Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,373
He wasn't old enough to vote in the referendum. He is 23/24.
I wonder what his views on increasing the franchise to people aged 16 and 17 are?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
He wasn't old enough to vote in the referendum. He is 23/24.
I wonder what his views on increasing the franchise to people aged 16 and 17 are?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I think his response was effete and dishonest. If he’d owned what he said more stridently, especially on GB News, then he wouldn’t have ended up looking so out of his depth.I'm not making any judgement on the guy. I don't watch GB News and have no idea who he is. I'm just pointing out that the thing he's getting pulled up for saying is indisputably and objectively a 100% correct thing to say. Not what he "secretly meant" by it or was "implying" or a million other subjective things that people paper their own bias over, but the actual words that he literally said.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
That it should be applied genetically?He wasn't old enough to vote in the referendum. He is 23/24.
I wonder what his views on increasing the franchise to people aged 16 and 17 are?
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,373
That it should be applied genetically?
Are you putting words in the far right racist's mouth? How dare you!
I thought his response was incredulous and correctly so. You're letting you bias create context that doesn't exist in the literal. Nothing he said was incorrect. In fact nothing he said is even arguable from any possible scientific position. Being asked to define what he meant by "genetic" then asked loaded, leading questions like "oh so you think X" as a well poisoning technique should lead to joint levels of confusion, incredulity and bemusement.I think his response was effete and dishonest. If he’d owned what he said more stridently, especially on GB News, then he wouldn’t have ended up looking so out of his depth.
If you went on BBC and said that statement, nobody on the planet would call you a racist or imply it. Because the statement is absolutely correct and widely known to be absolutely correct.
Which means the problem that people have is with the person or the broadcast saying it, not what he actually said. And if we're sinking to that level then any discussion is pointless because that's not even listening to what they say and have decided they're full of shit before they opened their mouth. That's not political discussion, it's football support (or console warring as the kids call it now)
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Do you think it was effective?I thought his response was incredulous and correctly so.
I'm not sure, I don't know what an effective response would look like to such a ridiculous question. Both he and the host spotted the "trap" immediately and dodged it, so I guess so. If I said that and somebody asked me that question, I'd probably look at them like they've got three heads or are purposely being a bad faith dickhead.Do you think it was effective?
What do you mean by genetics? I mean genetics. Do I need to define the word genetics? Does the sentence "immigration to the UK over the past 2000 years has changed the cultural and genetic makeup of the people" not provide enough context?
It does. The guy was being a dickhead and if it wasn't this kid or channel, you'd agree wholeheartedly.
Wow.We're also all genetically derived from ameobas. Not the greatest argument.
Oh and after watching that video, the kid was right in what he said and the other guy was yet another boring "you're secretly raaaaaaaacist" type that basically everybody on the planet has had enough of their intellectual dishonesty.
He said that immigration over the past 2000 from various regimes has created the cultural and genetic makeup of this country. That is factually, inarguably 100% objectively a true statement. To believe otherwise is to believe that either different populations didn't have different genetics, and I'll point you to any high school biology class if you believe this, or that the peoples who invaded or immigrated had zero sex or assimilation in the country to which I'd point you to any possible musuem or history book. What is it you people think places like 23 and Me do (spart from scam, obviously)? What do you think epigenetics are?
The idea that the UK was a mishmash of cultural and genetic populations over the 2000 years is not just a factual statement but used to be somewhat a source of fun. But this guy heard the word "genetic" so immediately decided to put words in the kids mouth and of course because social media has zero critical thinking skills or rationality about "the other team" and are desperate to constantly hit these irrelevant and tedious Gotchas then of course we've now got people being implied to be a racist for using the word "genetic"
Keep it simple. The "kid" meant that it was OK to mix with white races but not with black races. If someone starts talking about right and wrong genetics, I think "we people" can draw some conclusions.
I'm not interested in a debate about what someone "really secretly meant" because its pointless horseshit.Wow.
Keep it simple. The "kid" meant that it was OK to mix with white races but not with black races. If someone starts talking about right and wrong genetics, I think "we people" can draw some conclusions.
You're also completely ignoring what he said.
"Do you think that one race is superior to another race?"
"No? Where did you get that from?!"
"You're talking about the genetic makeup shifting in a way you don't like"
"I didn't say that!" (And he's correct, he didn't say that at all)
"So are you saying that some races are superior to others? Because you used the word genetic" (A question already asked and answered)
"I'm saying that genetic characteristics exist in this country as it is because of 2000 years of migration"
"Oh so you're saying that certain genetics like race are superior to others?"
"No?"
But you ignore what he ACTUALLY said and instead insert what you think he secretly said despite him outright denying what you think he secretly meant on four occasions.
Oh and if anybody thinks the above quotes are in any way an intellectually honest debate then I'm not interested in your opinion.
Again, your problem here is that he's on the wrong side. It's nothing at all to do with what he said and I'm tired of people pretending it's anything more than that
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
tbf, you did just post this:I'm not interested in a debate about what someone "really secretly meant" because its pointless horseshit.
Which is essentially the same thing.The guy was being a dickhead and if it wasn't this kid or channel, you'd agree wholeheartedly.