What would the Left call the Right, if the small boat people were white?

[Blondiebeachbabe]

I'll start by saying, I am very anti open boarders, and I am horrified that so many illegal immigrants are arriving every day. But for me, it has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour, it is more to do with :

ONE) They have no documentation, and we have no idea if they have criminal backgrounds

TWO) They tend to come from cultures where women are not respected

THREE) They often come from places where rape is not a crime

FOUR) They cannot work, and it is costing Millions to house, feed and clothe them

FIVE) We are granting asylum to some people who should never get it - like the Hamas bodyguard we heard of yesterday

Lots of valid reasons I feel, however, for me, it has nothing to do with skin colour. If I had to be locked in a room overnight with a white man from a backward culture, or a black man from the UK, I would choose the latter, every single time.

It isn't colour, it's culture

But I see that people on the Far Left just scream "Racist" to anyone who opposes illegal immigration. What would they scream, if all the small boats were full of white men? And would people still march for England?

I see people as individuals, rather than as stereotypical products of their respective cultures.

There are some men who have been born and raised in relatively egalitarian societies who are horribly misogynistic and dangerous.

And there are some men who have been brought up in societies where women's rights are much more restricted who are deeply committed feminists.

And there will be many men in both types of society that fall somewhere in between.

I find that it's better not to make assumptions, personally.

There are also women who commit violent sexual assault, and men who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

And yet you’d have to be a fucking idiot to deny the existence of male pattern violence.

It's almost like the Pakistani Grooming Gangs didn't exist.........

Meanwhile, in the real World, we really can't afford to swan about like Polly Anna with our heads in the clouds.

In the "real world", you are statistically at much greater risk from your partner or spouse than you are from a random asylum seeker in the street.

The system deals very badly with risk. There’s no vetting. The Home Office find it hard to return men who are a risk.

It means they need a whole raft of people saying it doesn’t matter, that the violence shouldn’t be looked at. Or other lines of accusation for discussion on the violence (far right etc).

As otherwise a new system that serves women and girls better could get voted in, and they get voted out with that.

I really don't understand this kind of reasoning. Just because statistically you are more likely to be attacked by a partner, doesn't mean that we should not be concerned, about thousands of men coming here from a culture where women are still stoned to death. I mean, if you want to increase your chances of being attacked a thousand fold, go ahead, but why would you want to expose yourself, and your daughters, and grandaughters, like this? Why? Just why?

What is your evidence that the risk to women is increased "a thousand fold" by the presence of asylum seekers? If you are going to make this kind of statement, you need to have hard evidence to back it up. You can't just make things up.

We can't live our lives purely on the basis of minimising risk. If we did, then no woman would ever live with a male partner and we probably wouldn't ever leave our homes. There are wider considerations involved in most of our decisions, and we have to balance all of our risk assessments against those considerations.

Personally, I think you are massively overestimating the risk, probably because you are getting your information primarily from sources which encourage you to perceive asylum seekers as a risk. I have a different perspective, as I have volunteered with hundreds of male asylum seekers who have never treated me with anything other than respect and courtesy.

Depressing stuff I agree. The point of a government is to minimise risk, ie put in a better system of entry.

Bizarre to see arguments for anything else.

Every post. They want a lot more rapes first and evidence of a lot more rapes, there's never going to be enough for them. They are like the barristers that get men off rape charges by undermining victims.

I know all too well that not everyone loves liberalism, and I knew that before the Internet even existed, and as a woman, a non-religious person, an ethnic Jew, and, most of all, as a person with some disabilities, the knowledge has always TERRIFIED me..

The whole point of this thread is that sometimes liberalism and relatively open borders (few people support TOTALLY open borders) might come into conflict and that there might be dangers in accepting too many people from less liberal societies. Some people on the thread think that this is not a danger; some that it is a danger and can justify increases in 'national conservativism' and illiberalism. I think that it is a potential danger, but that increased 'national conservativism', acceptance of inhumane practicesl, and reduced social liberalism are a far worse danger.

What is it about this particular risk and harm to women and girls that makes anyone excuse it. Party loyalty? Idk it seems deeper than that even.

...

Damn, I had typed a long response to the OP but then discovered the post I was responding to had been deleted!😂

From the two options you originally posited – I couldn’t answer, as I don’t think an individual is defined by either their skin colour or the country they happen to have been born in.

The type of man who I categorically would not wish to be locked in a room with is one that looks like a sunburnt thumb draped in a St George’s cross flag, swilling lager and shouting obscenities. There were many my them on my 10am tube journey on the day of one of the anti-immigration protests this year.

If anyone but the English was described here in this sneering contempt and hatred it would be called racist hatred and deleted.

This country has spent decades encouraging racist hatred of the English, especially hatred of English men.

Sorry, they couldn't help looking like thumbs I suppose.

The swilling of lager, shouting of obscenities and (I forgot to mention earlier) thumping of walls and terrifying kids / the elderly were things I witnessed, and am relaying to you now. I did find all that contemptable, yes.

But they are not defined by their skin colour or the country they happen to be born in?

Would the Left be so welcoming if the majority of asylum seekers were white?

Would the right be so anti if the asylum seekers were white?

Asylum is looked at on individual circumstances, not on a country basis. There are people from The US from South Africa claiming asylum. They may or may not get it. Depends.

So there are differences between cultures then?

Only some here seem keen to pretend they don’t exist.

I literally don't understand it.

Perhaps it's a false flag operation paid for by Reform to make them more electable.

(I'm joking of course -- they're dumb enough to do it for free.)

And i’ve already said, we don’t treat women well in this country, most women report being sexually assaulted or harrassed, rape cases are woefully under prosecuted, women in the u.k. still carry the burden of household management and childcare, single parents are still hugely female because men don’t stick around…Hardly a nation that is treating women well.
We treat LGBTQ people appalling too, the suicide rate is massive, you only have to read how trans people are spoken about on mumsnet.
Hardly civilised is it?