AIBU to think that UKIP don't just hate women, gays, and immigrants but also children?

[ReallyAngryBeavers]

We've had another pile of shit bit of post from UKIP today.

Firstly I am an immigrant I am here by virtue of my EU passport. Should the UK choose to leave the European Union my children would have right to stay but I wouldn't. So I admit I am biased.

There brochure says that grandparents will be given visitation rights. Being that most abuses cases will never go to court and there won't be a "track record" of abuse...shouldn't we leave it to parents to decide who the fuck we give our children to?

They want to cap benefits at 2 children. So people who lose their jobs at 4 kids can just let the last two starve right?

The brochure also promises starting out with 50/50 shared custody. Right, that's great if the majority of families were already practicing 50/50 parenting but as any regular reader of the relationships board can tell you.. There are a lot of absentee dads who are not doing the job while married to their wives. The time is not after the marriage has dissolved to let them play at being a parent so they don't have to pay child support and a woman who has potentially already given up their wage to be a sahp can just be totally fucked over while dad still has all the earning potential.

They want to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European court of Human Rights.

They state "business should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers".

They want to alter the smoking ban, because he why not give everyone working in the pubs cancer while we're ruining the country.

They want to repeal the climate change act. In fact next to immigration they've got loads of legislation to destroy the environment for future generations in the works. Whohoo.

I don't vote UKIP and never will but in my experience it is the Labour Party that demonstrates actual, visceral dislike of certain people or views. Ironic, given their belief that they own the 'moral high ground'.

And yet it's the coalition government spinning the insidious little narrative of shirker and worker and allowing the press to continue with the victimisation of the poor. Welcome to 1930s Germany.

"And yet it's the coalition government spinning the insidious little narrative of shirker and worker and allowing the press to continue with the victimisation of the poor. Welcome to 1930s Germany."

I call Godwin's Law.

Oh and by the way, it was Labour's that introduced the narrative of which you speak.

'They are simply saying that young, British born people should go to the top of the CV list when there's a vacancy.' What does that even mean? I'm an employer. Why shouldn't I be able to pick the best candidate when there's a vacancy? What is a CV list? The shortlist for interview? Why only young people? Telling me I have to shortlist candidates who aren't as good as other candidates I'd rather shortlist, and therefore appoint a candidate who isn't as good as those I wasn't allowed to see, way to go to start damaging businesses.

To be fair, none of the parties has produced their manifesto yet.

No, but we can guess pretty well what those manifestos from the Big Two, Lib Dem & Greens will contain. UKIP's last manifesto included the recommendation that people with disabilities be kept in their own communities, so I'm sure their newest one will be an interesting read.

Extremely bad taste comparing the UK to 1930's Germany on this day of all days. I am gobsmacked at the lows some people will stoop to to make a point.

'Welcome to 1930's Germany' is not a comparison and poster wasn't referring to UKIP. There is no comparison to be made between the UK in 2015 and 1930's Germany.

It's killed the discussion, and is intellectually lazy. But please, don't let me interrupt your histrionics,

MrsDeVere

And Hitler didn't start by killing Jews.
He started by othering and vilifying.
Propaganda was his initial weapon.

Of course you can make comparisons.

If you think hard enough and quit being so lazy.

What is lazy is making comparisons such as this.

Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"

It is also often accepted as showing someone has run out of arguments and, rather than concede defeat, they resort to hyperbolic abuse.

For what it is worth, Mike Godwin himself has also been quoted thus, "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust."

'And Hitler didn't start by killing Jews.
He started by othering and vilifying.
Propaganda was his initial weapon.'

I think we all know this by the age of 11.

1. Godwins law is an internet joke. You should probably take it less seriously.

1. It's supposed to be used when someone, say, mentions "feminazi" or when someone says that the recycling nazis are ruining everyone's live.

Saying that a party with ties to the far right that wants to literally "send people back" while councilors in their party are using words like chinky and poofter and saying that they have a problem with black people's face is a totally fair comparison. You see? See how that works?

Godwins Law is used with regards to ''incidence(s) of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons." ie using Hitler/Nazi comparisons with terms like 'breastapo' - to use it with regards to a political party which plays on the fears of people who feel as though they are alienated, and using a section of society (the 'benefit scroungers' and immigrants) as a focus for the resentment of those 'ordinary people' is completely appropriate.

I see the Left are seeking to reclaim Godwin's Law so that comparisons to Nazi Germany are appropriate when they do it but if the Centre or the Right use it against them then that is inappropriate.

This is how they seek to shut down debate and close off opinions that they consider unsound or dangerous. Much like many totalitarian regimes in fact!

Huh (I think I may have 'huh-ed you before!) - no the whole point is, if you were going to, say, bring a comparison between Communist regimes and Nazis or something that Ed Miliband said and Hitler, then citing 'Godwins Law' would be spurious because you are using (albeit extreme) political comparisons within context. If we were talking about dog food and you compared me to a Nazi for feeding my dog pedigree chum, that would be when shouting about Godwins Law would be appropriate.

Simple as...

Wilts, go easy on your shift key there. No need to abuse the poor bloody thing.

I tend to find that those who like to ascribe certain views or behaviours to A Group, it is a pretty neat way of avoiding discussion of the issue by refocusing attention on The (Disliked, Ill-Defined) Group and who allegedly fit into that box. That way, the issue never has to be actually examined.

But there is probably some 'other' category I unlnowingly belong to that makes me think that, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Never mind, Godwin's Law, Mrs de Vere, you need to familiarise yourself with the logical fallacy of "ad hominem".

People like you make it literally impossible to have any kind of political discussion on MN. Far too desperate to get in with the personal insults. Why?

We have a GE coming up...lots of issues raised by lots of parties.

Can we discuss them all rationally? Can we fuck. If UKIP said it, you are an "idiot" for even mentioning it...just because you are. Because of Nazi Germany. And because I, Mrs de Vere, say so.

Quite a few people might feel inclined to vote UKIP. I think it would be better for the country if they didn't.

What's more likely to sway them? People calling them idiots and refusing to discuss matters...or sensible discussions?

.

I think anyone who denies that there is a tide of extreme right-wing sentiment in Europe, who denies that 'othering' goes on and not just in the UK, who does not see the swing of the pendulum happening is naive at best and approves of it all at worst.

Tryingtofindausername

What does that even mean? I have no idea - I didn't draft UKIPs policies and I don't speak for them.

I would imagine, when it comes down it, that their argument is:

Young people are finding it hard to get jobs. Young Europeans come over here willy nilly and get jobs. So, faced with a British 18 year old and a Polish 18 year old with exactly the same attributes and qualifications an employer should be free to pick the British worker simply because he's British and say so.

Do I agree with them?

No, I don't.

All I have said on this thread is we have enough reasons not to vote for UKIP without manipulating what they do say and then beating them up with our own invented sticks...as the OP did.

Because Byrne mentioned it once, in a conference speech, doesn't mean he spun the tale and certainly doesn't mean he continued it, thereby ensuring that the Fail etc use the analogy on a weekly basis.

Abortion is hardly the best way to limit family size when there are numerous other methods that are far more effective and less traumatic.

See no harm in capping child benifits.. Can't afford it don't have it.

Positive discrimination is nothing new and it happens everyday.

And it's the eu meddling that's screwed us over so we now have hoovers that aren't powerful enough bulbs that don't work and criminals with no fear..

I'm not saying ukip are the answer just agreeing with another poster that they will be a popular party as people have had enough of the current governments bashing