AIBU to think this quote sums up Tommy Robinson and his supporters?

[Gingerbreadtree]

The quote is taken from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell's essay on Fascim in 1940,

"The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other."

To me it sums them up, but it sums up a lot of the far right in general. The same could be said about Farage and many of his supporters too.

What's not true? That asylum seekers are not committing crimes against women and girls?

Whilst I don't disagree about Russian interference manipulating the population, I think pretending that these crimes are not being committed actually plays right into their hands. If some factions of the public more vulnerable to the manipulation of far right groups feel they are being 'gaslit' or their legitimate concerns about violence against women and girls are being minimised, they will migrate more towards the people they feel are being more honest about it, and then become more likely to 'believe' and fall in line with the other stuff that goes along with their ideologies. The fact that TR and Reform don't actually care about the sexual assaults of women other than when they can weaponise it, doesn't come into it, as they hide behind what is in that instance a 'truth'. The actual truth needs to be put out there in the first instance, no excuses made, and be strongly dealt with regardless of who the perpetrators are. And, not least because women and girls deserve it, they deserve protecting.

I often see the quote that "diversity is our strength" - could you explain how that is the case. I mean South Korea or Japan or even India are not particularly diverse and they seem to be pretty strong.

Also could you please explain how immigration is a net benefit to people's lives?

I am not saying that you are wrong but these phrases of "diversity is our strength" or "the country needs immigration "
are frequently said as if they are immutable truths but I have never seen an explanation why? And to even raise the question "why" is usually dismissed as racist or far right or fascist etc etc.

Obviously I’m not the poster you asked this to, but my understanding of ‘diversity is our strength’ is that diversity helps make us stronger because it helps avoid things like groupthink and mob mentality.

That then helps lead to new ideas and to think about things differently. I think the benefit of that it helps keep us open to new things and adaptable, rather than getting stuck in a certain way of life or pattern of thinking and being scared of change.

I’m all for it - I think it’s really beneficial and important.

In terms of where South Korea and Japan come into it, there are different ways of defining diversity and strength. As they’re monocultural societies, they’re not very diverse in terms of their culture, but they learn from other countries, so maybe they’re diverse in terms of where they get their ideas from?

Japan and South Korea are also rapidly ageing, so lack of diversity will not be their strength for very long. I think yes, it means that you have different perspectives. If you read Matthew Syeds ' Rebel ideas' it explains it better. He talked about things like the US s curry forces being full of WASP Ivy League men, and completely blindsided by the cultural differences of the Middle East because they were all from such a similar background. Obviously there is a balance, and the different outlooks needs to be for the pursual of common ideals and objectives. Once you have ' diversity' that seeks to undermine me comments n goals and values then clearly that is detrimental.

What are the curry forces?

Oops! I was 2 lunchtime cocktails down! Security forces!

Say what now? There's nothing 'silent' about that noxious toad.

Turned a blind eye? Same as Saville and Rolf Harris then, and countless others . It's men that are the issue, not just specific types. Which of my 'claims' are generalised and unevidenced - the fact that Yaxley-Lennon counts sex offenders among his mates? The fact that many of his followers have been convicted of sexual and domestic abuse, which given the woeful conviction rates of these crimes would suggest abusive thugs are vastly overrepresented amongst his followers.

Are you seriously defending Yaxley-Lennon? Good grief.

Firstly thank you for giving a considered response rather than dismissing my point.

I totally get your group think and mob mentality point. But surely that is a question of open mindedness and education approach.

If you educate everyone in a very rote manner as for example in China, then you absolutely get group think as well as stifling creativity. But if you have an education that encourages different views and interpretations as well as individualism then this absolutely creates diversity of views. But where people come from or to be blunt the colour of their skin is (as it should be) totally irrelevant to this. You could have group think from a group with a variation of ethnicity just as you could have a diversity of views with a single ethnic group.

Lastly I completely agree with you that South Korea and Japan are open to taking ideas from other countries, but this is in order their own country / economy whilst retaining their own culture.

But this could also relate to gender ideologues. I think there are many causes this could relate to.

Why is that transphobic? I mean, if a trans identified male just wanted to “do his business”,why can he not do it in the men’s? If it’s no big deal, surely they’ll be perfectly safe in the men’s

Again I'm confused. I agree that Japan and S Korea are ageing societies ( interestingly while looking at this I discovered that Germany is actually a more aged society than S Korea).

But surely that is a question of birth rate rather than diversity. Also is an ageing society necessarily a bad thing? Yes you have to get through a generation of fewer workers providing for more retirees but after 25 or 30 years that problem disappears (crudely because the larger number of retirees die off). You are then left with a smaller population which is surely a good thing from an environmental and economic perspective - same economic resources / infrastructure but less people to share it with.

Also I am not necessarily agreeing with you, but why do you think that Japan's and S Korea's current lack of diversity is a strength. I mean I get the PP point about avoiding "group think" but this is achievable with or without a less ethnically diverse population.

To be honest I still don't get the logic of why "diversity is our strength". And does it mean a diversity of ethnicities or a diversity of mindsets?

I agree with you that open-mindedness helps avoid group think.

I also think diversity, in its broadest sense, helps avoid group think. That’s because a diverse group of people - e.g. of different genders, ethnicities, social groups - will have different lived experiences and beliefs. That makes it quite likely that each of them will have slightly different views, which will help keep their discussion broad.

To make this work though, you do need - as you say - to have an education that encourages different views and interpretations.

I agree you could have group think from a group with a variation of ethnicities. So, to avoid that, I think you need to create an environment where diverse people - using, say, the criteria I mentioned above - can come together and share their views to get a meaningful outcome. And to do that, I think you need to create a safe and welcoming space allowing for as much diversity as possible and also for respectful debate.

These are just my initial thoughts!

Inclusive of everyone - except anyone who doesn't agree with me because they're all bigots. The Labour Party are the same.

Women are just repeating what these men say themselves about their behaviour and motivations. You seem to think feminists made this up out of thin air but the evidence is all over the Internet. There are subreddits where these men share their experiences of doing this quite openly. Are women not allowed to discuss this? Be concerned about it?
Why do you think so?

Naw. "Transphobic" now means "knows humans can't change sex"
Also means "doesn't want men in women's loos, changing rooms, shelters, sports or prisons"
And "can tell which people are male or female by looking at them"

So technically, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is Transphobic.

Right. Because validation is the most important thing. If we don't validate a man's untruths/delusions we must be bigots? Got it.

Almost forgot to add. Also Frankenstein.

What does this mean?

I'm getting really sick of the patently bigoted way that so many people online think that they can behave thanks to he who shall not be named buying out twitter and turning it into his own personal rage site. Would it actually kill you to be a decent chuffing human being and not refer to trans women as 'men'? How dare you invalidate a human beans lived experience.

Are people identifying as beans now too? I just can't keep up 😂

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/movies/articles/frankenstein-transphobic-claims-non-binary-163807651.html

Exactly this.

Always follow the money.

I was recently at Auschwitz and do you know what got me, what made me feel the weight of what had happened there, what made me cry in public, what made me furiously, incandescently angry and feeling like I couldn't get a breath?

Not the hideous accommodation blocks, not the gas chamber, not the piles of shoes, or the spectacles or the train tracks not even the room of human hair.

What hit me in the deepest part of my soul was a glass case with a type of carpet underlay made from hair from Jews who arrived there. It was processed by forty factories.

Forty.

Forty factories owned and operated by people processing the hair of murdered men, women and children. Quite literally industrialising the materials of murder. To carpet homes.

How could that many people be complicit, how could people profit from this and live with themselves?

It turns out many can, and indeed men like Tommy Robinson, Donald Trump and Farage revel in it.

Calling trans "women" women invalidates my lived experience as a person living my life with all the physical, social, economic and cultural consequences of being female.

Why do you think a man's self image as a woman because of something in his mind is more relevent to what I am than my own?

Do you really believe the difference between men and women is not simply our bodies but something in our minds? That some ways of thinking make a person a man, and others, a woman?

I'm sorry, but if your perspective on men and women truly is that sexist, then I give your concept of "bigotry" as much credence and respect as I do that of TR and his fans when they complain of the "racism" suffered by white people.