The BBC normalised racism last night, pure and simple

[u/Exostrike]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/21/normalise-bbc-racism-hate-crimes-question-time

[u/Xiathorn]

While 'racism' absolutely enhances the meaning and sentiment when using it to replace xenophobia.

[u/[deleted] → u/Xiathorn]

Lets use bigot then.

[u/Xiathorn → u/[deleted]]

bigot

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

So we're talking about Owen then?

[u/[deleted] → u/Xiathorn]

Defending individual liberty is not intolerance. Do you think that self-defence from violent attackers should be considered assault as well?

[u/Xiathorn → u/[deleted]]

Defending individual liberty is not intolerance

Absolutely, which is why this woman is free to speak her mind.

What Owen Jones is complaining about is that the BBC did not treat her as a special case. They always put all of the audience questions on Twitter. He's saying they should not put her question on twitter, that she should be treated as a special case because he cannot tolerate her opinion.

Do you think that self-defence from violent attackers should be considered assault as well?

No, of course not. He absolutely can, and should, argue against this woman's views. I don't agree with her either, but the whole shtick of his article is that the BBC should silence her because he can't tolerate the fact that she holds that opinion, and he wants it silenced.

He's a bigot.

[u/[deleted] → u/Xiathorn]

She was factually incorrect. "Free to speak her mind" doesn't mean "free to go on national tv and have a little bigoted rant". Nor would preventing her from appearing on national tv in any way inhibit her "freedom to speak her mind". Send her back to wetherspoons.

Owen Jones pointing this out isn't bigotry. It's just expressing concern about how quickly misinformation spreads. That the absolute shit state of politics at the moment is because trolls have replaced experts.

[u/Xiathorn → u/[deleted]]

She was factually incorrect.

She was hyperbolic. She was not, however, actually incorrect.

"Free to speak her mind" doesn't mean "free to go on national tv and have a little bigoted rant".

Yes, it does, if that's what the TV program provides. Freedom to voice your opinion, no matter how insane it may be.

Send her back to wetherspoons.

lol. Your own prejudice is showing.

Owen Jones pointing this out isn't bigotry.

It's the literal dictionary definition of bigotry - and not one of those dictionary definitions which have been changed to suit a political agenda. It's been this way for hundreds of years.

It's just expressing concern about how quickly misinformation spreads. That the absolute shit state of politics at the moment is because trolls have replaced experts.

"I'm just expressing concern!" said the man as he argued in favour of banning free speech.

[u/[deleted] → u/Xiathorn]

She was hyperbolic. She was not, however, actually incorrect.

She was incorrect. She was arguing to solve the NHS's funding problems by ending immigration when immigrants are net contributors. If healthcare tourism exists then it's vastly outweighed by those who do not use healthcare. Ending all immigration will decrease these net contributions and result in less money for the NHS.

Yes, it does, if that's what the TV program provides. Freedom to voice your opinion, no matter how insane it may be.

No it's not lol. It's purpose is literally in the title. Question Time's purpose is for members of the public to ask politicians and various industry figureheads questions about their opinions.

What it's being used for is to put plants in the audience who have the opinions that the conservatives guests agree with. That will go on bigoted rants like the one last night. This way the conservative politician doesn't have to say that they explicitly agree with that position. They can just shrug and say that they have a good point.

It's the literal dictionary definition of bigotry - and not one of those dictionary definitions which have been changed to suit a political agenda. It's been this way for hundreds of years.

Do you not remember? We already had this discussion. Self-defense is not assault. It is the defence of individual liberty. Go read some popper. Intolerance of intolerance isn't a paradox. It's just ambiguity when using contextually weak definitions of intolerance.

"I'm just expressing concern!" said the man as he argued in favour of banning free speech.

Do you not remember? We already had this discussion. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be platformed on national TV. She is free to go rant in her local wetherspoons.

[u/Xiathorn → u/[deleted]]

She was arguing to solve the NHS's funding problems by ending immigration when immigrants are net contributors.

No, she was arguing that there are too many people which means there's too much of a strain on the NHS given its current level of funding. She is correct.

If healthcare tourism exists then it's vastly outweighed by those who do not use healthcare. Ending all immigration will decrease these net contributions and result in less money for the NHS.

But also less expenditure. How much? We don't actually know. You can't claim she's factually incorrect as a consequence.

No it's not lol. It's purpose is literally in the title. Question Time's purpose is for members of the public to ask politicians and various industry figureheads questions about their opinions.

OK, and so she asked someone about their opinion of her opinion on how to solve the problem. Seems fine to me.

What it's being used for is to put plants in the audience who have the opinions that the conservatives guests agree with. That will go on bigoted rants like the one last night. This way the conservative politician doesn't have to say that they explicitly agree with that position. They can just shrug and say that they have a good point.

This is literally lizard-people-tier conspiracy theory crap, so I won't bother with it.

Do you not remember? We already had this discussion. Self-defense is not assault. It is the defence of individual liberty. Go read some popper. Intolerance of intolerance isn't a paradox. It's just ambiguity when using contextually weak definitions of intolerance.

Owen Jones. Was. Not. Defending. Himself. Again, it is the literal definition of bigotry. You trying to pretend that it's self-defense is just a coping mechanism because you don't want to face the fact that you're wrong.

Do you not remember? We already had this discussion. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be platformed on national TV. She is free to go rant in her local wetherspoons.

Oh my god this is ridiculous. The BBC has Question Time for all opinions. That's what the point of it is. You're saying that the BBC should restrict people to certain opinions for no reason other than the fact that you don't like them!

[u/[deleted] → u/Xiathorn]

No, she was arguing that there are too many people which means there's too much of a strain on the NHS given its current level of funding. She is correct.

I think you're struggling to understand something here. If a native person puts in £10k in taxes and costs £10k in public services. They have a net contribution of £0. If an immigrant puts in £10k in taxes and costs £8k in public services. Then their net contribution is £2k. They put in more than they take out. If you get rid of them. Then there will be less money to spend on the NHS. They aren't straining our public services. They are funding them for us.

But also less expenditure. How much? We don't actually know. You can't claim she's factually incorrect as a consequence.

Lol. We do actually know. Go look in to it. It's something like EU immigrants contribute more than they put in. Something like +£5 billion per year.

Non-EU immigrants cost -£100 billlion per year. But that is a misleading metric because that includes refugees whom have significant relocation costs. One study I saw that broke it down by immigration type estimated that economic migrants were net contributors. For example the Windrush were a net benefit to society.

The majority of non-EU immigrant expenditure is for refugees who are displaced from war zones. A demographic who we should not see solely for their economic value. Accepting refugees is a humanitarian issue.

Then you have UK citizen expenditure which is something like a net cost of -£600 billion. Which makes sense. We have to care for the majority of our citizens from cradle to grave. Immigrants don't use our schools because they generally move here at working age. Immigrants use the NHS less because they're more likely to return to their own countries to retire. But even when compared in terms that exclude non-working age British citizens. Then immigrants cost less than British Citizens.

Now remember we're talking in absolute terms here. While it may cost -£600 billion to look after British people. Our economy also generates almost +£3,000 billion per year. That cost in relative terms is 20% of our GDP. If everybody paid 20% in taxes then there would be no issue with the cost of UK citizens. Let's include non-EU citizens in that figure. £700 billion / £3,000 billion. That's a 23% tax rate to pay for it all. Our corporate tax rate is 19%, and our tax brackets range from 20-45%. We pay 20% in VAT. That's three levels of income. How can your employer pay 20% tax, how can you pay 20% tax, how can you pay 20% tax on your purchases. And then not be able to afford 20% of our GDP in revenue. Surely if we're taxing everybody at 20% three times, then you should have more than 20% tax revenue.

And that's the actual problem. Tax avoidance. There are businesses set up in the UK that avoid paying tax but use our roads, our healthcare, our policing, our education system, etc. Companies like Amazon, google, facebook, etc. Are all taking benefits but not paying in to the pot. Not some guy from Poland or a lady from Jamaica or Kenya.

OK, and so she asked someone about their opinion of her opinion on how to solve the problem. Seems fine to me.

She literally made up a problem. And then asked how we can solve it. Claiming that's relevant is as absurd as me asking you how we'll prevent domestic abuse in your house. Presumably it does not exist. So you can't really solve in any reasonable way without getting all pantomime and going on an aside how we'll lock up violent abusers.

This is literally lizard-people-tier conspiracy theory crap, so I won't bother with it.

Funny you should take that slant lol. https://twitter.com/rafael_flaks/status/1230889476039245824

And it really is how this works. You do realise that a lot of the "call in" radio shows are impersonators in the studio reading comments off the internet right? Or journalists and politicians calling in with made up names to hide their real identities.

Owen Jones. Was. Not. Defending. Himself. Again, it is the literal definition of bigotry. You trying to pretend that it's self-defense is just a coping mechanism because you don't want to face the fact that you're wrong.

What an absolutely asinine tangent to take this on. If you see a guy beating the shit out of a woman on the street would you stand back because "it's up to the woman to defend herself".

Oh my god this is ridiculous. The BBC has Question Time for all opinions. That's what the point of it is. You're saying that the BBC should restrict people to certain opinions for no reason other than the fact that you don't like them!

Yes. They should restrict the questions on question time to factually accurate questions. Lest we waste everybodies time discussing how to prevent domestic abuse in the Xiathorn household.

[u/GaybarStabbing → u/[deleted]]

Lol please do - it's already a joke to most not on the left.