FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Braverman & the holocaust survivor
Braverman & the holocaust survivor
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"A holocaust survivor contronted Braverman for using dehumanising language like swarms and invasion about immigrants. Language like that was used to justify the murder of her family and millions of others. She asked Braverman why she felt the need to use such language. Braverman's response: I won't apologise for the language I've used. Braverman then went on to continue pushing her anti-immigrant message. Lovely woman, aint she?" She is a ghoul, racists love her though, | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm curious who will defend Braverman. There's always some1." The main defender of her has gone AWOL, but I am sure there will be another racist who will defend her | |||
"A holocaust survivor contronted Braverman for using dehumanising language like swarms and invasion about immigrants. Language like that was used to justify the murder of her family and millions of others. She asked Braverman why she felt the need to use such language. Braverman's response: I won't apologise for the language I've used. Braverman then went on to continue pushing her anti-immigrant message. Lovely woman, aint she? She is a ghoul, racists love her though, " I think some racists love her because they can use her to try & hide their racism. Because Braverman isn't white, they can pretend they're not racist by supporting her. And they can pretend she isn't racist because she isn't white. | |||
"A holocaust survivor contronted Braverman for using dehumanising language like swarms and invasion about immigrants. Language like that was used to justify the murder of her family and millions of others. She asked Braverman why she felt the need to use such language. Braverman's response: I won't apologise for the language I've used. Braverman then went on to continue pushing her anti-immigrant message. Lovely woman, aint she? She is a ghoul, racists love her though, I think some racists love her because they can use her to try & hide their racism. Because Braverman isn't white, they can pretend they're not racist by supporting her. And they can pretend she isn't racist because she isn't white. " True, but because she isn’t white and is a child of immigrants they get really confused and we all know that racist are thick and easily confused | |||
| |||
| |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.)" She likes to use the word invasion aswell, the knuckle draggers love it | |||
| |||
"Horrible, unabashed, racist, hate-filled person." We can't have a Home Secretary that is racist, what as she said or done that was racist. | |||
"A holocaust survivor contronted Braverman for using dehumanising language like swarms and invasion about immigrants. Language like that was used to justify the murder of her family and millions of others. She asked Braverman why she felt the need to use such language. Braverman's response: I won't apologise for the language I've used. Braverman then went on to continue pushing her anti-immigrant message. Lovely woman, aint she? She is a ghoul, racists love her though, " Yes, damn those white racists and their love for non whites | |||
"Horrible, unabashed, racist, hate-filled person." Not just here.. seems the comment from Russia that the 4th Realm would be from the USA, actually bears some truth. It appears White Supremacy is taking hold in the House of Representatives - rerun of the night of the long knives imminent. Is this the beginnings of the end of Democracy? Mafioso, Nationalist politics of hatred - we've been there before, many times. It's already infected Brazil.. | |||
| |||
"A holocaust survivor contronted Braverman for using dehumanising language like swarms and invasion about immigrants. Language like that was used to justify the murder of her family and millions of others. She asked Braverman why she felt the need to use such language. Braverman's response: I won't apologise for the language I've used. Braverman then went on to continue pushing her anti-immigrant message. Lovely woman, aint she? She is a ghoul, racists love her though, Yes, damn those white racists and their love for non whites " The only love the racist ones. | |||
| |||
"It would have been better to have seen the whole video, and not just a selectively edited version!" What more was there other than the woman’s question and Braverman’s answer? | |||
"It would have been better to have seen the whole video, and not just a selectively edited version!" For the records I cannot stand her and think she embodies all that is bad about this current crop of top Tories but... I agree. The video I have seen is heavily edited. The issue with that is it undermines credibility and removes context. I would also like to see whole video. However, it doesn’t excuse the language she has been using by any measure. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.)" Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST." To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. | |||
| |||
"It would have been better to have seen the whole video, and not just a selectively edited version!" I have seen the whole video, it was posted by Robert Peston on Twitter, | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. " In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” | |||
| |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism" It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people  | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people "I don't know if she's racist or not. She's just being as provocative and hateful as possible for the good old fashioned double prong of distraction and fear. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people "Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied.. She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood. They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative. In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise. | |||
| |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
"So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ? | |||
"Don’t you find that the trouble is that it’s so easy to tar people with the racism label when in truth they are just horrible and certainly in Bravermans case both under qualified for the job and quite frankly a bit thick" True, she is hate filled, imagine saying that you dream about plane loads of immigrants being sent to Rwanda, | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ? "Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust. It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject. The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point. As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray. | |||
"Don’t you find that the trouble is that it’s so easy to tar people with the racism label when in truth they are just horrible and certainly in Bravermans case both under qualified for the job and quite frankly a bit thick True, she is hate filled, imagine saying that you dream about plane loads of immigrants being sent to Rwanda, " Yes I can’t think of anything in recent history that sounded less humane and more emotive than that….perhaps we’ll get lucky and she’ll fuck off to America where that stuff goes down better | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
"I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job. "Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words. It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose. "Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used "Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
"No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used "Are you offended by the words she used? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t "It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?"Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist."Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written "'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved? Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon  | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary "Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon "Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless? "I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?"I'm not offended by the words she uses. But the things she says make her entirely unfit for public office, especially as Home Secretary. "I would love to be having a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda. That’s my dream. That’s my obsession" | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
I'm not offended by the words she uses. But the things she says make her entirely unfit for public office, especially as Home Secretary.
"I would love to be having a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda. That’s my dream. That’s my obsession""It makes me wonder why she says these things, dies she believe them, or is she playing to her base audience | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist." I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon
Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf? "Did you actually tell me to read what was written by yourself and then go on to misread what I actually wrote? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language "That is interesting. I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words. This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities. It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that? A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence. Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon
Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf?
Did you actually tell me to read what was written by yourself and then go on to misread what I actually wrote?"I haven’t got a clue what your on about, | |||
| |||
"My objection to the word racist being used as a knee-jerk reaction is that it detracts from the severity of the word and real racism. It also makes conversion about important subjects harder as people disengage for fear of being branded a racist. The choice of words used may be poor but in no way racist, yet quite a few of the posts, especially at the beginning of this thread included the word racist. In my opinion and experience it makes the situation worse" This | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive."Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive."In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead. The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . "If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all. People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story. People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner. | |||
"My objection to the word racist being used as a knee-jerk reaction is that it detracts from the severity of the word and real racism. It also makes conversion about important subjects harder as people disengage for fear of being branded a racist. The choice of words used may be poor but in no way racist, yet quite a few of the posts, especially at the beginning of this thread included the word racist. In my opinion and experience it makes the situation worse" I stated that racists love her choice of words, I stand by that | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense. "Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
"People were offended months ago | |||
| |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
"Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor. That's not easy to do. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense.
Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments?"Yes, that was an ill judged statement, not everyone who defends her is a racist , but every racist will defend her choice of language | |||
| |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense.
Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments?"In this thread, or the debate around Braverman in general? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense.
Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments?
In this thread, or the debate around Braverman in general?
"In this thread. The debate about Braverman in general is an entirely different topic | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor.
That's not easy to do.
"Oh behave 
Talk about proving my point about twisting things to suit | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor.
That's not easy to do.
Oh behave
Talk about proving my point about twisting things to suit "Do you think the holocaust survivor (and many like her) are right to be offended? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense.
Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments?
In this thread, or the debate around Braverman in general?
In this thread. The debate about Braverman in general is an entirely different topic"I assume it was to set up people defending her. If she is racist or not, isn't the important part of the discussion for me. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense.
Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments?
In this thread, or the debate around Braverman in general?
In this thread. The debate about Braverman in general is an entirely different topic
I assume it was to set up people defending her.
If she is racist or not, isn't the important part of the discussion for me."You don't think 'setting people up' is closing an open debate before it's even started? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor.
That's not easy to do.
Oh behave
Talk about proving my point about twisting things to suit
Do you think the holocaust survivor (and many like her) are right to be offended? "What kind of question is that? It is not for me to say who or who should not be offended by anything. However, I can say that the holocaust was a terrifying and awful event that is blight on the human race. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
In fairness, people shut down the "open debate" by arguing semantics for hours on end, instead of addressing the issue. It's a fine line what she says between being racist and not, like one guy argued, she's hateful towards poor people, and especially foriegners, you could say that's not racist because "foreigner" isn't a race, so she's being xenophobic maybe instead.
The point is, she's using hateful rhetoric to spread fear, divide people and possibly to gain support from the ever increasing numbers of voters who lap up this kind of nonsense.
Don't you think this 'open debate' was shut down before it even started due to 'racists will defend her' comments?
In this thread, or the debate around Braverman in general?
In this thread. The debate about Braverman in general is an entirely different topic
I assume it was to set up people defending her.
If she is racist or not, isn't the important part of the discussion for me.
You don't think 'setting people up' is closing an open debate before it's even started?"I don't really have any opinion either way on this part of the discussion. I was pointing out to the other poster that there are more ways than one to shut down the discussion. The part that interests me isn't the word that is used to describe her rhetoric. I'm interested in what effect this has, why it's being used, and why people are attracted to politicians who use this kind of language. Same as Farage etc. If they are racists or not at heart, isn't as important to me. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor.
That's not easy to do.
Oh behave
Talk about proving my point about twisting things to suit
Do you think the holocaust survivor (and many like her) are right to be offended?
What kind of question is that?
It is not for me to say who or who should not be offended by anything.
However, I can say that the holocaust was a terrifying and awful event that is blight on the human race.
"True, as Home Secretary do you think she should be very careful what she says and the language she uses? | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor.
That's not easy to do.
Oh behave
Talk about proving my point about twisting things to suit
Do you think the holocaust survivor (and many like her) are right to be offended?
What kind of question is that?
It is not for me to say who or who should not be offended by anything.
However, I can say that the holocaust was a terrifying and awful event that is blight on the human race.
True, as Home Secretary do you think she should be very careful what she says and the language she uses? "We have travelled full circle | |||
| |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Are you offended by the words she used?
Yea, completely unnecessary, other more diplomatic and intelligent words are available, she is the Home Secretary
Is your offence driven from the 83 year old referring to fleeing the holocaust, or would have found offence in the words regardless?
I found them offensive regardless, other words are available, as the Home Secretary she should be aware of using diplomatic language
That is interesting.
I was recently reading an article that suggested the spoken and written language will decrease as universities start to restrict the use of phrases and words.
This was right wing view of course, but the article suggested words and phrases like "stand up" are already being outlawed due to being "harmful", with Stanford being named. The reason stand up was deemed harmful was the upset it could cause people with disabilities.
It is also interesting that since Stanfords harmful words made the news, they have now backed away from it, saying they missed the mark, which probably also goes against their harmful words and phrase policy! How would a blind person feel about that?
A long winded story but I hope you see my point, with all the best will in the world, any word or phrase can be found to be offensive by someone, who wants to find offence.
Open debate is in danger of collapse due to this and I feel it needs to be challenged, for what it is, oppressive.
Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise .
If there was no 83 year old comparing her words to fleeing the holocaust, there would be nobody talking about it at all.
People are offended because of the 83 year old weaponised her story and regardless of words used by Braverman she would have delivered that story.
People are offended on her behalf or are jumping on a bandwagon because it is easy to kick someone who is already in the corner.
Nice work painting Braverman as the victim and an 83 year old lady as the aggressor.
That's not easy to do.
Oh behave
Talk about proving my point about twisting things to suit
Do you think the holocaust survivor (and many like her) are right to be offended?
What kind of question is that?
It is not for me to say who or who should not be offended by anything.
However, I can say that the holocaust was a terrifying and awful event that is blight on the human race.
True, as Home Secretary do you think she should be very careful what she says and the language she uses?
We have travelled full circle "Yep, she is unfit to be Home Secretary | |||
 | |||
"Can we, maybe, whatever side of the fence we stand on this, please agree to stop quoting the entire bloody thread when giving a two line response to a previous two line response? It’s not hard to hit “reply+quote”, then highlight and cut all but the bit you’re actually replying to. "I shall bare that in mind | |||
"Can we, maybe, whatever side of the fence we stand on this, please agree to stop quoting the entire bloody thread when giving a two line response to a previous two line response? It’s not hard to hit “reply+quote”, then highlight and cut all but the bit you’re actually replying to. "For clarity, is it only 2 line responses to 2 line responses | |||
| |||
"Can we, maybe, whatever side of the fence we stand on this, please agree to stop quoting the entire bloody thread when giving a two line response to a previous two line response? It’s not hard to hit “reply+quote”, then highlight and cut all but the bit you’re actually replying to. "Yep all that scrolling is giving me RSI | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon
Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf? "There's a delicious irony in you suggesting someone is getting offended on behalf of someone else. I'm going to suggest your outrage isn't at the words used, but in the hue of the party. Winston | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon
Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf?
There's a delicious irony in you suggesting someone is getting offended on behalf of someone else.
I'm going to suggest your outrage isn't at the words used, but in the hue of the party.
Winston "I was highlighting the irony , the words used were both offensive and inappropriate, either this was deliberate or due to incompetence, | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. " I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon
Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf?
There's a delicious irony in you suggesting someone is getting offended on behalf of someone else.
I'm going to suggest your outrage isn't at the words used, but in the hue of the party.
Winston
I was highlighting the irony , the words used were both offensive and inappropriate, either this was deliberate or due to incompetence, "You were highlighting nothing. Your comment "Are you getting offended on another persons behalf?" Is still there and the context is obvious. Your observation that the wording used is "offensive and inappropriate, either this was deliberate or due to incompetence" is your opinion. Nothing more. You (nor I) have no idea if it was deliberate or not. Winston | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. " Good post, it echos what I have been saying, either she is thick or callous or both, unfit to be Home Secretary | |||
"(Swarms being the language loved by the sweet Braverman & the Nazis.) Erm... According to The Guardian Braverman has never used the word swarm. She did say 'about stopping the invasion on our southern coast' when she was referring to her role. Likening it to Nazi language? We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative. I can't see anything racist during this interaction, yet here we all are screaming RACIST. To be fair it is 2 or 3 people who threw racist into the pot, it is amazing how much noise they make though, to the point it feels like a dominating point. In footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, Salter said: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust. “In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947. “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others. “Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?” I'm missing your point, what is racist in those words? I can clearly see one person using strong emotive language to hammer a point, I can see another person using those strong and emotive words to hammer home another point. I can't see racism It isn’t racist, but why is she using those words? I agree with another poster on here , I don’t think she is racist, she just hates poor people
Sorry, I deleted my original post to make it clearer but you had already replied..
She used those words like most politicians to create a narrative and mood.
They were used against her and wrapped into a story that had an equally, if not bigger emotive narrative.
In my opinion, she knows she can't win against an 83 year old and her story of fleeing the holocaust, she does however see the 83 year old as backing her into a no win corner and that is why she wont apologise.
So she is knowingly using words that she knows will offend people ? You do realise other words are available ?
Of course I know other words are available but most words can be weaponised, especially when used against a backdrop of fleeing the holocaust.
It could have been anything she said about immigration, small boat crossings and anything else related to the subject.
The 83 year old had an agenda, and used the moment to make her point.
As I said, I cannot see the racism or racist remarks from Braverman, like others in this thread have tried to portray.
I didn’t say it was racist. She is the Home Secretary, if she can’t find better or less offensive words to use then she shouldn’t be in the job.
Find better or less offensive words? This is the problem we have today, you would moan if a politician says nothing and jump with glee when they do and can be beaten up by those words.
It is this very attitude that has created non committed answers, I'm not saying that politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want, I'm saying that playing a game of twisting words is killing off our countries ability to debate issues openly and with purpose.
Did she know these words would cause widespread offence? If she did then she lacks integrity and empathy, if she didn’t then she is thick, either way these words don’t have to be used
Really? As i said above, We could literally liken anything to something should we want to push a narrative.
As for you not saying 'it's racist', maybe you didn't but you definitely got involved in what was the echo chamber at the beginning of this thread.
No I didn’t, stop making things up. Anyway, she either knowingly caused offence or she didn’t
It's there in black and white for all to see...
She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist.
Wrong, stopping making things up and read what I have written
'I'm sure another racist will be along to defend her' isn't getting involved?
Not only are you calling one person racist but saying another will be along soon
Where did I say what she said was racist ? Are you getting offended on another persons behalf?
There's a delicious irony in you suggesting someone is getting offended on behalf of someone else.
I'm going to suggest your outrage isn't at the words used, but in the hue of the party.
Winston
I was highlighting the irony , the words used were both offensive and inappropriate, either this was deliberate or due to incompetence,
You were highlighting nothing. Your comment "Are you getting offended on another persons behalf?" Is still there and the context is obvious.
Your observation that the wording used is "offensive and inappropriate, either this was deliberate or due to incompetence" is your opinion. Nothing more.
You (nor I) have no idea if it was deliberate or not.
Winston
"‘You were highlighting nothing’ is your opinion, nothing more, you have no idea of my intent | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. " Thank you.
Yes, the caste system in India is a good illustration of the point I was making, and I would agree with the rest of what you’re saying.
I think your high IQ, low EQ point is valid, but I’d be more inclined to think that she (and those in the shadows behind her) are cynically playing to a base instinct inside a lot of people. It doesn’t really matter how abhorrent some of her views are, just as long as they translate into enough votes to swing a deeply flawed first-past-the-post electoral system in their favour. More people didn’t vote for the current government than did, but the system let the Tories win a huge majority on around 44% of the votes. | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. Thank you.
Yes, the caste system in India is a good illustration of the point I was making, and I would agree with the rest of what you’re saying.
I think your high IQ, low EQ point is valid, but I’d be more inclined to think that she (and those in the shadows behind her) are cynically playing to a base instinct inside a lot of people. It doesn’t really matter how abhorrent some of her views are, just as long as they translate into enough votes to swing a deeply flawed first-past-the-post electoral system in their favour. More people didn’t vote for the current government than did, but the system let the Tories win a huge majority on around 44% of the votes. "Indeed. Another reason why we need PR. (I know I just “full quoted” but takes too long to scroll back and delete on a phone) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe I am wrong but haven’t we all met people in life who are willing to say disgusting and outrageous things in order to get into positions of fame and power that they don’t deserve….she’s just the latest in a long line of Tory grifters who talk shit to get noticed, albeit she is convincingly more horrible than Patel was "Tbh, I don’t recall Sajid Javid Amber Rudd Theresa May Using this type of language , could be wrong though | |||
"Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . " This doesn't put you in a good position. You're either: a) Attacking a person of reduced intellect by condemning her for not being clever enough to understand the things that you do. or: b) providing her with the condemnation that she obviously wanted, as well as perpetuating the very offence that she intended to cause, by regularly drawing attention to her words. | |||
"Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . This doesn't put you in a good position. You're either: a) Attacking a person of reduced intellect by condemning her for not being clever enough to understand the things that you do. or: b) providing her with the condemnation that she obviously wanted, as well as perpetuating the very offence that she intended to cause, by regularly drawing attention to her words." It is a swinging site,we are debating the thread topic, I guess less than 100 people have read my post . If she knew her words caused widespread offence why did she use them? If she didn’t know they would cause offence why is she the Home Secretary? | |||
"Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . This doesn't put you in a good position. You're either: a) Attacking a person of reduced intellect by condemning her for not being clever enough to understand the things that you do. or: b) providing her with the condemnation that she obviously wanted, as well as perpetuating the very offence that she intended to cause, by regularly drawing attention to her words. It is a swinging site,we are debating the thread topic, I guess less than 100 people have read my post . If she knew her words caused widespread offence why did she use them? If she didn’t know they would cause offence why is she the Home Secretary? " If. If. If. If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle. Winston | |||
"Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . This doesn't put you in a good position. You're either: a) Attacking a person of reduced intellect by condemning her for not being clever enough to understand the things that you do. or: b) providing her with the condemnation that she obviously wanted, as well as perpetuating the very offence that she intended to cause, by regularly drawing attention to her words. It is a swinging site,we are debating the thread topic, I guess less than 100 people have read my post . If she knew her words caused widespread offence why did she use them? If she didn’t know they would cause offence why is she the Home Secretary? If. If. If. If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle. Winston " You can do better than that? | |||
"Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise . This doesn't put you in a good position. You're either: a) Attacking a person of reduced intellect by condemning her for not being clever enough to understand the things that you do. or: b) providing her with the condemnation that she obviously wanted, as well as perpetuating the very offence that she intended to cause, by regularly drawing attention to her words. It is a swinging site,we are debating the thread topic, I guess less than 100 people have read my post . If she knew her words caused widespread offence why did she use them? If she didn’t know they would cause offence why is she the Home Secretary? If. If. If. If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle. Winston " I refer the Honoured Gentleman to my post 2 hours ago. Sue Ellen knows exactly what she is doing by using specific words or phrases. No “ifs” about it. Totally deliberate. As do all the SpAds around her. | |||
| |||
"Her words were met with widespread condemnation, she either knew this would happen or she is too thick to realise ." "This doesn't put you in a good position. You're either: a) Attacking a person of reduced intellect by condemning her for not being clever enough to understand the things that you do. or: b) providing her with the condemnation that she obviously wanted, as well as perpetuating the very offence that she intended to cause, by regularly drawing attention to her words." "It is a swinging site,we are debating the thread topic, I guess less than 100 people have read my post ." So your defence is that you haven't perpetuated the offence, because no one listens to you? Fair enough. | |||
| |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war." are they all french ? | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war.are they all french ? " Don't think so. The European Council on Refugees and Exciles reports that in 2021 81% were adults and of the whole 80% were male. https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/statistics/ There are vested interest groups that want cheap labour and who also want people from outside the UK brought in for their own reasons. These people portray these people as refugees to sell the idea to everyone. Unfortunately, the government is incapable of vetting them properly and we consider this to be a security risk, especially as about 1500 have been moved into hotels in our own area. It is no coincidence that a person sitting next to this Jean Slater had a camera, and that the footage ended up in the hands of media. People need to ask themselves not just why X person said Y, but also why our media are report it from a certain perspective or at all. | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war.are they all french ? Don't think so. The European Council on Refugees and Exciles reports that in 2021 81% were adults and of the whole 80% were male. https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/statistics/ There are vested interest groups that want cheap labour and who also want people from outside the UK brought in for their own reasons. These people portray these people as refugees to sell the idea to everyone. Unfortunately, the government is incapable of vetting them properly and we consider this to be a security risk, especially as about 1500 have been moved into hotels in our own area. It is no coincidence that a person sitting next to this Jean Slater had a camera, and that the footage ended up in the hands of media. People need to ask themselves not just why X person said Y, but also why our media are report it from a certain perspective or at all." so France is kind irrelavant. As is the idea that asylum seekers only come from what zones. Which groups have this vested interest. Are we talking legitimate British companies? Who just want over demand to drive down wages? | |||
| |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war." Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch" What benefits are they getting? | |||
| |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch What benefits are they getting?" It’s costing £3million per day to accommodate these people to start with | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch" Exactly, well timed example. This kind of rhetoric works, and Braverman knows it, stoking fear to the kind of people who are easily distracted is a very effective tactic. | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch" Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits" Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. " He shouldnt be telling untruths then | |||
| |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. " Squeaky certainly seems to be Braverman's target audience. It's incredibly sad. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. " there is an element of fear from both the politicians and the public and there is also the reality of the matter. The home secretary, whoever that is and for whichever party will need to show a backbone to keep those who see the channel crossings in small boats as illegal entry to the UK. Let us not forget that the labour voters switched sides in heartbeat to get brexit over the line, and because of that I would expect a large majority of voters putting pressure on the home secretary for a tough intervention on the crossings. And then we have the reality, it is costing the country millions to house, cloth and feed those that make the journey, money we have not got. Then there is the people smugglers, making millions by coaxing people into making the journey. It is a mess, it needs grown up thinking to resolve the issue. | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. there is an element of fear from both the politicians and the public and there is also the reality of the matter. The home secretary, whoever that is and for whichever party will need to show a backbone to keep those who see the channel crossings in small boats as illegal entry to the UK. Let us not forget that the labour voters switched sides in heartbeat to get brexit over the line, and because of that I would expect a large majority of voters putting pressure on the home secretary for a tough intervention on the crossings. And then we have the reality, it is costing the country millions to house, cloth and feed those that make the journey, money we have not got. Then there is the people smugglers, making millions by coaxing people into making the journey. It is a mess, it needs grown up thinking to resolve the issue. " Braverman doesn't give a fuck about any of that. She is just using the situation to promote fear and hate as a method of control. The chap above being an example of her target audience. | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. there is an element of fear from both the politicians and the public and there is also the reality of the matter. The home secretary, whoever that is and for whichever party will need to show a backbone to keep those who see the channel crossings in small boats as illegal entry to the UK. Let us not forget that the labour voters switched sides in heartbeat to get brexit over the line, and because of that I would expect a large majority of voters putting pressure on the home secretary for a tough intervention on the crossings. And then we have the reality, it is costing the country millions to house, cloth and feed those that make the journey, money we have not got. Then there is the people smugglers, making millions by coaxing people into making the journey. It is a mess, it needs grown up thinking to resolve the issue. Braverman doesn't give a fuck about any of that. She is just using the situation to promote fear and hate as a method of control. The chap above being an example of her target audience. " I don’t think that is correct at all, she is saying what people want to hear, or what she thinks they want to hear. You don’t want to hear this message so look for reasons why she says what she says and you’ve arrived at sewing the seeds of fear to gain control. She wants to be seen as in control, this language might give some the impression she is. | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. there is an element of fear from both the politicians and the public and there is also the reality of the matter. The home secretary, whoever that is and for whichever party will need to show a backbone to keep those who see the channel crossings in small boats as illegal entry to the UK. Let us not forget that the labour voters switched sides in heartbeat to get brexit over the line, and because of that I would expect a large majority of voters putting pressure on the home secretary for a tough intervention on the crossings. And then we have the reality, it is costing the country millions to house, cloth and feed those that make the journey, money we have not got. Then there is the people smugglers, making millions by coaxing people into making the journey. It is a mess, it needs grown up thinking to resolve the issue. Braverman doesn't give a fuck about any of that. She is just using the situation to promote fear and hate as a method of control. The chap above being an example of her target audience. I don’t think that is correct at all, she is saying what people want to hear, or what she thinks they want to hear. You don’t want to hear this message so look for reasons why she says what she says and you’ve arrived at sowing the seeds of fear to gain control. She wants to be seen as in control, this language might give some the impression she is." she is a stupid person who is deliberately avoiding opening a sensible and safe asylum route for these migrants to apply to come here and thereby perpetuating the criminality of the smugglers. They used to arrive in trucks until the government realised that lots of dead Vietnamese people in an abandoned trailer was not a good look for them so then the only option was small boats. I have always wondered if Tories admire the free market enterprise of the smuggling gangs especially as they are able to keep money flowing to their mates at serco and the the like who run the detention camps. Plus don’t forget all those hotel owners providing migrant accommodation who no doubt will be contributing to the Tory party coffers as a reward for keeping them in business. Cynical you might think but that’s how these fuckers work - never do a straight deal when you can earn a bit extra for you and you’re mates! | |||
"The fallacy is the lie that people landing on the shores are refugees. They aren't. France is not at war. Exactly! They are flooding to England to claim benefits because we are a soft touch Ilegal imigrants cant claim benefits Doesn't matter, the point is the kind of fear and hate promoted by Braverman works. I think this chap was just giving an example of that. there is an element of fear from both the politicians and the public and there is also the reality of the matter. The home secretary, whoever that is and for whichever party will need to show a backbone to keep those who see the channel crossings in small boats as illegal entry to the UK. Let us not forget that the labour voters switched sides in heartbeat to get brexit over the line, and because of that I would expect a large majority of voters putting pressure on the home secretary for a tough intervention on the crossings. And then we have the reality, it is costing the country millions to house, cloth and feed those that make the journey, money we have not got. Then there is the people smugglers, making millions by coaxing people into making the journey. It is a mess, it needs grown up thinking to resolve the issue. Braverman doesn't give a fuck about any of that. She is just using the situation to promote fear and hate as a method of control. The chap above being an example of her target audience. I don’t think that is correct at all, she is saying what people want to hear, or what she thinks they want to hear. You don’t want to hear this message so look for reasons why she says what she says and you’ve arrived at sewing the seeds of fear to gain control. She wants to be seen as in control, this language might give some the impression she is." Well indeed. Why do people want to hear this kind of hateful rhetoric? It's a circle, they're force-fed anti-immigrant propaganda. 'those people in that small boat there are causing all your problems, certainly isn't the government, that's for sure'. So they then lap up the fear from the likes of Braverman. And as you pointed out, this kind of fear was used to great effect in the run up to the brexit referendum. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just to add, the government changed the law quick enough to lock us all down and put massive restrictions on our freedom's very quickly. Why then, can they not make prompt changes to allow for the rapid deportation of illegal arrivals? The answer is simple; they never had the intention and never will." Parliament makes the decision | |||
"Parliament makes the decision " Word games are unnecessary. When we used the term 'government' we meant not just elected officials, but the unelected too. The whole system. | |||
"Just to add, the government changed the law quick enough to lock us all down and put massive restrictions on our freedom's very quickly. Why then, can they not make prompt changes to allow for the rapid deportation of illegal arrivals? The answer is simple; they never had the intention and never will." because it would mean exiting international treaties. Not a good look Especially as the UK has, relatively speaking, lower numbers of asylum seekers. And is relatively well off. | |||
"because it would mean exiting international treaties." Bull shit. It won't be done because powerful people don't want it done. | |||
| |||
"A recent tweet by the holocaust survivor: On Friday I confronted Suella Braverman's use of hateful language. She refused to apologise. We must always challenge the language of hate. The Home Office demanded the video be taken town. They seem not to realise we are still a democracy." The Home Office wanted the video taken down, as it was a selectively edited version, and didn't show the whole exchange. | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. Thank you.
Yes, the caste system in India is a good illustration of the point I was making, and I would agree with the rest of what you’re saying.
I think your high IQ, low EQ point is valid, but I’d be more inclined to think that she (and those in the shadows behind her) are cynically playing to a base instinct inside a lot of people. It doesn’t really matter how abhorrent some of her views are, just as long as they translate into enough votes to swing a deeply flawed first-past-the-post electoral system in their favour. More people didn’t vote for the current government than did, but the system let the Tories win a huge majority on around 44% of the votes. "Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections.... | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. Thank you.
Yes, the caste system in India is a good illustration of the point I was making, and I would agree with the rest of what you’re saying.
I think your high IQ, low EQ point is valid, but I’d be more inclined to think that she (and those in the shadows behind her) are cynically playing to a base instinct inside a lot of people. It doesn’t really matter how abhorrent some of her views are, just as long as they translate into enough votes to swing a deeply flawed first-past-the-post electoral system in their favour. More people didn’t vote for the current government than did, but the system let the Tories win a huge majority on around 44% of the votes.
Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections....
" | |||
"It's there in black and white for all to see... She hasn't caused me any offence, I must be racist. I said earlier that I didn’t think she was racist. She’s an “elitist”, for want of a better word. To a lot of people she’s a personification of the “I’m better than you, so do as I say, not as I do” mindset of all that’s bad about one side of human nature. If what she says, and how she says it doesn’t offend someone, it might not make them a racist, but it’s fair to say that racists will agree with her. As will other elitists. There’s a difference between elitism and racism, although the overlap is large. Poor brown people on boats are just as abhorrent to her as poor white people in council flats. I think this is an excellent post and likely spot on. I note nobody acknowledged it because they were too busy “dick swinging” and trying to score points or debate semantics or the true intent or behaviour behind the use of certain types of words. I have no idea if Sue Ellen is racist (but just because she is brown it does not remotely mean she cannot be, just look at the animosity between Indians and Pakistanis, or even within the Indian Caste system). In many ways I equate her with Truss in that she seems either pretty thick or at least lacks in any common sense, self awareness or empathy. She may well have a high IQ but probably a low EQ. She must be academically intelligent to have studied law but...seems pretty thick! Either that or she knows EXACTLY what she is doing with her use of extremely emotive language. No matter how you defend it, the use of the type of language we are seeing is straight from the Goebbels propaganda playbook. She will know that as will the people around her. Outrage is deliberately being stoked and people deliberately being triggered. Thank you.
Yes, the caste system in India is a good illustration of the point I was making, and I would agree with the rest of what you’re saying.
I think your high IQ, low EQ point is valid, but I’d be more inclined to think that she (and those in the shadows behind her) are cynically playing to a base instinct inside a lot of people. It doesn’t really matter how abhorrent some of her views are, just as long as they translate into enough votes to swing a deeply flawed first-past-the-post electoral system in their favour. More people didn’t vote for the current government than did, but the system let the Tories win a huge majority on around 44% of the votes.
Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections....
"I don't really recall what was discussed back then.... However it's being discussed now, despite the fact FPTPmis likely to give labour a huge majority.... And probably 10-15 years of power (based on previous cycles). | |||
| |||
"I actually never heard of her before this but just googled and see that she is the daughter of immigrants. " Yes she is but that doesn’t mean that she should be given a free pass for being a cunt | |||
" Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections.... " I’m in my early 50s, and didn’t really become politically aware until the early 90s. From my personal perspective, PR has been on the agenda in one form or another all that time. | |||
" Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections.... I’m in my early 50s, and didn’t really become politically aware until the early 90s. From my personal perspective, PR has been on the agenda in one form or another all that time. " The idea of FPTP comes up after most elections, usually by supporters of the colour that lost. It's not a subject confined to one party from what I've observed over the years. Winston | |||
"I actually never heard of her before this but just googled and see that she is the daughter of immigrants. " Yes, she's pulling up the ladder behind herself. So to speak. | |||
" Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections.... I’m in my early 50s, and didn’t really become politically aware until the early 90s. From my personal perspective, PR has been on the agenda in one form or another all that time. " The way I see proportional representation is similar to a committee, everyone having a finger in the pie and nothing ever being agreed or delivered. Chaos I tell you | |||
" Nobody from the political left seemed to moan about the FPTP voting system when labour were winning elections.... I’m in my early 50s, and didn’t really become politically aware until the early 90s. From my personal perspective, PR has been on the agenda in one form or another all that time. The way I see proportional representation is similar to a committee, everyone having a finger in the pie and nothing ever being agreed or delivered. Chaos I tell you "A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Winston | |||
| |||
