to think that howling at people that they are racist is not...

[fidelineish]

..the best way to challenge their thinking or change their views?

It crops up on here frequently and it is only going to become more frequent as UKIP campaigning steps up.

If you want to change rather than entrench expressed views then you need to give the other person a way of changing their mind and agreeing with you that doesn't force them implicitly first to agree that they are a vile and nasty person (rather than, say, mistaken or misinformed or confused).

So I do think it matters how you make an accusation of an -ism - whether it's directed at the person or the opinion, for instance. I don't think anyone has to shut up and not identify racism where they see it, but I think it can make a difference how you do it. The 'gentle prod' to find out where someone's views come from seems like a good thing even if ultimately you end up saying no, their opinion is unalloyed racism, or even that they are fundamentally a racist.

The other thing to remember is that 'racism' is just a word, a shorthand for a described set of prejudices, that are wrong in themselves and not because of the word we use for them. They are wrong, and we give them the name 'racism' - in that order, not the other way round.

Any time we find ourselves wanting to say "that's wrong because it's racist", we should (without changing any meaning) be able to substitute "that's wrong because it's... treating people differently based on their skin colour", or "that's wrong, because it... assumes just because someone is from this group they will be like this" or whatever longer description is most appropriate.

People who hear an accusation of "racist" and interpret it as just "hey, she's calling me evil!" can get so outraged about that they don't pay any attention to the underlying reason for the accusation. I wonder if some might be more likely to see a fault in their own thinking if we don't only use the word "racist" but sometimes also use the longer explanations for which "racist" is just shorthand.

I agree that sometimes the most intractable poster in a discussion is less important as an audience than the other people who may be reading.

Why oh why have I got drawn in.

So your argument is bullshit.

That's about the long and short of it.

I'll ask again, show me a racist UKIP policy?

gordy I did not express myself well, sorry.

I meant that we cannot see the colour of those with whom we debate, and I think racist is a foul term to bandy about in the dark and in the UK it seems to be a casual term used very often against white people who are concerned about immigration. There are many non-white UK citizens of my acquaintance who also have concerns and who debate this issue without recourse to calls each other racists.

I think that's what I meant! Posting with a noisy houseful

If you want to change rather than entrench expressed views then you need to give the other person a way of changing their mind and agreeing with you that doesn't force them implicitly first to agree that they are a vile and nasty person (rather than, say, mistaken or misinformed or confused).

Perfectly put lighthouse

I'll ask you again Caruthers, explain the term "local people" that is littered through the manifesto, then we can all be sure we are understanding correctly and apologise if necessary.

UKIP are certainly anti-elephant. (see blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100268720/why-in-gods-name-did-ukip-vote-against-fighting-the-illegal-ivory-trade/ )

we are less tolerant of casual racism maybe - it's casual racism that allows the seeds of hate to be sown and makes people less able to speak up in the face of worse offenses

And I swear if you throw out "well Islam isn't a race" you negate any stance you may have

That has to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted on MN. Islam is not a race. It is a belief system or a religion. Muslims come from all ethnic backgrounds.

The ignorance on here is quite stupefying.

Softlysoftly you are conflating very separate issues i.e. internal domestic UK policies and our obligations as a member state of the EU. There is nothing to explain.

There is no point in even trying toexplain why those of you who shout 'racist' are so wrong. If I showed you the profiles of prospective UKIP candidates of various ethnicities I would be called 'racist' - that's already happened on MN. If I don't attempt to tell you that UKIP has prospective candidates of diverse ethnicities you remain in your blissful ignorance.

It's lose / lose situation so I won't bother trying as as sure as eggs is eggs I predict that some moron will accuse me of being a racist.

I like this from their 2014 manifesto

No to Political Correctness - it stifles free speech

so no definition of 'political correctness' but the implication that they will, erm, stifle free speech to prevent the erm stifling of free speech - or something

FFS! Fide. I have explained 'local people' twice upthread.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel Gordy.

A lot of people are calling UKIP racists without actually proving it by highlighting their racist policies so we can all judge and scowl along with them.

No wonder UKIP are going to be doing so well with all this left wing smoke and mirrors shenanigans muddying the water.

so no definition of 'political correctness' but the implication that they...

It's quite the Modus Operandi, isn't it, Gordy this failing to define?

So very dog-whistle.

Most councils give preference to 'Local people' when housing is considered.

It wasn't UKIP that enforced the agenda of institutionalised racism within the Met and other organisations.

And it wasn't UKIP that brought in ATOS to instil fear into the disabled.

Add to that the warmongering of the labour and Tories and you will see just how twisted the logic is to shout at UKIP crying big bad wolf.

how so WetAugust ? - genuinely confused - that is from their manifesto - it is what they say they stand for - it's clear as mud isn't it

can you define political correctness for me? and what it means to my freedom of speech not to be allowed to express politically correct views?

You mean the other thread Wet?

Political correctness like this?

Ukip’s only female MEP (after the expulsion of Nikki Sinclaire) Marta Andreasen, recently threatened to leave the party, labelling Farage as an “anti-women Stalinist dictator” whose view is that “women should be in the kitchen or in the bedroom”.
This came as no surprise. His grasp of sexual politics has always been tenuous at best. As he explained in a Telegraph interview: “Lap dancing? Don’t have the time these days, but I used to go to them. Like it or not, they are a fact of life. You are talking about normal behaviour there. Everyone does it.” Then, asked about extra-marital affairs, he conceded: “Well, we’re all human. There is a big difference between that sort of thing and being really bad.”
When Godfrey Bloom MEP, infamous for making a speech in the European Parliament – one of his better ones – while heavily intoxicated, said that “no employer with a brain in the right place would employ a young, single, free woman”, Farage’s reaction was “Dear old Godders! Godfrey's comment [as above] has been proved so right.”

"In 2013 Nigel Farage put forward that we should allow Christian refugees from Syria but NOT muslim refugees"

That seems very clearly prejudiced to me in a way that no one could justify. I'm not sure whether racist rather than xenophobic is the right word though.

Some people seem to think that if all we need to do is get people to agree the best word for something is "racist", and then they'll see it's wrong?

Surely it's just wrong, full stop, and if anything it may be the other way round? If you can persuade someone that it's wrong, prejudiced, unjustified, uncivilized and unacceptable to discriminate in a particular way, then surely that's the main thing? Persuading them that it's also describable as "racism" then seems like something extra - worth doing for general education, but not as important as persuading them that that thing is wrong in the first place.

I'm not so stupid that I will try to define political correctness on this thread - nice try Gordy but whatever I said would have them screaming racist, disabilist, homophobe the minute I wrote the first few words!

You know what's PC and what's not PC.

I listened to R5 the other day when the phone in was about parenting (or lack of). A nursery owner rang in and Nicky Campbell asked her if any of the children she cared for did not know how to use a knife and fork.

Her response: I cant say.

Why not?

Her response: Well that would be judgmental.

WTAF?

That's political correctness gone mad - when you can't even answer a straight question for fear of offending someone.

I've said it before - we'll all end up just grunting at each other because all other forms of communication will be non-PC to someone.

Thanks for starting the thread op!

From the links on here, it seems like they are changing what they do?

she's protecting the kids privacy - that's her job - how is that PC?

UKIP can't define what is PC - and ukip supporter(s) can't - are we just supposed to know what UKIP find PC and stop doing it? or what?

I define PC as not knowingly being homophobic, racist, disablist, ageist, sexist or bigoted

ukip want me to stop not being racist, homophobic disablist etc ?

and if I continue to be PC what will happen - and what about my freedom of speech?

you are voting for these people - you should at the very least be able to attempt to answer questions on their maifesto

Caruthers you skipped the part where you explain away how allowing Christian not muslim refugees in isn't racist? Or at least defining decisions based on faith with is equally as bigoted? Only I blew your "where would the Christians go" argument away with actusl stats and you seem to have sidestepped that.

Do you also honestly believe "local" means born to the vilkage hospital? Are you that naive? And if that's the case how does that work when our economy is based on people going where the xwork is? Does everyone born in Bradford get fucked for even attempting social mobility as they darent go south for better opportunities?

Wet Actually I would dispute that as if you ask a Muslim if they are muslim or "x" nationality first the answer is muslim above all else. Disregarding that your argument is semantics of language. Is it or is it nit indicative of UKIP not being an equal and free to all party for them to support only refugees from a particular religion?

Well if you tune in to the telly at 17:55 tonight you can watch their party political broadcast and start to understand what they are about -instead of guessing.

I think I agree with you OP. I started a thread yesterday on In The News about UKIP because I was stunned by the incompetence of Kay Burley's interview with him on Sky News.

She kept accusing him of racism and no matter what he might privately believe, he has not expressed racist views.

Xenophobic, protectionist, bigoted - yes. Racist, no. To my mind he made her look foolish.

I also confessed to a temptation to vote UKIP in the European elections to give Cameron a bloody nose. No, I won't, but I dearly want to hurt him.

Just like I dearly want to hurt people who have allowed, indeed welcomed, a situation in this country and others which has diminished employment rights. I strongly suspect that UKIP aren't very sound on workers' rights either.

I want to stress that no one called me racist on that thread though. And reading the views of UKIP supporters made me realise that maybe that's not the way for me to make a stand against Dave. However tempting.

So, for me, at least, that's proved your point, OP.

I have to say I failed to share the joy of the play on UKIP's poster that someone posted earlier about immigrants starting businesses and offering employment.

There are businesses and businesses run by people of all nationalities offering employment. I reserve the right to be picky about those people I'd call good or bad employers and that's not necessarily related to your country of origin. However, as a rule of thumb, when there is a pool of cheap labour, employees get shafted. And most of us are employees.

Bob Crow, one of my heroes, used to say the same thing. Would he have voted UKIP or become a candidate? I don't know. If he did, would I have followed suit? No, but it doesn't mean I can't agree on some things.

but Wet I am not guessing - I am reading their manifesto!

I am also asking one of their supporters - who, in voting for them must have some knowledge of what they will do if they are in power

their policies tell you nothing

neither can their supporters it would seem