Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Secret Agent was an infiltration act by the far-left paper Searchlight, organised by convicted trespasser (to David Irving's apartment) Gerry Gable. They got into the party and effectively managed to establish one of their members as leader of one of its wings. I don't see pouring gallons of lager down each of the party member's necks, and encouraging them to make racist comments with a series of prompts, as evidence for some sort of solidified mentality among the party.
    Regardless, the members weren't forced to say what they said. Most of the comments occurred when the members were sober too, including a shocking speech by Cambridge-educated leader Nick griffin, spouting ignorant, inciteful comments about the religion of Islam.

    Moreover, dismissing the report as "left-wing" is pretty crude: the fact of the matter remains that some shocking, racial jibes were made by members all across the Party. Its like me dismissing your views entirely due to your alleged right-wing nature. There remains substantial, recorded evidence to negate any inklings of "left-wing" residue whatsoever.

    You'll also find that all of the young radicals in that documentary were expelled. Seriously, picking up on 3 or 4 isolated incidents and presenting them as the BNP says little about the other 14,000 members of that party too.
    The fact that they were allegedly expelled after the documentary, says much about the lacklustre attitude the BNP possesses, in regards to such people. I've no doubt that there are still many people who share similar views within the Party. As cameras were not permitted to attend a BNP "open day" on a recent episode of BNP Wives on SkyOne, where the BNP cited the reason that members felt "uncomfortable" and weren't "being themselves" due to the presence of the cameras, lays as testament to this notion.


    The Griffin speech is worthless also, because it simply strikes synonymy with a Dawkins/Hitchens-esque attack on a religion (you wouldn't call Richard Dawkins a Nazi would you? :rolleyes:). Griffin was acquitted on the basis of how much the documentary was heavily edited which quite simply puts the entire film under question really.
    I disagree fervently, the Griffin Speech was given a lengthy amount of air-time, dismissing allegations of selectivity. Also, due to the context, coupled with Griffin's academic history (which should infact increase his credibility regarding such issues), his outburst and quite frankly, religiously inciteful comments were extremely misleading and untrue. This does infact allow me to label him a neo-Nazi.

    He also confessed recently to agreeing and enjoying every page of the notorious book, Mein Kampf, bar one page. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellisntitfor)
    One that demands a more complex answer than yours
    I figured since it was so obvious that it's wrong people would already know why without it being said again. But since some people apparently still haven't resalised why it's wrong maybe it does need a more complex answer. So to those of you who have no problem with it or who feel it is the right way to live- why? It's a ridiculous reason to discriminate against people. It would be the same as waking up one day and deciding to hate everyone with blonde hair, or hating everyone with belly buttons that stick out instead of in. There's no logic behind it. People can't control these things, they're born with them so why do some people seem to think that people with darker skin are not worth as much as those with fair skin? Clearly people with this belief would not have it if they had been born black so in a way racism is incredibly hypocritical. I can't see any reason for it or why this argument is even neccessary to point out how wrong it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)
    You never know. It could have been true. His name is Aston, thanks for reminding me.
    I thought Alexandra was better; did you?

    Everyone to a degree is racist, whether we realise or not, have you never had thoughts or expressed something racist?
    Sorry for that first thing i wrote i got you confused with that other person 'Donnahh'...........didn't mean to send it to you.

    i thought that alexandra was an amazing singer but i was always routing for jls... what about you???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the.white.rabbit)
    Sorry for that first thing i wrote i got you confused with that other person 'Donnahh'...........didn't mean to send it to you.

    i thought that alexandra was an amazing singer but i was always routing for jls... what about you???
    I was rooooting for Alexandra...she was better than JLS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Battenberg)
    I figured since it was so obvious that it's wrong people would already know why without it being said again. But since some people apparently still haven't resalised why it's wrong maybe it does need a more complex answer. So to those of you who have no problem with it or who feel it is the right way to live- why? It's a ridiculous reason to discriminate against people. It would be the same as waking up one day and deciding to hate everyone with blonde hair, or hating everyone with belly buttons that stick out instead of in. There's no logic behind it. People can't control these things, they're born with them so why do some people seem to think that people with darker skin are not worth as much as those with fair skin? Clearly people with this belief would not have it if they had been born black so in a way racism is incredibly hypocritical. I can't see any reason for it or why this argument is even neccessary to point out how wrong it is.
    The reason it demanded a more complex answer than "yes of course it's wrong", is that (and I'm getting really tired of saying this now) "racism" is a very ambiguous concept and means quite different things to different people. So to answer without explaining what you're answering about, is completely pointless.

    The bold part doesn't really make sense. Firstly, a black person might think the converse - that black people are better than white. Secondly, it's futile to ponder what we might think if we were someone else. I could say that you wouldn't think Hitler was a bad guy if you had been born as one of his right-hand men. But you weren't.

    To specifically address your analogies of hair colour and navel configuration - I don't think they're quite on the same scale as racial differences, really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellisntitfor)
    The reason it demanded a more complex answer than "yes of course it's wrong", is that (and I'm getting really tired of saying this now) "racism" is a very ambiguous concept and means quite different things to different people. So to answer without explaining what you're answering about, is completely pointless.

    The bold part doesn't really make sense. Firstly, a black person might think the converse - that black people are better than white. Secondly, it's futile to ponder what we might think if we were someone else. I could say that you wouldn't think Hitler was a bad guy if you had been born as one of his right-hand men. But you weren't.

    To specifically address your analogies of hair colour and navel configuration - I don't think they're quite on the same scale as racial differences, really.
    ANY degree of racism is wrong really. The occasional harmless joke is OK (assuming it isn't offensive) but hating someone for having different coloured skin is a definite no! What I meant by not being racist if you were born black is you wouldn't think balck people are inferior and would feel it's unjust when people are racist towards you. That's why is hypocritical to be racist, because it is, effectively, only luck that decides which side of that line you're born on. I couldn't be born as Hitler's right-hand man because by choice I wouldn't work for Hitler so that's a rubbish comparison. On the other hand someone who is racist could easily be compared to Hitler himself. And how is discrminating based on hair/ eye colour any different to discriminating based on skin colour? They're both due to genetics and they both make no difference to our personalities/ who we are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Battenberg)
    > ANY degree of racism is wrong really. The occasional harmless joke is OK (assuming it isn't offensive) but hating someone for having different coloured skin is a definite no!

    ....And how is discrminating based on hair/ eye colour any different to discriminating based on skin colour? They're both due to genetics and ...

    > ... they both make no difference to our personalities/ who we are.[/B]
    > You seem to be equating race with skin colour - is that so? That has been a common mistake in this thread. Do you believe that skin colour is the only difference between the races?

    > This is certainly debatable, either way. I would suggest that one's physical appearence is strongly involved in affecting their demeanour and personality.

    (Original post by Battenberg)
    > What I meant by not being racist if you were born black is you wouldn't think balck people are inferior and would feel it's unjust when people are racist towards you. That's why is hypocritical to be racist, because it is, effectively, only luck that decides which side of that line you're born on

    > I couldn't be born as Hitler's right-hand man because by choice I wouldn't work for Hitler so that's a rubbish comparison.
    > I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "if you were born black" thing. Black people can be racist, and so can white people. And both can object to having "racism" directed towards them.

    > Well I couldn't be born black because, I just wouldn't be me, would I. It's inconceiveable that every detail of my life *except my race* could have remained the same, resulting in the same "me".
    The whole "if you were born as someone else" thing is ********, forget it - it's an impossible idea. If you were born as someone else, then you're not you any more anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellisntitfor)
    > You seem to be equating race with skin colour - is that so? That has been a common mistake in this thread. Do you believe that skin colour is the only difference between the races?

    > This is certainly debatable, either way. I would suggest that one's physical appearence is strongly involved in affecting their demeanour and personality.



    > I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "if you were born black" thing. Black people can be racist, and so can white people. And both can object to having "racism" directed towards them.

    > Well I couldn't be born black because, I just wouldn't be me, would I. It's inconceiveable that every detail of my life *except my race* could have remained the same, resulting in the same "me".
    The whole "if you were born as someone else" thing is ********, forget it - it's an impossible idea. If you were born as someone else, then you're not you any more anyway.
    Ok, so I'm assuming you're into racism.
    Yes I think the only thing that seperates different races is skin colour. (sarcasm) That's just what people generally mean when they talk about racism. Physical characteristics don't affect what our personality could be. However when racist p***** like you are around then it becomes factor. It only makes a difference because people go on about it. It's perfectly conceivable that you could have been born black and still be you if you happened to have black parents who acted the same and had the same personalies. The point I'm making is that people are only prejudiced against black people because they themselves aren't black and since it's chance that decides who's what colour it seems more than a little unfair. Everyone should have equal potential and equal rights at the start of their life without being discriminated against before they've even done anything with their lives. No-one has any right to go devaluing other people's lives for reasons as pathetic and shallow as yours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asian-Oly)
    Asian refers to my half of my body that is chinese, ihave no problem with the chinese as they are not extremists and dont continually suicidally bomb innocent members of the public.
    huh! what about their own public! :rolleyes:

    anyway:
    Racism can often promote hatred of a particular group of people based on misunderstanding, ignorance, supremacy and a plethora of other reasons. It is wrong and generations of children can be misinformed about the importance and differences of other cultures and races. I don't agree with black prejudice against white or vice versa.

    However, I know there will always be racists, sexists, homophobes, ageism, prejudice against people with a disabilities etc.
    People just have to learn how to rise above it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Battenberg)
    Ok, so I'm assuming you're into racism.
    ...
    racist p***** like you
    ...
    No-one has any right to go devaluing other people's lives for reasons as pathetic and shallow as yours.

    Pray, whose life do I devalue? And what are my reasons for doing so?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moghul)
    Regardless, the members weren't forced to say what they said. Most of the comments occurred when the members were sober too, including a shocking speech by Cambridge-educated leader Nick griffin, spouting ignorant, inciteful comments about the religion of Islam.
    No. Most of the comments occurred when the lower echelon members were drunk. And if you watch the speech again, absolutely nothing is any worse than what Christopher Hitchens has ever said about Islam. It's a religion not a race. And, there is adequate evidence to suggest that Islam does encourage expansion by means of rape among some young men. Just look at the Sydney gang rapes.

    (Original post by Moghul)
    Moreover, dismissing the report as "left-wing" is pretty crude: the fact of the matter remains that some shocking, racial jibes were made by members all across the Party. Its like me dismissing your views entirely due to your alleged right-wing nature. There remains substantial, recorded evidence to negate any inklings of "left-wing" residue whatsoever.
    As I said. You can show me fifty examples of a bunch of drunks prompted to say the things they did by the interviewer (the a QC understanding that it was selective - below) in a wing taken over by the group trying to sting them, yet to present this as evidence for some sort of party solidified mentality (if such a thing exists) is just absurd. I'll dispute Searchlight's conduct when they're evidently a nonsense paper who do nothing but print lies. (http://www.searchlightexposed.com/)

    (Original post by Moghul)
    The fact that they were allegedly expelled after the documentary, says much about the lacklustre attitude the BNP possesses, in regards to such people. I've no doubt that there are still many people who share similar views within the Party. As cameras were not permitted to attend a BNP "open day" on a recent episode of BNP Wives on SkyOne, where the BNP cited the reason that members felt "uncomfortable" and weren't "being themselves" due to the presence of the cameras, lays as testament to this notion.
    Maybe they're, like, you know, trying to prevent the same degree of intensive editing and interviewing prompts happening again. :rolleyes: I don't really see your point. You're doing nothing by just giving me positive cases of certain people who might say something out of line. You, and barely anyone else for that matter, conforms to the principle of total evidence: (http://xeny.net/how.to.apply.the.Pri...Total.Evidence). Unless I have conclusive evidence for the majority of the party being as you describe then I can't believe it. Especially when most of the things I've seen from BNP members not represented in the media are anything but. There's a list on the BNP website of over a hundred eminent Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members with convictions for rape, paedophilia and assault. Yet you wouldn't base your opinions on each party's policy on the basis of this.

    (Original post by Moghul)
    I disagree fervently, the Griffin Speech was given a lengthy amount of air-time, dismissing allegations of selectivity.
    "The British National Party is a legal, political entity. It has a right in a democratic society to put forward ideas and policies which some might find uncomfortable and some might find even offensive. There has been a tendency in this case to over–analyse speeches, to take one line here and one line there. You have got to look at the overall impact of these speeches — remember the context of each speech."
    —Timothy King QC
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4666292.stm

    (Original post by Moghul)
    Also, due to the context, coupled with Griffin's academic history (which should infact increase his credibility regarding such issues), his outburst and quite frankly, religiously inciteful comments were extremely misleading and untrue. This does infact allow me to label him a neo-Nazi.
    Criticising Islam does not make anyone a neo-Nazi.

    (Original post by Moghul)
    He also confessed recently to agreeing and enjoying every page of the notorious book, Mein Kampf, bar one page. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    I take it you didn't watch the Andrew Marr interview the other day?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvtqk2E_LwE
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    No. Most of the comments occurred when the lower echelon members were drunk. And if you watch the speech again, absolutely nothing is any worse than what Christopher Hitchens has ever said about Islam.
    The speech is ill-informed, distorted and misconstrued. Nothing of which he says is correct about Islam. He is creating a negative perception amongst ignorant people - who themselves wouldn't dream of conducting any research into the matter - regarding Islam, and purposely doing so. Whether its worse or not is subjective, I, and i'm sure many other people, would deem it to be worse.


    It's a religion not a race. And, there is adequate evidence to suggest that Islam does encourage expansion by means of rape among some young men. Just look at the Sydney gang rapes.
    I again disagree fervently. Much of this "evidence" I assume originates from Islamaphobic sources, so I can in effect, dismiss them. Making a generalisation upon one, isolated incident is pathetic at best. Even still, the concept of rape is prohibited in Islam, so I doubt that the perpetrators of such sexual attacks conform to the authentic texts which make up Islam.

    As I said. You can show me fifty examples of a bunch of drunks prompted to say the things they did by the interviewer (the a QC understanding that it was selective - below) in a wing taken over by the group trying to sting them, yet to present this as evidence for some sort of party solidified mentality (if such a thing exists) is just absurd. I'll dispute Searchlight's conduct when they're evidently a nonsense paper who do nothing but print lies. (http://www.searchlightexposed.com/)
    The fact that Nick Griffin was exposed spouting ridiculous, untrue, lies about Islam reduces the credibility of your defence above. It makes me wonder what else occurs behind closed doors. Moreover, regardless of whether Searchlight is a left wing source or not, there is no evidence from the clip to infer that the perpetrators were intoxicated beyond such a level, that they were unaware of what they were saying.

    Maybe they're, like, you know, trying to prevent the same degree of intensive editing and interviewing prompts happening again. :rolleyes: I don't really see your point. You're doing nothing by just giving me positive cases of certain people who might say something out of line. You, and barely anyone else for that matter, conforms to the principle of total evidence: (http://xeny.net/how.to.apply.the.Pri...Total.Evidence).
    Being a fringe Party, i'd assume that they would relish any publicity they could possibly get. Theire reluctance to open up to cameras suggests a shady "closed doors" image. I'm sure if the Green Party was given a similar opportunity, they would grab such an opportunity without a second's thought.

    Besides, regardless of how intensively edited the material is, their views should still remain within legal boundaries, no? Or is the BNP an exception? :rolleyes:

    Unless I have conclusive evidence for the majority of the party being as you describe then I can't believe it. Especially when most of the things I've seen from BNP members not represented in the media are anything but. There's a list on the BNP website of over a hundred eminent Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members with convictions for rape, paedophilia and assault. Yet you wouldn't base your opinions on each party's policy on the basis of this.
    No, indeed I wouldn't. But a lot of the material about the BNP tends to corroborate, increasing the credibility of such material.

    "The British National Party is a legal, political entity. It has a right in a democratic society to put forward ideas and policies which some might find uncomfortable and some might find even offensive. There has been a tendency in this case to over–analyse speeches, to take one line here and one line there. You have got to look at the overall impact of these speeches — remember the context of each speech."
    —Timothy King QC
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4666292.stm
    Yes, again, I don't disagree. Like I mentioned previously however, blatant lies and inciteful comments cannot be excused by the meagre excuse of "selectivity".



    Criticising Islam does not make anyone a neo-Nazi.
    No, but openly admitting to agreeing with the principles and the material contained within, what some regard as the "Nazi Manifesto", pushes one ever so slightly in a neo-nazi direction.



    I take it you didn't watch the Andrew Marr interview the other day?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvtqk2E_LwE
    [/QUOTE]

    I did infact, and Griffin's poor performance strengthened my original view of him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's wrong to think or feel anything, tbh. If someone is scared, or nervous, or distrustful of another race and no attempt to change them is successful, then I don't see it as any different to someone being gay, being scared of spiders, liking the colour blue or enjoying Heartbeat.

    What I DO believe is wrong though, is when you take said thoughts and you then put them into action via words or deeds, without thinking through the consequences. I believe that this is the same, regardless of motivation (racism/homophobia etc).

    For example, hypothetical man A doesn't like black people. But he is civil with them and causes no fuss, keeping his concerns to himself. No-one is offended, no-one is any the wiser.

    Hypothetical man B has exactly the same thoughts and feelings as man A, but lacks the willpower to hold himself back from saying something. He insults black people and makes them feel extremely uncomfortable when around him.

    I believe that man A, even though he has racist thoughts, is not in the wrong because he does his best to get along regardless of his feelings. Man B, on the other hand, is in the wrong because he makes no attempt to get along with and make sure he doesn't offend people.

    That's my view, wrong as it may be.

    (Disclaimer: I'm neither A, nor B, I have no problem with anyone, so don't read into it! :p: ).
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, being racist is wrong.
    In my opinon anyways. How are we supposed to move on as a society and have peace in our world if we are held back by prejduices just based upon the colour of another persons skin?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Appoloties for correcting you, but their immigration policies are not racist or xenophobic.
    no problem always happy to be corrected... how else do we learn lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i cant believe there are 357 posts from what seems like reasonably intelligent people arguing whether racism is wrong! there is no reason why anyone can justify discriminating against a single person of ethnicity because of his or her skin colour. if anyone can think of a reason to do so please quote me and id love to be enlightened, but you are all making massive generalisations about a hugely diverse group of people, namely, everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I take it you didn't watch the Andrew Marr interview the other day?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvtqk2E_LwE
    i just watched that, and at the question do you still want a all white Britain he said its not do-able. that's not a reason for not wanting an all white Britain.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spruce18)
    i just watched that, and at the question do you still want a all white Britain he said its not do-able. that's not a reason for not wanting an all white Britain.
    That wasn't my point really. My point was concerning Mein Kampf.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    That wasn't my point really. My point was concerning Mein Kampf.
    The only book in your shelf that hasn't gathered dust :top:

    Neg Rep Is it wrong to be racist? 16-07-2009 11:25 You're a moron NB

    Thanks, the sentiment is very mutual :awesome:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellisntitfor)

    Pray, whose life do I devalue? And what are my reasons for doing so?
    So you're not pro-racism then? :confused:
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

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

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