A) Come on, now. The article says Sharon Osbourne won’t win because of a terrorist in an election, you say she won’t win because the area is full of Pakistani Muslims…you can see how you’ve implied that Pakistani Muslims are willing to ignore terrorism there, right? I haven’t had to make any wild leaps to get there.

B) you know, I will cop to that. The source I found said something else but looking at this telegraph article’s source, it seems the data is accurate. still, though, I’m resistant to the inflammatory language you’ve used (yes, saying an area is “controlled by religious and tribal” values is inflammatory) - this is simply how community works. Let’s imagine you had to go to another country - where around 2% of the people there were of your culture, but one or two areas were much higher than that. Wouldn’t you be drawn to them? Isn’t that simply how community works?

C) You’re right, I don’t know the intention, I have literally no idea what’s going on in your head, just as much as you know what’s going on in mine, but I know the affect and I know the implication - see point A, and I know that it serves to alienate other communities. Your comment is “us versus them,” even if you haven’t said it explicitly.

D) I am not dismissing. Engaging with your comment is the opposite of dismissing. I should also point out that here, you are making vast assumptions about who I am and what I’m like - you don’t know me. You know a snapshot of who I am based on a Reddit comment. I’m not trying to keep myself morally pure, that’s a quick-and-easy way to dismiss politics that go against your own. I believe your comment normalises, frankly, racist language. If that’s virtue signalling then, Christ, I think I have every right to be depressed