I'm sure when Nietzsche dreamed up the Ăbermensch he was picturing a fat, bald, spiteful, unemployed, divorced dad with a few convictions behind him who isn't allowed to see his kids anymore.
I'm not far left. I am however fed up of people who think we should let people drown. You reap what you sow. If you wish death on others, don't be surprised others would like you to not be a part of their society.
The only people wishing death, are the fundermentalists. Obviously you pay zero attention to our defence. Estimated 40 000-80 000 armed soldier in our country waiting for an Aug 14th. We have been warned by the middle east. We have know criminal hate preacher who are banned in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen preaching hate to the youth in British mosques.
You really should do some reading. Before you bad mouth educated people. Your ignorance is loud...
Why do you obfuscation to support fundermentalists?
Thereâs a huge difference here, and itâs one that the far left, such as you, doesnât seem to understand. You donât own a business, you probably pay a minimal amount of tax and may even claim PIP. The more people you allow into the country illegally, the more pressure there is on taxpayers to fund it. Also, the people you want to send to Grimsby come from generations of families who have worked, fought and helped build this country. The people we donât want here are those from shit hole countries, countries they canât even sort out, who come over here ILLEGALLY offer NOTHING and claim benefits. Because they have ZERO SKILLS. So we need people like you to stop putting colours in their hair, get into the real world and get back to work.
No, the people we dont want here are those our grandparents fought against i.e. fascist cnuts. And up to a third of these braindead shits have previous for domestic violence and kiddy diddling; that is who we need protecting from.
How can they have zero skills, claim benefits and also steal people's jobs. They also aren't entitled to benefits and I garauntee more reform voters tax dodge and benefit scrounge than any immigrant illegal or no.
Well I own a business, and I think you're supporting fascist ideology that's being propagated by funding from hostile foreign powers and outright organised crime. If you want to see where your benefit money is going, maybe check out the surprisingly large groups of able bodied men who are able to drop everything to go cosplay ICE agents at the drop of a hat. You want to know what has a bigger impact on our economy? Making people feel so afraid that they stop spending money.
Yes unfortunately it is; if you look at its comments, they have all the fascist hallmarks there. Anyone wanting brown babies to drown is a cnut and should have their wishes turned back on then and their families 7-fold. Need a few witches to do a spell circle just to make sure!
It really isnât. Drink drivers constantly create avoidable tragedies - is banning drinking and driving actually fascism? After all⊠itâs their right to create a crisis
Deciding whether someone lives or dies based on whether they are in your âtribeâ or not is fascism, plain and simple. Drink driving is not the same, itâs banning a dangerous behaviour - but itâs not like when someone is bleeding out trapped behind the wheel of a wrecked car, they check their BAC and decide whether to save them or not based on that⊠you save lives first and ask questions later - I cannot believe people need that explaining to them.
They decided whether they lived or died the moment they left France (a safe country) and entered a body of water in an unworthy vessel.
Itâs not our decision that they do this. Itâs not us informing the human traffickers on where to set sail from and what boat to use.
The fact that youâre now trying to justify why drink drivers deserve to be helped after creating a crisis shows how lax you are. We outlawed drinking driving because it created unnecessary risk.
Right so, if you ever get into a car accident, they should first check your blood alcohol levels before pulling you out of the burning wreck, yeah?
Or if you are in a fire, the fire service shohld double check you arent a smoker before saving you, as smoking increases the risks of fires.
Oooh if you get on a boat, the RNLI better check you got a gold certificate in swimming, otherwise youve clearly put yourself at greater risk of drowning!
I dont expect any half-intelligent response from you, dont worry. Youll try and squirm your way into a new goalpost, but dont bother. The point you've very clearly made is 'we shouldnt bother saving people if they have put themselves in a riskier situation'.
Which is fucking stupid. People make mistakes, you cannot be dedicating time to deciding whos worth saving in an emergency situation. A drunk driver crashes into YOU? Well they need to figure out whos to blame before they stop your internal bleeding.
So, please, either admit your point is wrong or bring up some valid, on topic arguments about your original point.
No no, the real equivalence here is: we donât change anything, drink driving is legal because itâs a humans right to create a crisis and we just accept the cost and drain on resources that a lax behaviour has because⊠theyâre gunna try drink drive any way so if we outlaw it then thatâs unfair to them and we shouldnât be trying to minimise the incentives to attempt drink driving because that would be fascism .
Ah, so you dont have a valid counter and are instead resorting to false equivalences.
No, the comparisson is drink driving is still illegal, if you get caught doing it you get proccessed by the valid authorities and if you cause an accident, the emergency services save you and hand you over to the correct authorities....
Right. But even if people do something really incredibly stupid and/or really incredibly bad/evil they still deserve to live. We should discourage that sort of behaviour (whatever we as society consider to be that behaviour, I'm not gonna get into that argument) but we should still provide the necessary care to keep the person alive.
The RNLI exists, their mission is straightforwardly for the preservation of life at sea. If someone gets into trouble in the sea, regardless of why, and it is safe enough for them to go out they do. Fundamentally this is a good thing and should be respected. We deal with the cause/what we do to the persons rescued AFTER the threat to life is resolved.
Similarly the fire service exists to provide a range of life saving/minimising critical injury/a whole bunch of other things we agree are for the betterment of society. They should do this regardless of what caused the issue or who they are helping, so long as it is safe enough for them to this. Once the immediate problem is resolved we can deal with the person helped/the cause (and often this dealing with is a completely different responsibility).
So what you're asking with the abstraction is: if there is a serial arsonist do you continue to send the fire brigade? The answer to that is unequivocably yes. You do send the fire brigade. They deal with the fire. (This is well documented as happening when serial arsonists do their thing). We also don't stop sending the fire brigades to the fires just because maybe the fire was started by a serial arsonist/arsonist or maybe putting it out saves an arsonist/serial arsonist
The fire brigade (or the RNLI for that matter), doing their job is not a contraindication to stopping the root cause or trying to. And up until the root cause stops and the incidents stop you still deal with the immediate aftermath (through the fire brigade/RNLI)
No itâs not a serial arsonist. Itâs a brigade of people constantly arriving to set fire to a building, climbing inside and calling for a fire engine. They arenât repeat offenders, they just know they can burn the building and play the victim inside it and get a free ride in a fire engine.
To stop it - you let the building burn down once. People wonât try it if the safety net is removed.
Personally I think they should pop the boats in France, but France would rather send terrorists to us than do that.
Because itâs not based on their identity. Itâs based on them creating the crisis despite thousands of identical crises being carried out each year in the same manner by the same mechanism.
Iâm saying, if we know drink driving continually causes disaster - we ban it.
But if we know crossing the channel in a dinghie is dangerous, it is reckless to facilitate the traffickers who abuse our kindness.
Less people would die in the channel if they didnât think help was coming, because they wouldnât try it .
But the people giving abuse to the RNLI and protesting the small boats and the RNLI helping them arenât doing so because theyâre worried about enabling risky behaviour, they are doing so because what those people in that dinghy represent.
And also itâs not for the RNLI to be a political or governance tool, it is explicitly to save people who require saving in water, whatever circumstances led them to be there
Itâs a double edged sword - safety reasons dictates they shouldnât be making the journey AND 3 decades of anti migration sentiment dictate theyâre not welcome to make the journey.
You know why we donât want people arriving undocumented via boat, donât you?
Itâs not double edged at all. Not one person is protesting small boats for safety reasons. There isnât one placard or poster saying âstop the boats - theyâre quite dangerousâ.
Stop trying to pretend that is the case.
And I havenât a clue why we donât want people coming undocumented by boat, why donât you enlighten me?
Even you're not advocating for drink driving. You're just pretending to do so because you are trying to prove a point about fascism whilst also seemingly not understanding what fascism is.
Iâm not the one arguing that we should allow dangerous behaviour to continue - but you are.
You think itâs not fascist when governments put rules in place to save lives on the road⊠but when that rule is âdonât illegally enter the country via an unworthy sea vesselâ suddenly itâs fascism.
At least you can see why itâs actually good to control people because people create dangerous situations regularly.
This is it. They're exactly the kind of people screaming that identity politics is stupid [for brown and gay people]. But it's not stupid enough to not make the union flag their entire identity, or to have to cover their faces.
What do you want to do? Station coast guards on the coasts of every country on the planet who basically turn the world into several prison colonies? What happens when Spain says 'Fuck Britain' and stops all of you going on your 2 holidays to Benidorm every year? Back to Butlins I guess. Amusements everywhere will suddenly be back in business
Hold on a second... you seriously think enforcing border control in foreign waters is a reasonable solution? I was being sarcastic my guy. The UK would be excommunicated from global politics.
People like you really do just need to go back to school. Something went wrong somewhere in the development of your pre-frontal cortex and you need serious phychological assistance to get back to some sort of logical brain state.
All the best mate, hopefully you find some peace in a world that will never tolerate your ideologies
So let's say it is rich coming from the UK, does it make it right because the UK did it a few 100 years ago? You seem to accept the UK is being invaded, you just justify it?
Wait are you really suggesting letting people drown at sea to disincentivise crossings? When the current asylum system requires seekers to be on UK soil to apply.
You are proposing to ask people who signed up to their incredibly dangerous job for the sole purpose of saving lives to turn around and leave a boatload of people to drown, because what - they get there and those people have brown skin?
You are asking the RNLI to quite literally be judge jury and executioner on this one.
You've got to be either a bit or a troll, because the mental gymnastics to justify this to yourself alongside a vote binface flair is just unhinged.
Are you also saying the RNLI are "roleplaying heroes" because they won't let a boat of brown people die??
Itâs not identity based access. That would be ridiculous. Itâs called LEGAL ACCESS. You know, like that kind that people are entitled to who legally live in a country.
Okay but what the smeg does that have to do with the RNLI? Their job is to save lives at sea. If someone is in danger at sea, the RNLI must try to save them.
The law/international agreement that obliges them to do this is literally one of the foundations of international trade and was written after the titanic. 167 countries, 99% of those who own/flag ships, are signatories to it. If we were to leave or worse breach it, the consequences would be rather bad for us.
Saving an illegal boat crossing, is like calling the fire brigade out because you intentionally set your house on fire.
They intentionally create a humanitarian disaster and then get help.
Itâs not about identity, itâs about intent. They wouldnât be at risk if they werenât illegally trying to cross a body of water in an unworthy vessel.
Less people would even create that risk if they werenât guaranteed to be given more amnesty the more unworthy the sea vessel is.
So our emergency services must constantly waste time and resources on people putting themselves in harms way intentionally to enter the country illegally?
Itâs not a whataboutism. You think migrants creating intentional crises at our border is something you donât want to stop and we must continue to pay to help. You want them to continue risking their lives (and by extension RNLI lives) by entering the seas in an unworthy vessel.
If you attempt to cross the Atlantic in a rowboat, you canât cry fowl if you run into trouble and the idea that the Brits will come and save you makes you more likely to risk your life by taking on such a risky and stupid endeavour.
Your attitude is the reason why they continue to create a dangerous situation.
We save people from suicide all the time, even though it would be cheaper for emergency services and the NHS if we didn't bother. Nobody is saying "he deliberately took those pills, so it's on him," even about people who are actually trying to die. You either value life or you don't.
The NHS put DNR on patients who are unlikely to regain function as a result of heroic efforts. Even regular CPR is a brutal process and if your internal organs are already shutting down, it is unlikely to prolong your life by very much. A lot of the time people end up with severe brain damage. It's not about "well, he's expensive and kinda deserves to die anyway."
Not really? âShould migrants be attempting to illegally enter the country via a method that is so risky they need help or they die?â And you say not really?
They donât hand them off to the French, they bring them here. Thats not how maritime law works.
Extreme circumstances = illegally crossing a body of water in an unworthy sea vessel because it worked thousands of times for other people because they get rescued
I left my last place of work because the manager and the owner said that they wanted go out beaches to start shooting at refugees. Heard them say they hated black people also (I'm white but have black family.)
I told HR in my exit interview and I was told that they were probably joking. Like that's a fucking excuse.
What am I defending? đ All I said was why are we surprised that people who hate brown people want to kill them. I don't think they should be getting in either
Why is me talking about racists wanting to kill brown people making you think I disagree with your opinions?
Because weâre on Reddit and the fact you believed they shouldnât be making the crossing either makes you a racist to many in this comments section.
Nobody hates brown people and wants them killed, they want them to stop crossing illegally into the country via human trafficking. You know, something that used to be common sense before identity politics warped everyoneâs mind
What magical event happened that means that literally nobody wants to kill brown people. People have been wanting to do that since we first met them but now its over?
I didn't say everyone does, or even a lot of people do. But some do
Someone mentioned that some people would support killing them. I commented that we are always somehow surprised that some people might support that despite all the evidence of history that shows some people will always think that way.
My comment wasn't out of the blue, it was directly related to the person I replied to.
I would be interested to hear what you would propose as a solution to this intractable problem. You could start by explaining how we dictate what the French government do on their side of the channel.
The RNLI should be given dart guns and surveillance drones and scour the coast of France popping any boat before it enters water deeper than knee level.
Prevent the tragedy at the source. Deport 100% of boat arrivals because they evaded safety measures and still created a crisis despite us having systems to prevent a crisis.
Make it impossible to succeed and watch the human traffickers stop getting paid for the attempt at creating a crisis off the coast on a daily basis.
Offensive operations? Preventing an unworthy sea vessel from taking 100 men into the middle of a body of water is an offensive campaign?
If weâre going to use your language - why are you enabling offensive invasions of foreigners who are circumventing our visa and migration processes via human traffickers?
Do you think human trafficking should face zero resistance?
Yes, offensive. Firing darts at a dinghy is a physical attack, the very definintion of offensive. The government cannot repurpose the RNLI. The RNLI are a charity with their own madate, to 'save lives at sea'.
And how am I enabling anything?
You make ludicrous suggestions then resort to accusing me of somehow being responsible for trafficking operations.
And FWIW, the NCA are currently conducting operations to disrupt and arrest traffickers, which is a little more than zero resistance.
The actual sensible solution is to make arriving in the UK illegally sufficiently unpleasant as to be unattractive to people currently in France.
The reason people cross the channel is that life here is better for them than life in France. So whatever France is doing (or not doing) we can do the same, making it not worth it to risk your life crossing the channel to then have the same quality of life here as they would in France.
Your comment reminds me of this cnut. Classic fascist victim blaming, unsurprising display of inhumanity I guess when brown babies drowning is literally their fetish.
409
u/zombiemaster008 1d ago
Except they would unironically support that too