To think my normally sane DH is in danger of looking like a racist prick?

[FlamingoCrimbo]

DH just forwarded me an email that has been forwarded to him and to other people at his work by one of his colleagues.

I'm hoping he's not forwarded it to anyone except me - it doesn't look like he has.

It's one of those ones called 'border law'. Just found a US version here - swap the US references to UK ones.

DH is just misguided, IMO, sending this on - he ought to know I'd find it offensive. But it's made me wonder if IABU to find it offensive and to think it's probably been written by someone in the US equivalent of the BNP or at least widely distributed by BNP supporters.

So - AIBU and, if IANBU, how would you tackle it with him? He's very lovely, kind, and, sometimes, misguided so I don't want to upset him. I had to stop myself replying with 'you know this email makes you look like a racist prick, don't you' but that's not really very nice, or helpful!

skihorse - I think it was me with the Ethiopian child thing. I would make the same decision you would I think - it is normal, understandable and reasonable. Just not necessarily ethical.

BadgersPaw - I've claimed that allowing unrestricted immigration is valuing your life above others and is therefore selfish not racist - I've not used the R word and wouldn't unless someone expresses a clearly racist - this should be an arguement about resources not race.

I agree that practicality is where morality becomes complex - but the argument is being advanced that people born in this country de facto deserve greater access to resources than others. So there is still a debate about the abstract theory to be had.

I think there needs to be some general revision by the class on 'Godwins Law'

Harpy, you may find all opnions equal, I find neo-facism rather objectionable, not to mention dangerous. Name calling is vulgar? Not as vulgar as telling your fellow mumsnetters they should be deported or that their children are worthless, as DP has done in the past. I'm comfortable in my moral superiority over the BNP, name calling or no.

For the record, the only person who has used the phrase "Fucking Nazi" is you.

ooojimaflip OK, you got me, I made a terrible mistake when I said you said it would be racist, you're completely right when you say that you said it was selfish.

My fault completely, that's what happens when you leave a conversation over night, I'm very very sorry.

However I still disagree with you

I would say that allowing unrestricted immigration can also be a selfish act as it removes from you the very awkward and painful moral task of having to decide how to use the resources that you do have at the price of not really helping anybody.

Furthermore allowing unrestricted immigration is something that I believe would only be really seen as moral by a completely strict utilitarian who believes that the good achieved by giving one meal to everyone and then having starvation is a genuinely more moral act than only feeding and saving some.

Restricted immigration is not saying that I have more entitlement to resources than anyone else, I don't.

It's just saying that it is a moral course of action to preserve an engine that is capable of helping people and in fact that it would be immoral to destroy that potential in order to avoid having to make difficult decisions.

Thing is, ooj, when there are posts outlining views similar to National Socialism, making comparisons with Nazi Germany ceases to be hyperbole; this means that Godwin's Law is no longer applicable, as the Nazis become relevant to the debate.

If someone posts something along the lines of "The Jews are running the country and we need to reaffirm our national identity" (Nobody here has, no accusations, just an example!), a response suggesting they may be a Nazi does not involve Godwin's Law:

"Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The corollaries of the law would presumably not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, or, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is understandable."

and later:

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons."

Sorry. Just want to make sure that Godwin's Law can't be used to discredit what, on a thread such as this, can be valid points.

I haven't once used the term 'racist', or accused anyone of holding racist views.

Yet nobody wants to discuss immigration or immigration policy with me.

Nobody will even differentiate between economic migrants and asylum seekers, or tell me which legislation they object to.

"for every 1 comment DP posts, she get 5 or 6 responses, peppered with questions."

Shreiking, DP's posts are controversial. Of course she will get 5 or 6 responses. This is a public discussion forum, that's what happens.

"If Ethiopia is indeed as fertile and giving as you claim, why is it racing towards hell in a handcart? Again. We have been giving for 30 years, nothing has changed."

Skihorse, you have conveniently forgotten 'third world debt', which was only 'written off' (allegedly- the debt relief turned out to be a lot less than promised) in 2005. We in the West have not been giving, we have been taking.

And 'hell in a handcart'? Well done for slipping that one in, made me spit tea all over the keyboard.

TheShriekingHarpy, check Godwin's law. Poo's allusion to the Nazis may have been valid.

Yes I did, in relation to the British Nazi Party. And your problem with that is.....?

tethers - I agree, I don't think referring to the BNP as Nazi's is an invocation of Godwin's law for instance.

Never mind every reply, how about any reply to an actual question? But a person can't do that when they think in slogans, they don't have anything to say.....

sorry to be petty, oooj

No, there was no ad nauseam mention of Nazi, only where appropriate, and was not intended to stifle debate (you cannot assess intent of others), it was intended to be truthful. To be clear, yet again, I have not called DP anything that she has not admitted to previously.

I'm sure DP is not advocating genocide, however she has attempted to join, and intends to vote for, a group that uses/has used the swastika as a symbol, has been recorded chanting Heil Hitler and making the salute, and indulging in holocaust denial. Are you seriously arguing that the BNP does not have Nazi tendancies, that the word is not appropriate when discussing them?

I can not use the word if you prefer, I have many others that are appropriate to DP and her intended political affiliation. Bigot, racist, facist...take your pick.

And please try to see the difference between "name-calling" and warranted descriptions.

BadgersPaw - HAH - that means I WIN! Oh hang on....

I think I agree with you in practice. I am deliberately simplifying the issue in my posts to get away from dealing with the practicalities - as you then get mired in the 'do immigrants bring a net increase/decrease in GDP' arguments etc.

Which are a distraction from what I see as the central issue of discrimination on the grounds of national origin, and whether that is ethical or justifiable.

The BNP advocate a totalitarian regime, Shrieking- it is a valid comparison.

I agree there are some seemingly contradictory quotes in my link; but, hey, it is wikipedia, so maybe it's worse than linking to a newspaper article

Although you quote:

"It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread."

Nobody has raised an arbitrary comparison; much less with the motive of ending the thread.

"The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses."

Pretty straightforward so far. It refers only to the likelihood of a comparison occuring- not the ending of a discussion.

"It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

This agrees with the point I make. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

"Its really doubt that DP is advocating "genocide" or even affiliates herself with Adolf Hitler, hence the reason I believe Poo's "Nazi" reference is pure hyperbole."

DP has affiliated herself with the BNP, which has affiliated itself with certain aspects of Adolf Hitler- such as a salute

And that's from a tabloid.

Harpy your arguments make little sense to me.

the footage is on youtube, does this mean it was not real? It was also on a Channel 4 documentary, and the BBC News, it did happen, what is your point?

Do the BNP have a monopoly on racism, and are their no labour racists?<
Obviously not, who on earth said otherwise? Is your point that its ok to be racist because lots of others are? Who is talking about Labour politicians anyway? Please explain.

There is a faction of the BNP electorate that are not racist? Maybe there are. Then they have picked the wrong party. There are many that would say they are not racist, the "I'm not racist but....." brigade. That doesn't negate the fact that many BNP voters are horribly racist. It also doesn't negate the fact that DP is horribly racist, she has proven it many many times.

BNP leaders have been prosecuted for incitement to hatred so they have cleaned up their act. Yep, in public. Doesn't mean they have really changed. You don't go from heil hitler and partying with the Klan to multicultual inclusionism, except maybe on the surface. And I don't call their manifesto squeaky clean, have you read it?

You can put a nazi in a suit and stick him in front of Jeremy Paxman and let him say "I'm not a racist but..." all you like, he's still a Nazi.
I'll grant you that they have done a nice job on trying to convince people they have changed, but then naive people will beleive a lot. They are still leopards, and they are covered in spots.

ooojimaflip "I am deliberately simplifying the issue in my posts to get away from dealing with the practicalities ... Which are a distraction from what I see as the central issue of discrimination on the grounds of national origin, and whether that is ethical or justifiable."

But you can't remove certain aspects of the practicalities, such as the destruction of our ability to help anybody while simultaneously helping nobody, when questioning if having immigration limits is ethical.

You're basically discounting the best justification for the limits by saying "oh you can't use that as a response, that's a practicality".

It is a clear and simple choice. We cannot help everyone but by being selective about who we can help we can do a lot of good.

The Titanic is sinking.

There are not enough life boats.

Isn't it unethical to make who gets into them a free for all? They will overload, overturn and all aboard will freeze.

Isn't the only ethical thing to do to accept the hard choices and limit access so that some might be saved?

Restricted immigration isn't discrimination but the only ethical response as to how to best use our own limited resources.