salmonchild-
No, I'm sure thanks. I don't think it's that complicated, but I'm happy to explain.
@The_Kindness_of_Trees posted:
It isn't inherently racist to want to regulate immigration
I replied:
But it's a pretty reliable barometer
So, I agree with him/her that it's not inherently racist (I'm sure there are some people who want to regulate immigration who aren't racist - he/she may be one of them) but, in my opinion, it's often a pretty good indication - no more than that, not always, not perfect. But whereas, in the past, people used to hide their racism behind a stance on immigration, the tone of the debates around the Mayor of London and leaving the EU seems to have legitimised the racism in many people's minds and it's come to the fore. The two are more closely aligned now, which I guess is unfortunate for those who believe there are very good reasons to regulate immigration and who are genuinely not racist.
He/she replied:
Do you actually want to give anybody who wants it the right to come and live here?
Which I thought was a massive leap from my post, it's no way implicit in what I said, and then:
You suggested that a desire to regulate immigration more often than not masks a racist agenda
and I took issue with the word agenda. I think it's more subtle and more casual than that, I don't think the majority of people's racism is part of an agenda.
At that point @The_Kindness_of_Trees seemed to think I was back-tracking on my original point and threw in the football hooligan analogy. I guess that's where the point-scoring started, for which I hold my hands up.
I hope it's clearer now :)
You are reading a single comment by @salmonchild and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Markyboy
Don't assume your inference is de-facto the implication of what I said. I posted six words and you started making assumptions. If you can't see the difference between my post (and my subsequent explanation of it) and your interpretation of it, then that's your problem.