-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Crime and Punishment
- Thread starter Harv
- Start date
Why is everyone acting like I went round calling Pluk a racist?
The article has clear racist undertones, and I just don't think that it's defenders are perceptive enough to realise it's implications. Even if you don't consider it racist, you must see that it comparmentalises people as deserving and undeserving of money using criteria of 'nationality' which might as well as be racism in that its discrimination between people based on something of no signifcance.
Nick - Actually our country has supported dictatorships. It has openly endorsed anti-democratic leaders in some countries because they know that it is economically better for us as these dictators allow their friends to get natural resources and build corporate empires on slave-like production lines.
With the Taliban, the only reason they decided to get involved was because they wouldn't allow the West to take everything of value like most other worldly dictators, and because they knew that they were weak. So invading was an attempt to secure economic control of the region.
The article's author does not provide a valid argument. He villainises Dictators which we prop up through industry and materialist greed but then says that we are wrong for giving aid to the victims of these dictators. Now don't get me wrong, I realise that its an Ironic situation where we give money to the people we screw over, and I full heartedly support withdrawing our support for these countries' government but there's no justification for removing the help we give to the people who really need it.
BigT - Errr... So you are complaining about generalising about those who are against helping poor people in other countries and yet you yourself use 'complaining youth' to belittle my independently formed opinion and make sweeping statements about the BBC, Left Wing Newspapers and anyone who disagrees with you?
You see no hypocrisy in that?
The article has clear racist undertones, and I just don't think that it's defenders are perceptive enough to realise it's implications. Even if you don't consider it racist, you must see that it comparmentalises people as deserving and undeserving of money using criteria of 'nationality' which might as well as be racism in that its discrimination between people based on something of no signifcance.
Nick - Actually our country has supported dictatorships. It has openly endorsed anti-democratic leaders in some countries because they know that it is economically better for us as these dictators allow their friends to get natural resources and build corporate empires on slave-like production lines.
With the Taliban, the only reason they decided to get involved was because they wouldn't allow the West to take everything of value like most other worldly dictators, and because they knew that they were weak. So invading was an attempt to secure economic control of the region.
The article's author does not provide a valid argument. He villainises Dictators which we prop up through industry and materialist greed but then says that we are wrong for giving aid to the victims of these dictators. Now don't get me wrong, I realise that its an Ironic situation where we give money to the people we screw over, and I full heartedly support withdrawing our support for these countries' government but there's no justification for removing the help we give to the people who really need it.
BigT - Errr... So you are complaining about generalising about those who are against helping poor people in other countries and yet you yourself use 'complaining youth' to belittle my independently formed opinion and make sweeping statements about the BBC, Left Wing Newspapers and anyone who disagrees with you?
You see no hypocrisy in that?
pluk
TS Member
This still going on?
You didn't, and neither I or anyone else said you did. But, to say that something I am in general agreement with is racist when it blatantly isn't is not far off the same thing, and also not fair on the original author. The assumption would be not to listen to or agree with any of his points because he is a racist, and there fore mine. It is an underhand way of making your point and makes it personal, the very thing you seem to so against. Calling someone racist is a massively serious and emotive thing, as I'm sure you are well aware. It should be used sensibly and appropriately or it devalues its meaning.
Don't tell me I'm not perceptive, it would appear you are in a minority of one on the racist point so who do you think might have got it wrong? It absolutely does not have any racist undertones, I don't know what in your life has made you so jaded but you seem to be looking for hatred in people where it really does not exist. To question the rights and wrongs of handing out money to other nations, regardless of whole lives in them and why they might need it, is an entirely legitimate thing to do. It is such a huge and unjustified leap to say that to do so is racist it is going to rile people. Yes, it would be nice to feed the world and make everyone everywhere safe, but that is not realistic or possible. Funds have to be distributed as our leaders see fit, we can't just ringfence every payment that is made to a non white person for all of time because to question it would be racist. The point the author was making, and I've said from the start I don't think they made it particularly well and there are easier targets for funding cuts, is we are funding nations who are doing better than us. We have our own problems to fix.
Meat Pie said:
You didn't, and neither I or anyone else said you did. But, to say that something I am in general agreement with is racist when it blatantly isn't is not far off the same thing, and also not fair on the original author. The assumption would be not to listen to or agree with any of his points because he is a racist, and there fore mine. It is an underhand way of making your point and makes it personal, the very thing you seem to so against. Calling someone racist is a massively serious and emotive thing, as I'm sure you are well aware. It should be used sensibly and appropriately or it devalues its meaning.
Meat Pie said:
Don't tell me I'm not perceptive, it would appear you are in a minority of one on the racist point so who do you think might have got it wrong? It absolutely does not have any racist undertones, I don't know what in your life has made you so jaded but you seem to be looking for hatred in people where it really does not exist. To question the rights and wrongs of handing out money to other nations, regardless of whole lives in them and why they might need it, is an entirely legitimate thing to do. It is such a huge and unjustified leap to say that to do so is racist it is going to rile people. Yes, it would be nice to feed the world and make everyone everywhere safe, but that is not realistic or possible. Funds have to be distributed as our leaders see fit, we can't just ringfence every payment that is made to a non white person for all of time because to question it would be racist. The point the author was making, and I've said from the start I don't think they made it particularly well and there are easier targets for funding cuts, is we are funding nations who are doing better than us. We have our own problems to fix.
You are clearly blind to the tone and implications of the article. He writes in an accusative way about the giving of aid to vulnerable people, almost as if it is their fault and if only we could let those selfish foreigners die, we more important Brits would benefit. I don't see how anyone can choose to see it any other way, it was clearly the message he was sending out.
Why does he choose to pick on the most vulnerable rather than talking about the ridiculous price we pay to maintain useless nuclear weapons, or low rate of tax on billionaires and corporations? He fails to see that the struggle of our international comrades against elitist governments is the same fight against cuts here. It clearly shows that he thinks their plight unimportant in comparison to our British problems. He prioritises British people and that is wrong.
It came across as Nationalist and racist. Just saying it didn't doesn't make that so.
Why does he choose to pick on the most vulnerable rather than talking about the ridiculous price we pay to maintain useless nuclear weapons, or low rate of tax on billionaires and corporations? He fails to see that the struggle of our international comrades against elitist governments is the same fight against cuts here. It clearly shows that he thinks their plight unimportant in comparison to our British problems. He prioritises British people and that is wrong.
It came across as Nationalist and racist. Just saying it didn't doesn't make that so.
pluk
TS Member
Meat Pie said:
He does not once mention anyone who is vulnerable, this is all in your head. Really, where are you getting it from? He mentions nations, which will include people from all walks of life, levels of wealth and levels of need. And for the most part will be the rich and powerful leaders of those nations taking it to spend as they see fit, on things like..
pluk said:
Which is frankly quite amusing when it is our nuclear weapons you'd rather we stopped paying for first. It is clear it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says. You've read what you want to read in that blog regardless of what it actually says.
Show me evidence that even a single pound of the aid money went to Nuclear weapons. I've never seen any and it comes across as a very convenient argument that people who were already anti-foreign aid have suspiciously adopted in recent years. But for the sake of argument, let's say that the money was being abused, does that make it legitimate to stop trying to give aid? It's blindingly obviously to anyone that no that wouldn't be acceptable, you would change your approach but still spend the equivalent sum so that money reaches the vulnerable people it was meant to be for in the first place.
The original article never said anything to suggest foreign aid money was misspent anyway! Just that the governments of those countries spent their own money on inappropriate things, this means in his argument he was always arguing to take aid money from vulnerable people.
You are so desperate not to see what's staring you in the face, there seems little point in continuing
The original article never said anything to suggest foreign aid money was misspent anyway! Just that the governments of those countries spent their own money on inappropriate things, this means in his argument he was always arguing to take aid money from vulnerable people.
You are so desperate not to see what's staring you in the face, there seems little point in continuing
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
Oooh big emotive debate? Shuffle over lads!! ;D
*Rolls up sleeves*.
As a total neutral, in fact potentially less neutral given all the topic run ins me and Meaty have had since I joined (some crackers, eh dude?), I've read this with disbelief.
No way, anywhere, did Meaty even remotely imply racism by Pluk - unless I have it wrong, and you wrote the article, because I tell you something - never once in my life, and I'm no youngster(!), have I ever spoken to anyone who bangs on trying to make a point without referencing foreign aid, who doesn't have an "us and them" mentality.
End of, no grey area! You are either compassionate, to those less fortunate, or you are not.
So are you, or are you not? Do you completely ignore the people in great need, because their leaders are less than squeeky? Why bring that up then as a topic of your argument?
Why not bring up the billions tax evasion in this Country, which way exceeds all of that aid combined?? Your go to argument, by that article is foreign aid. Do me a favour.
I'm sorry folks, we are a human race, and if we don't drop that attitude from everywhere we are ALL screwed. It does however, as meaty also rightly points out, come back to us in forms of labour and trade! It is a completely illogical argument, and one that when made about our forces, should not begin to even touch such matters when far more very real, very damaging ones are at hand.
Meat, we don't agree on much mate, but foreign aid has absolutely no place in discussions about our home forces, and I am afraid I too have seen waaaaay to racism masked as xenophobia or "us and them".
NEWFLASH: We're all human, it's not "foreign aid", as we all share the same home!
(EDIT: To add, I don't know enough about that actual original point to make educated comment, but a blog looses me straight away when it strays off point so ludicrously, and all I read into posts in general was how they disagreed with the blog topic, which in my view is fair enough! At no point did I get the impression of anyone calling anyone here racist, or xenophobic - not often I play peace maker, but to me, it became fraught when what in my opinion was an ill conceived blog, became the topic of debate - and that in and of itself, should say it all really, given the results it's nature should be self evident.)
*Rolls up sleeves*.
As a total neutral, in fact potentially less neutral given all the topic run ins me and Meaty have had since I joined (some crackers, eh dude?), I've read this with disbelief.
No way, anywhere, did Meaty even remotely imply racism by Pluk - unless I have it wrong, and you wrote the article, because I tell you something - never once in my life, and I'm no youngster(!), have I ever spoken to anyone who bangs on trying to make a point without referencing foreign aid, who doesn't have an "us and them" mentality.
End of, no grey area! You are either compassionate, to those less fortunate, or you are not.
So are you, or are you not? Do you completely ignore the people in great need, because their leaders are less than squeeky? Why bring that up then as a topic of your argument?
Why not bring up the billions tax evasion in this Country, which way exceeds all of that aid combined?? Your go to argument, by that article is foreign aid. Do me a favour.
I'm sorry folks, we are a human race, and if we don't drop that attitude from everywhere we are ALL screwed. It does however, as meaty also rightly points out, come back to us in forms of labour and trade! It is a completely illogical argument, and one that when made about our forces, should not begin to even touch such matters when far more very real, very damaging ones are at hand.
Meat, we don't agree on much mate, but foreign aid has absolutely no place in discussions about our home forces, and I am afraid I too have seen waaaaay to racism masked as xenophobia or "us and them".
NEWFLASH: We're all human, it's not "foreign aid", as we all share the same home!
(EDIT: To add, I don't know enough about that actual original point to make educated comment, but a blog looses me straight away when it strays off point so ludicrously, and all I read into posts in general was how they disagreed with the blog topic, which in my view is fair enough! At no point did I get the impression of anyone calling anyone here racist, or xenophobic - not often I play peace maker, but to me, it became fraught when what in my opinion was an ill conceived blog, became the topic of debate - and that in and of itself, should say it all really, given the results it's nature should be self evident.)
We need to sort our own country out.
Then we need to help to sort other countries out and give them aid, but sort them out (financially, economically, infrastructure, governance) otherwise they will never change
The world gets better...
end of
We should give aid to other countries but only on the basis of these countries need to stop spending money on nuclear weapons/space programs as that money could be spent on its own citizens whether you like it or not.
Furthermore we do need to sort out our own country, stop wastage, stop foodbanks, pay a living wage, better fund important (public services) things better, sort out housing shortages, stop tax avoidance, improve green energy, stop rising rail fares, change the upper classes running politics, give kids hope and proper apprenticeships and lots of other things.
Arguing in what order these things are done is up for debate
Then we need to help to sort other countries out and give them aid, but sort them out (financially, economically, infrastructure, governance) otherwise they will never change
The world gets better...
end of
We should give aid to other countries but only on the basis of these countries need to stop spending money on nuclear weapons/space programs as that money could be spent on its own citizens whether you like it or not.
Furthermore we do need to sort out our own country, stop wastage, stop foodbanks, pay a living wage, better fund important (public services) things better, sort out housing shortages, stop tax avoidance, improve green energy, stop rising rail fares, change the upper classes running politics, give kids hope and proper apprenticeships and lots of other things.
Arguing in what order these things are done is up for debate
Sam
TS Member
Ash said:
You could use that argument forever. Country's improve perpetually, it's not like we reach a point where the UK is finally 'completed' or 'sorted out'. What is the benchmark of sorted-outness that you would set... ("giving kids hope" is a bit of a woolly benchmark I'm afraid)? We're one of the richest nations in the world and we can afford to, scratch that, it is our duty to help other nations.
Ash said:
Now we've announced we will no longer be giving aid to India, we definitely don't give any aid to any countries with a space program. I don't believe we give aid to any countries with a nuclear weapons program, possibly with the exception of Pakistan, which is one of the poorest nations on earth. It's not the fault of the Pakistanis that they have a crap government.
Sam
TS Member
Poison Tom 96 said:Exactly. But if we make a wrong move we could trigger warSam said:
Kinda naïve, sorry to be a bit rude. Pakistan have no interest in waging a war with us, no reason at all. The sole reason they have nuclear weapons is because of their on-going conflict with India over Kashmir. India also have nuclear weapons. We have friendly relations with Pakistan - hence the aid.
Dar
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Taron
I think aid is a good idea, it's just the way that aid is provided and used that I don't think is working so well. I don't have figures, but it seems that a lot of the money we send to other countries doesn't actually make it to the people in need.
EDIT: added bit in brown
EDIT: added bit in brown