Who said immigrants have to go back?

I am impressed with the total absence of prejudice among my children and their spouses and friends. I know that when I was their age, we all appeared unprejudiced but there was a hint of discomfort around those whose cultures we did not understand. That has gone I am glad to say.

It is sad that there are those who harbour such prejudices - in the main I see them as people who are afraid: for their jobs, for their homes; and who feel angry and impotent as the bankers squirrel away their bonuses and they continue to scrape along the bottom. People who are from other cultures are an easier target for their anger than the fatcats who are good at hiding.

Successive governments have done nothing to alleviate this problem and much to make it worse. It is frightening.

Elegran, but there was a huge amount of twisting going on. And double speak. It leads to mistrust of posts and the posters who write it. And a number, probably about 6, were posting daily.

It is probably worth adding that for every one "expert" saying one thing, there is another "expert" arguing it the other way.
Especially when it comes to bigger subjects.

I dont think people realise also, that not all gransnetters are retired.
Time is precious.

Also worth saying that average IQ is probably way below yours.

What I alwasy think is, if something is said simple, concise, and easily accessible, than just about everyone has access to it.
Make it long, boring, big words, etc etc, and you immediately probably lose 75% of the listeners, even on this forum.
See how many members gransnet has, and compare it to how many post on the politics threads. The numbers is very small indeed.

The referendum was open to everyone. Any messages needed and need to be suitable for everyone.

Probably on this thread, most readers have long gone for example.

Even the fact it is on news and politics, mean that lots may not have even started reading it.

Before the referendum, I purposely started some threads on chat, so that more gransnetters were likely to at least read the start of it.

Ooh, look! I've found something I completely agree with you about, anniebach: there is no excuse for excusing racism. Agreed. So far so good.

However, you seem to think that someone posting on gransnet has excused or is excusing it. Please could you point out where this occurred?

I don't think people realise also, that not all gransnetters are retired.
Time is precious
And yet by your own admission, obieone you are on "13 threads"?!!
What I alwasy think is, if something is said simple, concise, and easily accessible, than just about everyone has access to it
Make it long, boring, big words, etc etc, and you immediately probably lose 75% of the listeners, even on this forum
See how many members gransnet has, and compare it to how many post on the politics threads. The numbers is very small indeed
(Sic - copied and pasted, not my typos this time)
So you are saying we should all use easy short words, and sentences. Would you like them double spaced as well?
Are correct spelling and grammar permitted?
No disrespect to *Elegran but you are managing to insult everybody else by your insistence on the Ladybird version. When in a hole.....etc
I clearly remember your complaint that you were encountering "long" words which you did not understand in your previous incarnation. Well, here we go again.
I just can't see the relevance of your current moan,and as you are * so much busier* than everybody else, fail to see why you are wasting your time in this way at all.
.

thatbags, you put forward a persons interpretation of racist as - I don't agree with you , unless the person you quoted posts here I said nothing about anyone who posts here

Racism does not mean - I don't agree with you .

So many threads were started which just became catfights, yes. But also a lot of respected established posters gave links to FACTUAL stuff which were ignored.

A very prominent example - the video that I myself praised for its clear account of how things work in the EU, as did about a dozen other people - people generally known for their sensible views. Yes, you had to actually LISTEN TO IT. For all of 25 minutes! A quarter the length of a Disney film!

That is the trouble LISTEN, THINK AND EVALUATE WHAT YOU HEAR. Other people's digested views, simplified into a few words come down to either "You should vote leave and we'll be separate" or "You should vote remain and we'll be together" There is too much detail on either side to condense it and get EVERYTHING into it. Anyone who has been ignoring the subject for the last 40 years will continue to knw nothing or to believe the loudest voice shouting half-truths and downright lies at them.

But don't say that no-one tried to inform you, obieone It is impossible to tell anyone anything if they won't listen to you. None so deaf as those who won't hear.

Agreed. Racism does not mean "I don't agree with you". But the word "racist" is increasingly flung at people who have said nothing racist, but said something that someone else doesn't agre with. You yourself, anniebach have complained about being accused of being racist when what you said was no such thing.

You and thatbags have common ground there, and there are others on that ground too.

I dont expect some people to understand what I am talking about, eg about the video.
And I am actually glad, because it is preciesly that sort of thing which is part of the reason that remain lost.

I only thought it fair to mention it, but now I have, I dont feel the need to do so ever again on this forum. Yippee!

Yes, ab and I agree that racist doesn't mean "I don't agree with you". I don't think MrB thinks it does either. He was speaking metaphorically which, I grant you, is not always the clearest way to express something.

He certainly is pissed off with how much that isn't racist is called racist.

For fuck's sake, obi! Could you please try to make your posts seem just a tad less patronising!

Thank you for explaining thatbags

Since I have been told on here before that I can be patronising, I will have to have a good think about that!

OBone
You couldn't be bothered even trying to understand what that video was about. You watched the first few minutes listening to him tell you WHY he knew what he was talking about, found that boring, so opted out of WHAT he was going to tell you.

What makes you think no-one can understand that?

If you thought that it was all going over your head, did you ask someone who HAD understood it to explain it to you? You have always been very quick to ask about things that are not clear to you in the past.

You passed up the chance to hear what an expert on EU law said, because "one expert contradicts another" No! Other REAL experts in EU law said the same thing.

(This below also applies to others who couldn't distinguish real expertise from bias and prejudiced assumptions and myths)

Experts in other fields gave expert views.

EU law - those who make and interpret those laws explained their relevance.

Finance - those whose job it is to keep the Uk solvent gave their analysis.

Employment statistics - those who keep and interpret records of who is in and out of work and where they came from told us their facts.

it didnt go over my head.

So there are real experts, and non real ecperts?

I am sorry, but as I happen to have a son who would be considered an "expert", and of course I know other "experts" too, they are the first people to tell others that there are many layers of bias and politics going on in unis, and research centres, right across many areas and subjects.

I would have thought, that right before a referendum, that it was the undecideds that needed to be "educated". What on earth was the point in you and others trying to get me, who was never going to change my mind about which way to vote, to listen to it all the way through?

In the days leading up to the election, I was essentially trying to talk to the undecideds.

And you probably persuaded the undecided that there was no point them trying to watch such a "boring" and incomprehensible account of the LEGAL FACTS. Well done! Very helpful.

Lurkers would have read your posts. To be honest, I can't even remember what points you made, but I know some posters came out with outright myths and lies. A number of posters, including me, attempted to debunk those myths with facts. I don't remember if you came up with any convincing arguments. Sorry!

obi said: "[Experts] are the first people to tell others that there are many layers of bias and politics going on in unis, and research centres, right across many areas and subjects".

This is true in my experience too.

Experts are also often very self-deprecating about their expertise too because they know how much they don't know and can't be sure off.

Sorry. Superfluous 'too’

of not off

I sometimes suspect that the undecideds (some of them anyway) are the most educated on any given subject that has a vote attached to it. Another case of it never being simply a black or white decision where complex human arrangements are the issue.

thatbags so if you wanted say to build a new flood defence, or construct a new wild life habitat or ensure fish nurseries are cared for and protected - what would you do? Turn to someone with expertise in the subject or say oh clearly there will be layers of bias in this subject, so I'll bumble ahead and do my own thing?

This argument falls at the first hurdle.

Indeed! That's why it's as well to be wary of people why claim to know the one and only answer. It's far better to seek out facts from raw data or first hand sources then make up your own mind. What 'experts' will have done is draw together facts from various sources and if you've done your homework, you can evaluate what they say. Expertise can be checked by researching an expert's background and legitimacy.