BristolUK

Did you use it in reference to foreign people wanting to move to a country?

Context is rather important

caretaker

Odds on. I suppose it's a matter of degree.

magnumpi

And who one shares the bed

Former Lancastrian

When IRCC introduced the eTA requirements a couple of years ago they were also swamped with applications from all countries except citizens of the USA who are exempt.
They are swamped every year with applications for the IEC working holiday visa and study permit applications.

Are they swamped, deluged, flooded or whatever other word can/could be used to describe thousands of applications for various things then yes we can say they are.
Last week on Monday they were described as illegal migrants which soon changed to by Thursday irregular arrivals by official Govt spokespersons.

Also from last week
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters in Montreal earlier this week that this "is one of the myths that we are having to dispel... There are no advantages in terms of the immigration system to arrive irregularly versus arriving regularly," he stated.
But Janet Dench, the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, told HuffPost Canada that Ottawa's plan seems "like a strange strategy, because it is so obviously false."

"The reason that people come irregularly is because that is the way to avoid the Safe Third Country Agreement. I don't understand on what basis you could say you don't have an advantage by doing it. I mean, the advantage is you can make a claim [while] you would be immediately found not eligible if you presented yourself at a point of entry," she said.

Make of this post what you want to.

morpeth

The word "swamped" used in the context of over 1.5 million migrants/refugees etc let into Germany in less than 2 years is quite understandable - and one can be against such levels of migrants/refugees without being racist. However if any one raises concerns, the words such as "bigot" etc gets thrown out : this is one of reasons so hard to have a reasoned dialogue on such issues whether in Europe or the USA.

It is also interesting that often those who express concern about intolerance , are so intolerant of different points of view.

Yorkiechef

I was drinking guinness with people who were envious that I was moving to Canada, they originated from various countries and I am sure they said they would love to do that. Does that count, particularly with my reference to my swamped bed? No I don't think so..

How about refugees travelling from turkey to Greece drowned when their boat was swamped.....does that make the journo a racist?

Come on.....I think the use of swamped is not a racist term generally. I agree it is about context.

Shard

Well, it depends on what that view is. We're getting into Charlottesville territory here. No reason to be tolerant of the KKK for example. More controversially, there is little reason to be tolerant of the religious (as they tend to be an intolerant bunch themselves). It's the paradox of tolerance.

carcajou

I don't believe bats actually thinks I am a bigot.

I actually think it was a lame and disingenuous attempt to bully me off the thread for having an (actually, just slightly) different political viewpoint than bats. When I called the poster out, I think he or she stammered and then invented that bit of linguistic astrology about "swamped" as a way to save face.

Another poster used "flood" to describe asylum seekers but had political viewpoints more in tune with them, so both bats and BristolUK allowed that to slide.

"Swamped" has been used THOUSANDS of times in news articles about the situation (as has "flood!") without a peep because rational and logical human beings do not see any connection to race, ethnicity or bigotry in that term.

"Bigot" is a very, very strong word that should only be used against - well, actual bigots.

It isn't a term to play around with, or to be used as a lazy smear against others for daring to have degrees of political or ideological thought difference. Shame on the poster for using it in that way, and I will continue to call out false and dishonest allegations against me in that way, just as forcefully as I have here.

Shard

Don't take the name calling so seriously. Some people resort to it some don't. The main thing is to argue your point, which you do. Still think you are wrong on many of your opinions, but that's for you to decide.

macadian

Perhaps this thread should be renamed
"The random thread of bollocks".

BristolUK

One certainly can. This doesn't change the fact that the word swamped has been used by racists for decades in the same way the union jack has been misappropriated by national front types.

If people don't want to be saddled with unjustified labels or associated with people they'd rather not be they shouldn't use language and actions in the same way.

magnumpi

Possibly the biggest load of bollox I have ever red in my entire time on here, including the crap I have written in a drunk haze

I am proud to be British and my flag is in no way racist thankyou

BristolUK

Seriously?
I can't speak for Bats but it wasn't even a case of letting it slide. I had to look back where that was.

It was Oakvillian and it wasn't the least bit negative.
Why on earth would anyone object to such sympathetic words?

The context makes a massive difference and contrasts sharply with your "the flood will come. What's happening now is just the tip of the iceberg" portent of doom.

morpeth

The idea that tolerance can only be shown towards groups you agree with indicates the high degree of similarity between the ideologues of the left and right. It is the degree of tolerance of groups who one disagrees with that most tests whether one is indeed tolerant.

The KKK and the various National Socialist groups in the USA don't show any degree of probability of gaining political power. It is (or was) part of the American system that there was freedom of speech and assembly.

morpeth

Or maybe one should be cautious about labelling people as racists, especially without carefully considering their point of view.