Possibly the most pathetic display of racism ever.

[HoreTore]

odd, i don't see that.

so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.

again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.

Oh come on. We've been irritated by every single foreign group in our country.

Now it's Islam. Before that it was the eastern euro's and gypsies. Then it was the jews. For crying out loud, when there weren't any foreigners to whine about we simply whined about our own countrymen from other patrs of the country!

It's not long ago that there were signs on rental apartments in oslo specifying "no negro's or northerners".

[Furunculus]

oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.

I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:

The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"

Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"

By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).

[HoreTore]

By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).

The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"

The answer is that people are idiots.

[Furunculus]

The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"

The answer is that people are idiots.

no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.

this question does not revolve around whether muslims are bad people.

the question revolves around whether they as a group are identified as a problem by a significant number of british passport holders, particularly, a problem appreciably greater than any other group which is why the issue stands prominent.

idaho asked;
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"

Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"

i provided an answer to that question, not to a broader argument about who is the most despicable form or criminal or anything else.

[HoreTore]

no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.

Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".

Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.

[Furunculus]

Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".

Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.

nonsense, i refer only to the concept of not interfering with other people, as i explicitly stated in my response to Idaho, a concept enshrined in British lexicon ever since Henry VIII/Beatrice Stella Tanner coined the phrase:

"We do not care what you do as long as you don't frighten the horses."

that is the opposite of the tyranny of the majority, unless you choose to define it as oppressing the minorities right to interfere in the lives of everyone else...........? in which case i have just realised myself to be more authoritarian than previously recognised!

[Idaho]

oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.

I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:

By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).

You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.

It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country....

Lot of truth here. May not apply to all cultures at all times, but I suspect there would be more immigrant/neighbor scapegoating than not throughout history.

Didn't the greeks deride the Macedonians as uncultured boobs even while Phillip was keeping his foot on their collective neck?

[Furunculus]

You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.

It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).

not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.

i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.

[Idaho]

not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.

i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.

In the 1300s it was Jews.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.

Same old same old.

[HoreTore]

In the 1300s it was Jews.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.

Same old same old.

You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....

It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....

[rvg]

I guess this is one aspect in which the good old Soviet Union was light years ahead of the rest of the world. In the good old USSR (at least in 1970s-80s) nobody gave a crap about ones racial/ethnic background and all religions received equal amount of hate from the state.

[Idaho]

You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....

It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....

Indeed I only picked the top few from a long and varied line in one country. People in all countries have spread the hate in all different directions over the years. Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"...