[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I’ve read that article - it is a very bad article, imo.

It lumps all of the ”nuances” of prejudice such as Islamophobia, Homophobia etc into equating prejudice with racism. Clearly this is where you get to use the term “racism”, possibly to emphasise your point but the article on which you rely explains why it does not use the word "racism".

So the first think to debunk is the article’s equivalence of prejudice with racism. We all have prejudices to a certain degree (nuance). For example, people may be prejudiced against Germans because of what happened 80 years ago; even though it’s ridiculous to be prejudiced against all Germans, it can’t be said to be racist, although the article includes that sort of prejudice and classifies this as racist.

Next is the weak argument made at the foot of the quote pasted below. It’s clear to me that the authors are leaning towards nationalism being a racist belief (see text below). The absurdist part of the argument being put forward below is that people voting for sovereignty needn’t have bothered because we had proportional representation on all the EU’s committees; as in being outvoted by others which did happen, as you know.

Finally, the paper falls down on the first sentence of the extract pasted below.

I am not relying on this article. I linked it as it explains the complexity & nuance of the proposition. Anyway, we are down a rabbit hole here. I was responding to the irony of us getting an Indian PM to a section of our society that voted for Brexit for exactly the opposite outcome.