectuals". See Lenin and "kulaks".
RM's rhetoric was incredibly reminiscent of Mein Kampf, hence all I had to do was substitute "Jew" for "chav" in order to produce a paragraph that, were it slighlty better written, might have been plucked straight from it.
Most people define chav by their behaviour. I assume he called them sub-human because of the anti-social behaviour associated with them. You really can't compare him to Hitler