Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Can be, but in this context isn't
    What does it mean, then? Use examples or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jade1)
    Nooo you're not wrong at all!
    I would have voted BNP, doesn't mean I'm racist. People don't seem to look at the other things they're offering too. For example how they are going to allow the pensioners (who were born and live here and have worked very hard throughout their life in Britain ) access to the NHS System and council housing first instead of the immigrants who just come over and seem to get anything nice that's going even though some poor old dear has been waiting 2 years in a waiting list!
    Are you a COMPLETE buffoon?! One has to be white to join the BNP. That alone tells me they're a racist party.
    Don't be so blind as to think they will just close the borders and that will be that.

    If BNP were to get into power you would see Britain lose its position in Europe and relations with America. Therefore, no cheap flights or calls and be sunned if visiting other countries. The great Britiah Empire is gone. Too many other countries have Nukes. If BNP got into pwer, they would make too many enemies and have little to no alies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toiletpaper8)
    No, it's not wrong to be racist. There's nothing wrong with being racist - just don't show it.

    Thats the worst kind of racist. The one that pretends to not hate based on skin colour, but turn around and does the opposite.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yamcha)
    Are you a COMPLETE buffoon?! One has to be white to join the BNP. That alone tells me they're a racist party.
    You have to be black to join the Society of Black Lawyers, you have to be Muslim to join the Muslim Council of Britain, you have to be Asian to join the Society of Asian Lawyers. Tell me, is there any fundamental difference between these groups and the BNP? Sure, you could argue that the BNP are a political party - not an interest group - that intends to seize power. Why not? It's an easy excuse for anyone to think up so long as it denies indigenous Britons a right to an ethnic identity. An ethnic identity that no-one questions of ethnic minorities. The BNP are only open to people of indigenous British stock because indigenous Britons are at the forefront of racist discrimination by ethnic minorities today with no other group existing to stand up for them. The fact that indigenous Britons are slowly becoming an endangered group further justifies this stance. And I'm not even a supporter. Open your eyes please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not wrong to be racist, but it's wrong to stereotype, for e.g. I've come across so many white people that stink of damp urine, but i dont hold that against all white people. I hate everyone equally.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :rofl2: Good one :yy:
    Explain please. Because, you know, one of the most obvious signs of laziness in political conversation is to simply disregard certain people who are incompatible with your views and present them in affiliation with a group or person who's already discredited. Whatever bro. :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Explain please. Because, you know, one of the most obvious signs of laziness in political conversation is to simply disregard certain people who are incompatible with your views and present them in affiliation with a group or person who's already discredited. Whatever bro. :awesome:

    So, is this the reason you don't openly support the BNP?. Because frankly, you could be Nick Griffins dupe.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So, is this the reason you don't openly support the BNP?. Because frankly, you could be Nick Griffins dupe.
    No. I don't support the BNP because, although I don't buy the neo-Nazi rubbish, there are still a few concerns (which would probably be eradicated if they hit the heights of the Front National tbh). I'm ardently opposed to their economic stance too (bar the centralisation of essential industries). Nonetheless, I have no hesitency in declaring certain sympathies with the group having looked at them holistically. Not dwelling on evidence for their negative behaviour, but looking at the other side of the coin too (which many fail to do). If I gave you a list of a hundred eminent Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members who've been arrested for paedophilia, rape and assault (and there's one flying around the internet) would you form an opinion of each group based entirely on that? Of course you wouldn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    No. I don't support the BNP because, although I don't buy the neo-Nazi rubbish, there are still a few concerns (which would probably be eradicated if they hit the heights of the Front National tbh). I'm ardently opposed to their economic stance too (bar the centralisation of essential industries). Nonetheless, I have no hesitency in declaring certain sympathies with the group having looked at them holistically. Not dwelling on evidence for their negative behaviour, but looking at the other side of the coin too (which many fail to do). If I gave you a list of a hundred eminent Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members who've been arrested for paedophilia, rape and assault (and there's one flying around the internet) would you form an opinion of each group based entirely on that? Of course you wouldn't.

    I do not disagree with the BNP because of the reputation of their party. I disagree with what the party stands for. I share your opinion on their economic stance however, which i personally think is a joke.

    The main reason you sympathise with the BNP is personal. In all the threads i have encountered you, your grotesque prejudice against "muslims" by which i have concluded you mean immigrants from Pakistan, has shone through. You argue naive and illogical points using bad stereotypes like "Muslims breed like rabbits", "Muslims turn any place they live into a slum", "most Muslims refuse to speak English". You do not seem to have any capacity for common sense, nor do you consider the argument that these immigrants live in bad areas/accomodation simply because they are poor. You accuse them of destroying British values and attacking Britishness, but you have yet to explain to me what these British values are or why Britishness does not apply to a second generation Muslim shopkeeper.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The main reason you sympathise with the BNP is personal. In all the threads i have encountered you, your grotesque prejudice against "muslims" by which i have concluded you mean immigrants from Pakistan, has shone through. You argue naive and illogical points using bad stereotypes like "Muslims breed like rabbits", "Muslims turn any place they live into a slum", "most Muslims refuse to speak English". You do not seem to have any capacity for common sense, nor do you consider the argument that these immigrants live in bad areas/accomodation simply because they are poor. You accuse them of destroying British values and attacking Britishness, but you have yet to explain to me what these British values are or why Britishness does not apply to a second generation Muslim shopkeeper.
    I sympathise with the BNP because of the reasons stated above. I may share some of their ideals but I don't sympathise them just because of them.

    And, in fact, no. My prejudice against Islam is not particularly rooted in immigrants of Pakistani descent. It just so happens that people residing in Muslim communities are usually immigrants of Pakistani descent. I'd be just as critical of Muslims in France, no matter what they were (mainly Algerian in their case), or Germany (mainly Turkish). I don't use stereotypes which I don't think are justified. For example, I'll state the fact, which is that, on average, an Islamic family will produce several times more offspring than a white British family would.

    Anyone who denies that Islamic communities segregate themselves from everyone else is living in a fantasy world. Indeed, I wouldn't blame them really. Multiculturalism is nothing but a fantasy. Human beings are fundamentally inclined to stick among their own. White Britons are just as unlikely to integrate with Asian Britons as is the reverse case. Personally, I think this fundamental lack of co-operation means that the poverty issue works both ways. You can't just say that it's solely down to their living in "bad areas/accomodation simply because they are poor" when they're segregating themselves and thus suspending capital input to the community by other peoples.

    There's also no denying that segregated Islamic communities prove hotbeds for radical imams to spread their Al Qaeda jihad poison. If integration was possible then this wouldn't be a problem, but all I'm getting from you is the better parallel of your "second generation Muslim shopkeeper" (who I have no qualms about at all). If segregation continues then, I'm not joking, there is the ultimate threat of civil war.

    I've explained plenty of times on this forum what British values are. I'd say that they conform to how we may define traditional British culture. This is usually something just knowable, but I guess to satisfy the awkward who only care about seeing things in black and white, for the sake of argument, they are those things that have shown a consistent presence across British history, as well as those things that can be considered exclusively British. Enlightenment thought and movements towards secularism, democracy and empiricism are also part of it. As I said, your Muslim shopkeeper conforms to these, but he is another example of your type's selectiveness when it comes to the positives and negatives of multiculturalism. Plus, we must also consider that British is a culturally Christian country, and Islam threatens to subvert this as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    its like there's always a racism related thread on tsr everyday. hmm yeah i think it's wrong to be racist because it involves hate and anything to do with "hate" is bad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I sympathise with the BNP because of the reasons stated above. I may share some of their ideals but I don't sympathise them just because of them.

    And, in fact, no. My prejudice against Islam is not particularly rooted in immigrants of Pakistani descent. It just so happens that people residing in Muslim communities are usually immigrants of Pakistani descent. I'd be just as critical of Muslims in France, no matter what they were (mainly Algerian in their case), or Germany (mainly Turkish). I don't use stereotypes which I don't think are justified. For example, I'll state the fact, which is that, on average, an Islamic family will produce several times more offspring than a white British family would.

    Anyone who denies that Islamic communities segregate themselves from everyone else is living in a fantasy world. Indeed, I wouldn't blame them really. Multiculturalism is nothing but a fantasy. Human beings are fundamentally inclined to stick among their own. White Britons are just as unlikely to integrate with Asian Britons as is the reverse case. Personally, I think this fundamental lack of co-operation means that the poverty issue works both ways. You can't just say that it's solely down to their living in "bad areas/accomodation simply because they are poor" when they're segregating themselves and thus suspending capital input to the community by other peoples.

    There's also no denying that segregated Islamic communities prove hotbeds for radical imams to spread their Al Qaeda jihad poison. If integration was possible then this wouldn't be a problem, but all I'm getting from you is the better parallel of your "second generation Muslim shopkeeper" (who I have no qualms about at all). If segregation continues then, I'm not joking, there is the ultimate threat of civil war.

    I've explained plenty of times on this forum what British values are. I'd say that they conform to how we may define traditional British culture. This is usually something just knowable, but I guess to satisfy the awkward who only care about seeing things in black and white, for the sake of argument, they are those things that have shown a consistent presence across British history, as well as those things that can be considered exclusively British. Enlightenment thought and movements towards secularism, democracy and empiricism are also part of it. As I said, your Muslim shopkeeper conforms to these, but he is another example of your type's selectiveness when it comes to the positives and negatives of multiculturalism. Plus, we must also consider that British is a culturally Christian country, and Islam threatens to subvert this as well.

    What is so bad about change in British culture, you are an historian and should be aware that throughout history, foreign influence has inevitably bought about changes, changes that would themselves become part of the national identitiy. Hellenistic influences on Rome perhaps being a fitting example.

    Every one of your so called British values can be traced back to foreign influences, even the queen and the monarchy for whom you are so eager to die. You cite Christianity as a cultural tradition and yet i bet there were people like youself who protested it and its followers when it was first bought to these shores.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What is so bad about change in British culture, you are an historian and should be aware that throughout history, foreign influence has inevitably bought about changes, changes that would themselves become part of the national identitiy. Hellenistic influences on Rome perhaps being a fitting example.

    Every one of your so called British values can be traced back to foreign influences, even the queen and the monarchy for whom you are so eager to die. You cite Christianity as a cultural tradition and yet i bet there were people like youself who protested it and its followers when it was first bought to these shores.
    I think you mistake my point really. I've never denied that foreign influences have changed the manifestations of British culture; however, remember, my definition of British culture are those things that have shown a consistent presence throughout British history i.e. since around 3000 years ago, as well as those things which are exclusively British i.e. those things that are associated with Britain and nowhere else. These things have always been central to our society, and foreign influences (as well as secularism) have resulted in certain changes (yet, these were typically Northern European and shared a common cultural similitude anyway). The point I'm making is that today's change is so great with the enforcement of multiculturalism and Third World migration that this central spine is under threat of subversion. We've seen - rather similitudinal - influences on the manifestations our society, but nothing has threatened to subvert it like this has.

    And yes, I bet people did protest against foreign influences, and rightly so. Because, even though changes can occur, there's always a potential danger with it, unlike the tried and tested values that have survived the sands of time. And when the change is simply as massive as it threatens to be today, it will not just be a mere case of 'changing' British culture (as in the manifestations of it to a minor degree). But instead creating a globalised culture. Traditional British - and European - culture is under threat, yet absolutely nowhere else on the planet is suffering such a massive turnaround. You wouldn't have questioned native South Africans for having concerns about the future of their customs and values when they saw the European come and colonise their land. Indeed, you may (or may not, I don't know) support the existence of Israel. If you do and are so keen to see a Jewish culture preserved within national boundaries, why are you not concerned about the subversion of British culture? I don't particularly have anything against Israel existing (besides their unfounded arrogance and air of superiority over Palestine), but it would be sheer hypocrisy if you do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    You have to be black to join the Society of Black Lawyers, you have to be Muslim to join the Muslim Council of Britain, you have to be Asian to join the Society of Asian Lawyers. Tell me, is there any fundamental difference between these groups and the BNP? Sure, you could argue that the BNP are a political party - not an interest group - that intends to seize power. Why not? It's an easy excuse for anyone to think up so long as it denies indigenous Britons a right to an ethnic identity. An ethnic identity that no-one questions of ethnic minorities. The BNP are only open to people of indigenous British stock because indigenous Britons are at the forefront of racist discrimination by ethnic minorities today with no other group existing to stand up for them. The fact that indigenous Britons are slowly becoming an endangered group further justifies this stance. And I'm not even a supporter. Open your eyes please.
    Becoming endangered?! Britain is 91% white. Also, all those other groups do not inflict onto everyday indigenous British persons life.

    As for the BNP are only open to people of indigenous British stock, I could have sworn there are only six! ethnic minorities in the House of Commons. When you say "indigenous British" do you really mean the working class, because Britain will ALWAYS be white owned. Wealthy whites, yes, but British nonetheless. The BNP want break away from Europe. That will be disastrous to Britains current trade dealings within Europe and the rest of the world.

    The BNP believe in a notion that Britain can return to the days of "The sun never sets on the British Empire". Those days are gone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I think you mistake my point really. I've never denied that foreign influences have changed the manifestations of British culture; however, remember, my definition of British culture are those things that have shown a consistent presence throughout British history i.e. since around 3000 years ago, as well as those things which are exclusively British i.e. those things that are associated with Britain and nowhere else. These things have always been central to our society, and foreign influences (as well as secularism) have resulted in certain changes (yet, these were typically Northern European and shared a common cultural similitude anyway). The point I'm making is that today's change is so great with the enforcement of multiculturalism and Third World migration that this central spine is under threat of subversion. We've seen - rather similitudinal - influences on the manifestations our society, but nothing has threatened to subvert it like this has.

    And yes, I bet people did protest against foreign influences, and rightly so. Because, even though changes can occur, there's always a potential danger with it, unlike the tried and tested values that have survived the sands of time. And when the change is simply as massive as it threatens to be today, it will not just be a mere case of 'changing' British culture (as in the manifestations of it to a minor degree). But instead creating a globalised culture. Traditional British - and European - culture is under threat, yet absolutely nowhere else on the planet is suffering such a massive turnaround. You wouldn't have questioned native South Africans for having concerns about the future of their customs and values when they saw the European come and colonise their land. Indeed, you may (or may not, I don't know) support the existence of Israel. If you do and are so keen to see a Jewish culture preserved within national boundaries, why are you not concerned about the subversion of British culture? I don't particularly have anything against Israel existing (besides their unfounded arrogance and air of superiority over Palestine), but it would be sheer hypocrisy if you do.

    But there is a big difference between the existance of Isreal and the threat to British culture. You over dramatise heavily in your arguments and i was not surprised to see you use the word 'dystopian' when describing our near future, which i personally think is ridiculous, and for you to say civil war over ethnicity is a big probability doesn't help when i am trying to take your argument seriously.

    Who are you to deny humanity what i believe is detrimental to its future and survival, a true global culture.

    What do countless differnet cultures bring us really besides war and prejudice?

    What good do multiple secular cultures bring that outweighs the inevitable bad that comes with them?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yamcha)
    Becoming endangered?! Britain is 91% white. Also, all those other groups do not inflict onto everyday indigenous British persons life.
    Erm, yes, various figures project indigenous Britons to become a minority in their own country within the next 50-100 years by current trends. Britain's 91% white in accordance to the 2001 census and, usually inaccurate, guesses. It's not necessarily a case of the overall population either, as much as the distribution. The Mail believes 12 cities will see indigenous Britons as a minority within the next 30 years. Many London boroughs in 2001 saw ethnic minorities being a majority. It's okay to point to old farmer Giles in his combine harvester on the fields of East Anglia, and old toffy merchant banker in his luxury Hampstead apartment, but this is selective evidence and nothing else.

    (Original post by yamcha)
    As for the BNP are only open to people of indigenous British stock, I could have sworn there are only six! ethnic minorities in the House of Commons. When you say "indigenous British" do you really mean the working class, because Britain will ALWAYS be white owned. Wealthy whites, yes, but British nonetheless. The BNP want break away from Europe. That will be disastrous to Britains current trade dealings within Europe and the rest of the world.
    The fact that there are six ethnic minorities in the House of Commons doesn't come down to any form of demographic representation. We all know that the heavy majority of MPs are a ruling class with privileged backgrounds. The fact that these aren't representative of demographic proportions only shows how ethnic minorities don't usually hit such high office because of their general background. I don't really see what this has to do with the BNP admissions policy, however. These politicians are out-of-touch, and don't give a **** about white Britons because they're too busy perfecting their unachievable multiculti "utopia". I already gave the justification of anti-white racist attacks which are never addressed and a non-existance of white interest groups (it's even illegal to register an English charity).

    Don't give me that nonsense, please. First of all, I said that I doubt the BNP would come to power in spite of a general move in Europe towards nationalism anyway (thus making the EU point redundant), and, regardless, it is an absolute myth that we gain anything from the EU. The EU does essentially nothing for us. It takes our money with a feeble return, pumps it into Eastern Europe, restricts our sovereignty and threatens to establish a USE (all under the scam that we were being introduced to nothing more than a Common Market). When these "trade dealings" you refer to include paying over £40 million a day and getting probably getting less than £5 million of that back we're hardly going to suffer from a withdrawal. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by yamcha)
    The BNP believe in a notion that Britain can return to the days of "The sun never sets on the British Empire"
    Er, what? I don't think anyone with two feet on planet Earth is thinking of bringing back the Empire.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But there is a big difference between the existance of Isreal and the threat to British culture.
    What difference? You're so keen to let the Jews have a state by which to practice traditional Jewish customs and values, but yet you aren't concerned at all by a global culture (which is only going to exist in the West anyway due to the fact that it's only the West that is 'diversifying' on such a scale).

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You over dramatise heavily in your arguments and i was not surprised to see you use the word 'dystopian' when describing our near future, which i personally think is ridiculous, and for you to say civil war over ethnicity is a big probability doesn't help when i am trying to take your argument seriously.
    I didn't say it would be over ethnicity. I implied (or at least thought I did) that it would be down to religion, and the spread of radicalism in Muslim communities - 13% of all Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 claiming they could sympathise with the motives behind the 7/7 bombers (this probably developing generation after generation). Islam is an expansionist faith. I'm no conspiracy buff, and I doubt there's a central agency directing this; but, naturally, where previously Islam conquered by violent means, today it's doing so through waves of uncontrolled immigration. The radical imams - the likes of those seen in Undercover Mosque - are the types who won't rest until they see the crescent over Downing Street and Buckingham Palace. This will be the centre of conflict; not ethnicity.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Who are you to deny humanity what i believe is detrimental to its future and survival, a true global culture.
    Who am I to deny it? Who is anyone to deny anything? I'm just stating mine - and others - opinion. You may not agree, but that's just the way it is. I personally believe that it would be a terrible thing for the diversity of cultures we see on a global scale right now to be mashed into a melting pot of diluted nothingness.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What do countless differnet cultures bring us really besides war and prejudice?

    What good do multiple secular cultures bring that outweighs the inevitable bad that comes with them?
    This rather bleak NWO outlook is quite disconcerting. I just don't see the benefits of uniformity. We should celebrate our differences and make the most of the different manners by which we live. It would seriously be incredibly boring and dismal for the world to consist of just one culture. The Nazis wanted it FFS! (Godwin's Law conceded)

    Anyway, I'm abed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    What difference? You're so keen to let the Jews have a state by which to practice traditional Jewish customs and values, but yet you aren't concerned at all by a global culture (which is only going to exist in the West anyway due to the fact that it's only the West that is 'diversifying' on such a scale).



    I didn't say it would be over ethnicity. I implied (or at least thought I did) that it would be down to religion, and the spread of radicalism in Muslim communities - 13% of all Muslims between the ages of 18 and 24 claiming they could sympathise with the motives behind the 7/7 bombers (this probably developing generation after generation). Islam is an expansionist faith. I'm no conspiracy buff, and I doubt there's a central agency directing this; but, naturally, where previously Islam conquered by violent means, today it's doing so through waves of uncontrolled immigration. The radical imams - the likes of those seen in Undercover Mosque - are the types who won't rest until they see the crescent over Downing Street and Buckingham Palace. This will be the centre of conflict; not ethnicity.



    Who am I to deny it? Who is anyone to deny anything? I'm just stating mine - and others - opinion. You may not agree, but that's just the way it is. I personally believe that it would be a terrible thing for the diversity of cultures we see on a global scale right now to be mashed into a melting pot of diluted nothingness.



    This rather bleak NWO outlook is quite disconcerting. I just don't see the benefits of uniformity. We should celebrate our differences and make the most of the different manners by which we live. It would seriously be incredibly boring and dismal for the world to consist of just one culture. The Nazis wanted it FFS! (Godwin's Law conceded)

    Anyway, I'm abed.

    But we don't do this, instead we fight and discriminate because of our differences. The moment we all wake up and realise we are the human race all of these things; racism/discrimination/borders/prejudice will seem part of a distant and barbaric past.

    "Five fingers individually are weak and broken easily, but together they make a powerfull fist". (cheesy i know, but fitting)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For me, racism is wrong when it affects others (that you are racist to mostly).

    When you cannot be civilised/professional about things, letting your hate affect your dealings with people. That goes for all stereotypes - we don't generally let these feelings interfere regarding our interactions with those we discriminate against. I don't like any form of racism myself. Positive or negative. Positive racism I encounter and hate it (never had direct negative racism, only read it here really =P). I believe it builds tension and I don't like its presence, I think people should get over race and stop with the silliness! Alas, I don't think it'll ever happen in my lifetime sadly.

    My friend was saying how she hates racism and wishes that people would stop thinking about race and accept some things that are different (however, culture is what's massively different, not race) and blah blah, yet all I could think about as she was saying it was how she nearly always mentions my race every time I see her. Making her racist jokes. It then caused me to wonder whether or not she realises she still does that! Ha ha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Why then does the BNP not allow Black British people (for instance) to join its party? Why can't they be 'ethnically' British if race isn't the issue?
    They aren't ethnically British.

    The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.
    Nobody is denying them civic Britishness,just to clarify. The ethnicity does not overlap onto the person's rights.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.