4 ms·

> 1. Is the most racially diverse country in Europe I haven't been able to find any reliable statistics about this, and it probably depends on how you define "

> 1. Is the most racially diverse country in Europe I haven't been able to find any reliable statistics about this, and it probably depends on how you define "race". > 2. And which just elected a government with a historically huge mandate, partly because the opposing party was plagued by accusations of anti-semitism? This is just bizarre. It would be far more justifiable to argue that some people voted for the government partly because they wanted to end Freedom of Movement, to reduce immigration into the UK. Discussing why these people wanted reduced immigration is more complicated, though since there's no real economic grounds for it, the main possibilities are misinformation (fuelled by certain media, because it sells well), scapegoating and xenophobia. Also, what about the 32 % of people who voted for Labour despite it supposedly being "plagued by accusations of anti-semitism"? In any case, since elections are never about one issue, drawing these sorts of conclusions is dangerous.

thu2111 7y ago
I thought we were moving beyond "immigration quotas are racism"? Eastern Europe is almost entirely white so reducing immigration from there couldn't be racist to start with. But didn't the results from the last election show what a completely dead-end attitude that is? Labour constantly gave the impression they thought immigration controls were immoral or racist and had their worst defeat in a long time. People in the UK overwhelmingly want to reduce immigration, something like 80%+ want that so it's a massively bipartisan issue, not because the entire country is seething with racism (where's the evidence for this extreme claim?) but because the existing policy recognises no limits on infrastructure build outs. It just assumes that infrastructure to support a person magically appears the moment someone chooses to move, which isn't true and obviously isn't true. That means it's a very naive policy that results in constant shortages and overloads. And that's before you get into the economic and pace-of-change issues. The only people who believe that allowing an unlimited supply of low wage labour into a country has no effect on local wages are academic economists. Clearly lots of people believe otherwise. But sure, whatever, by all means, believe a place immigrants choose to move in huge numbers is filled with hatred and racism against them. Believe that the entire thing is just misinformation. Believe what you want. It doesn't matter much anymore: those views lost.
- gnomewascool 7y ago
  Firstly, just to clarify: I don't have a strong opinion on whether Britain is the most racist country in Europe. If you had to press me for an answer, it's probably about average, recently become slightly worse than average. I did strongly disagree with your previous claims that it's "the exact opposite of how it really is" (i.e. that the UK is by far the least racist) and that people not voting for Labour somehow means that they can't be racist. > I thought we were moving beyond "immigration quotas are racism"? They're not automatically racist, but support for them can still be motivated by racism, especially when people are willing to risk suffering economically themselves to reduce immigration. > Eastern Europe is almost entirely white so reducing immigration from there couldn't be racist to start with. I'm not sure why skin-colour is so important. Jews are "white" (or at the very least the Jews who live/lived in Europe are/were white), but antisemitism is considered a form of racism. In any case, whether you call it "racism" or not, there could still be xenophobia and prejudice. > People in the UK overwhelmingly want to reduce immigration, something like 80%+ want that so it's a massively bipartisan issue, I have not seen any such polls. The most that I could find was 76 % in favour of reduced immigration, but I could also find recent (2019/11) polls with a small majority (56 %) in favour of keeping FoM. The latter seems consistent with the result of the recent GE where more people voted for parties intending to keep FoM than those that wanted to get rid of it (the split was around 54-46). The former poll could also, in principle be (people would like to reduce immigration, but on net, would not want to lose FoM, including their own FoM; also elections aren't single-issue). > not because the entire country is seething with racism Nobody is claiming that everybody even slightly opposed to immigration is racist — that would be absurd. > but because the existing policy recognises no limits on infrastructure build outs. The fact that people are generally most in favour of reducing immigration in the areas with the least immigration weakens the argument that they're motivated by legitimate concerns about the infrastructure not coping. > But sure, whatever, by all means, believe a place immigrants choose to move in huge numbers is filled with hatred and racism against them Immigrants also move from South Asia to the Middle East, despite there being immense systemic discrimination against them, for economic reasons.

thu2111 7y ago

I thought we were moving beyond "immigration quotas are racism"? Eastern Europe is almost entirely white so reducing immigration from there couldn't be racist to start with. But didn't the results from the last election show what a completely dead-end attitude that is? Labour constantly gave the impression they thought immigration controls were immoral or racist and had their worst defeat in a long time. People in the UK overwhelmingly want to reduce immigration, something like 80%+ want that so it's a massively bipartisan issue, not because the entire country is seething with racism (where's the evidence for this extreme claim?) but because the existing policy recognises no limits on infrastructure build outs. It just assumes that infrastructure to support a person magically appears the moment someone chooses to move, which isn't true and obviously isn't true. That means it's a very naive policy that results in constant shortages and overloads. And that's before you get into the economic and pace-of-change issues. The only people who believe that allowing an unlimited supply of low wage labour into a country has no effect on local wages are academic economists. Clearly lots of people believe otherwise. But sure, whatever, by all means, believe a place immigrants choose to move in huge numbers is filled with hatred and racism against them. Believe that the entire thing is just misinformation. Believe what you want. It doesn't matter much anymore: those views lost.

gnomewascool 7y ago
Firstly, just to clarify: I don't have a strong opinion on whether Britain is the most racist country in Europe. If you had to press me for an answer, it's probably about average, recently become slightly worse than average. I did strongly disagree with your previous claims that it's "the exact opposite of how it really is" (i.e. that the UK is by far the least racist) and that people not voting for Labour somehow means that they can't be racist. > I thought we were moving beyond "immigration quotas are racism"? They're not automatically racist, but support for them can still be motivated by racism, especially when people are willing to risk suffering economically themselves to reduce immigration. > Eastern Europe is almost entirely white so reducing immigration from there couldn't be racist to start with. I'm not sure why skin-colour is so important. Jews are "white" (or at the very least the Jews who live/lived in Europe are/were white), but antisemitism is considered a form of racism. In any case, whether you call it "racism" or not, there could still be xenophobia and prejudice. > People in the UK overwhelmingly want to reduce immigration, something like 80%+ want that so it's a massively bipartisan issue, I have not seen any such polls. The most that I could find was 76 % in favour of reduced immigration, but I could also find recent (2019/11) polls with a small majority (56 %) in favour of keeping FoM. The latter seems consistent with the result of the recent GE where more people voted for parties intending to keep FoM than those that wanted to get rid of it (the split was around 54-46). The former poll could also, in principle be (people would like to reduce immigration, but on net, would not want to lose FoM, including their own FoM; also elections aren't single-issue). > not because the entire country is seething with racism Nobody is claiming that everybody even slightly opposed to immigration is racist — that would be absurd. > but because the existing policy recognises no limits on infrastructure build outs. The fact that people are generally most in favour of reducing immigration in the areas with the least immigration weakens the argument that they're motivated by legitimate concerns about the infrastructure not coping. > But sure, whatever, by all means, believe a place immigrants choose to move in huge numbers is filled with hatred and racism against them Immigrants also move from South Asia to the Middle East, despite there being immense systemic discrimination against them, for economic reasons.