Advanta is a far left extremist who has called for political violence, I am on the centre right opposed to political violence and have previously called advanta out on their extremism, they aren’t arguing against my comments, they are arguing against me for highlighting their extremism.
You mixed up 2 things here. Phobias can be acquired by experiencing something (classical conditioning), but also contracted from other people (vicarious acquisition and informational/instructional acquisition).
In this case, phobia is not meant as a clinical condition. It's just a scientific terminus which uses greek words. Xenophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.
And while xenophobia has probably its evolutionary use in terms of survival ("people who are like me are probably treating me better than people who are not like me"), it's not a guarantee. You should also remember that rules of hospitality are often considered "sacred" all over the globe in various cultures. So... xenophobia is not really that good or helpful.
While I get the problem with unrestricted immigration and people who abuse the system, especially criminals, xenophobia generalises bad traits of said criminals to all other people of the same group, which is totally wrong. This is why xenophobes don't have a positive image.
I wonder if there's any correlation between being familiar with Rotherham and the numerous other Islamic rape gangs in the UK and becoming "xenophobic".
Rules of hospitality only apply to some of the developed countries. Not even all of them, as I mentioned China or Japan before, they are some of the most xenophobe counties, yet nobody bats an eye.
Generalising is necessary, because you can't tell about hundreds of thousands of ppl if there are terrorists or war criminals among them without any proper ID. And most of them come from such countries that are warzones or home of terrorists, terrorist ideas.
It would be completely different if for example (and no offense) Poland would be attacked by Russia and all Polish ppl would seek for asylum at their neighbours. They could come freely, because they are Christians, they are not terrorist in nature, they can and want to work, learn the language etc.
While muslims have terrorists among them without doubt, Islam is about to convert or derstroy anything else that is not Islam. Christianity and Islam are natural enemies, you can't change it, it's a fundamental law.
Equating one group that wants to impose a theocracy with a group that doesn’t, fails as a joke when the joke itself relies on them both wanting to impose a theocracy, just different ones.
It would have worked in the period of Charles I, but as it stands is about four centuries too late and also has the wrong royal house, so it just fails.
The flip side is that, as in all forms of bigotry, xenophobia is applied far too often to people who are not xenophobes (in the political sense) but simply believe immigration should be controlled in the nation's best interest. The message is extremely diluted by those who scream about xenophobia and bigotry but lack the reasoning capabilities to tell the difference between a xenophobia and differing political opinions.
Yes... everything you didn't get was because the racists took it from you.
Well, you can hold up right there.
Firstly to stop bashing against me - I voted stay .
Secondly. I don't see any figures for the amount of participants in that study, was it 10 or 1000? were they all from one area? or randomly selected areas all around the uk? we're the participants asked randomly on the street or targeted to meet a criteria? These studies are often biased to fuck
Thirdly. In relation to the above point, the article makes it sounds like all 52% of those voters are Xenophobias, you don't need me to sit here and tell you that's bs, as in 100% of those 52% feel that way. Theres a correlation in terms to their participants, which they can make a prediction. Thats it.
Fourth. I know plenty of vote leavers, and most of them are fuck wits who jumped on the propaganda van and I'd say a fair chunk of them are xenophobes. But I also know people who sat down, did the research and came to their own conclusion for their own reasons.
While I agree it was a stupid decision to leave that's going to do more harm than good, you can't bash all the vote leavers under one label, especially one like that.
Go to the East End of London and tell me that the original communities that were there in my lifetime are still in place, go to the Manchester Arena/London Bridge/Westminster Bridge and tell me that immigration has not caused problems with terrorism, go to Luton and see the self imposed segregation of a community based on religion and tell me that isn’t happening, go to the mosques and tell me that you can’t find any of the one third of British Muslims who want to institute Sharia in Britain.
It has nothing to do with supporting UKIP, it is based on what changes I can see for myself and when those changes are not of benefit to the existing community, then I will speak up.
Edit: you supported Leave, did you do that out of xenophobia?
The communities often moved out when the area became unrecognisable due to immigration and the culture changed. I’m a Londoner, I know what those places used to be like, I know why people left as I grew up around those people.
I thought socialists were in favour of things like the welfare state and NHS, both of those are incompatible with open borders, so that seems like a contradiction.I voted leave because of the EU's opposition to socialism and socialist values, I'm very much pro open borders.