Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

You don't think that the mainstreaming of extremism tends to generate more extreme extremism?

To be honest I had not thought about that angle. Not sure.

It's a bit like complaining about the youth of today. They do often seem pretty crap but then the old order were complaining about the youth of today in Victorian times. Evolutionary theory might suggest it isn't static however.....

rjsterry

As if to illustrate Rolf's point, Johnson is doubling down and refusing to apologise because he doesn't want to stifle debate. Perhaps he should link up with Yaxley Lennon and all the other 'free speech advocates'.

coopster_the_1st

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

previously to win elections they were chasing the middle ground and there was enough party discipline to sideline the nutters and those on the fringes. Now the two main parties are locked in mortal internal combat for control of their own organisations and need to appeal to a membership/electorate that is dominated by fringe nutters

Ultimately it is a shift from the vaguely positive to the extremely negative that (for me) is the distinction between extremist politics and middle of the road. Extremism just seems to be about blindly blaming someone else for all that is wrong and, in the unlikely event that Brexit does happen, I wonder (and worry) who will be blamed for our future woes - because we can't really blame Europe for them. If we end up poorer outside of Europe than within (as we will) then obviously that will show that for all the writing on the side of buses, Europe did make us wealthier. So who will become the target for all the hatred about how crap everything is in future when Europe is out of the frame?

That you view Brexit as an unlikely event to happen puts you as an extremist and aligns you to a dictatorship party.

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

As if to illustrate Rolf's point, Johnson is doubling down and refusing to apologise because he doesn't want to stifle debate. Perhaps he should link up with Yaxley Lennon and all the other 'free speech advocates'.

Why should Johnson apologise? Because the shouty liberals say he should? Because remoaners and the media are trying anything and everything to obliterate his political career as they hate him because he chose Leave and they won?

When you walk out of your echo chamber you will realise what makes Johnson so popular. So the words may be awkward but he is correct on the principle. He also stands up to the shouty brigade who try to impose their views on his. Islam's religious dress is female suppression. These women are not allowed to use the #MeToo hashtag. It is not racist to say this no matter what shouty liberals get offended by.

You come out as if you support the suppression of females in Islam. Do you also think they should not be allow to drive or take a job without a man saying they can?

kajjal

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

previously to win elections they were chasing the middle ground and there was enough party discipline to sideline the nutters and those on the fringes. Now the two main parties are locked in mortal internal combat for control of their own organisations and need to appeal to a membership/electorate that is dominated by fringe nutters

Ultimately it is a shift from the vaguely positive to the extremely negative that (for me) is the distinction between extremist politics and middle of the road. Extremism just seems to be about blindly blaming someone else for all that is wrong and, in the unlikely event that Brexit does happen, I wonder (and worry) who will be blamed for our future woes - because we can't really blame Europe for them. If we end up poorer outside of Europe than within (as we will) then obviously that will show that for all the writing on the side of buses, Europe did make us wealthier. So who will become the target for all the hatred about how crap everything is in future when Europe is out of the frame?

That you view Brexit as an unlikely event to happen puts you as an extremist and aligns you to a dictatorship party.

It’s always useful to have an “extremist” that saves the UK from the social, political and economic damage brexit is causing.

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

As if to illustrate Rolf's point, Johnson is doubling down and refusing to apologise because he doesn't want to stifle debate. Perhaps he should link up with Yaxley Lennon and all the other 'free speech advocates'.

The extremism very much goes both ways though. The nastier end of the polictally correct/social justice warrior spectrum could generally do with getting a grip.

If Bojo is genuinely bothered about women's rights within Islam, making fun of their dress is an odd way of going about it. Most people I knew generally thought he was a pretty average politician playing an amusing buffoon character. Now they just think he's gone to far in playing the character and has become the character..

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

The extremism very much goes both ways though. The nastier end of the polictally correct/social justice warrior spectrum could generally do with getting a grip.

They have got a grip in one way - see article by this Labour moderate who has left the party because he feels that the war is over and the moderates have lost.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/07/have-resigned-labour-war-moderates-have-lost/amp/

Confirms what many of us know already - that Labour is officially the loony left. And vice versa.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As if to illustrate Rolf's point, Johnson is doubling down and refusing to apologise because he doesn't want to stifle debate. Perhaps he should link up with Yaxley Lennon and all the other 'free speech advocates'.

Why should Johnson apologise? Because the shouty liberals say he should? Because remoaners and the media are trying anything and everything to obliterate his political career as they hate him because he chose Leave and they won?

When you walk out of your echo chamber you will realise what makes Johnson so popular. So the words may be awkward but he is correct on the principle. He also stands up to the shouty brigade who try to impose their views on his. Islam's religious dress is female suppression. These women are not allowed to use the #MeToo hashtag. It is not racist to say this no matter what shouty liberals get offended by.

You come out as if you support the suppression of females in Islam. Do you also think they should not be allow to drive or take a job without a man saying they can?

The Prime Minister and his party chairman seem to think he should apologise. I'd hardly class either of them as shouty liberals. Why on earth is it anyone's f***ing business what clothes someone else wears, much less a government's.

By the way I'm fascinated to know which Muslim women you've spoken to about this to be able to authoritatively state that "These women" - presumably all who cover their faces to some extent - are all being suppressed. I'll be sure to mention to my colleague that she's "not allowed to use the #metoo hashtag". News to her, I suspect.

As for Johnson, this is just more of the same from him. Anything to keep himself in the news.

bompington

Interesting to me that Johnson is being vilified as an "Islamophobe". For an article that states clearly that he is opposed to banning the burka.

My opinion is that there are two reasons for the "outrage":
1. Simple whataboutery. "Labour is getting it for in the neck for its antisemitism so we have to shout about some equivalent, however far it is from being a real equivalent, on the other side"
2. "We hate Boris so we're really happy that he's given us a stick, any stick, to beat him with, but we need to look sad and offended to play the game right"

As usual Brendan O'Neill - no BoJo fan, and FWIW I'm not either - gets it right: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/b ... -of-islam/

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

Interesting to me that Johnson is being vilified as an "Islamophobe". For an article that states clearly that he is opposed to banning the burka.

My opinion is that there are two reasons for the "outrage":
1. Simple whataboutery. "Labour is getting it for in the neck for its antisemitism so we have to shout about some equivalent, however far it is from being a real equivalent, on the other side"
2. "We hate Boris so we're really happy that he's given us a stick, any stick, to beat him with, but we need to look sad and offended to play the game right"

As usual Brendan O'Neill - no BoJo fan, and FWIW I'm not either - gets it right: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/b ... -of-islam/

I note that Brendan quotes in full the bit that backs up his argument, but skips over the bit that caused the problem.
As criticism of Islam goes it was a pretty infantile. If that was really what he wanted to do then why the comparisons with letterboxes and bank robbers? He starts by saying people should be free to wear what they want but then proceeds to argue that maybe they shouldn't. This is of a piece with his "pickaninnies with watermelon smiles" comment. The idea that this is all about opening up a debate and not Boris just getting his name on the front page with a bit of carefully calibrated faux just-saying-what-he-thinks is pretty risible.

And like it or not the Conservatives do have a problem with Islamophobia, albeit until now they've been able to keep it more hushed up. With his actions, Johnson has probably reduced the chances of that being resolved.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

As criticism of Islam goes it was a pretty infantile.

Yes, it was. And yes, Johnson (who I did have a hint of respect for in his liberal-minded cosmopolitan mayor days) is at it, and deserves to have lots of crud thrown at him.
But we have now got to the stage where making the slightest hint of a negative remark, or for that matter infantile criticism, about Islam is now somehow a "phobia". If that's what Islamophobia is, then anyone who isn't Islamophobic needs their head examining.

"Phobia" now basically means "you dislike something which I think you shouldn't be allowed to dislike".

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As criticism of Islam goes it was a pretty infantile.

Yes, it was. And yes, Johnson (who I did have a hint of respect for in his liberal-minded cosmopolitan mayor days) is at it, and deserves to have lots of crud thrown at him.
But we have now got to the stage where making the slightest hint of a negative remark, or for that matter infantile criticism, about Islam is now somehow a "phobia". If that's what Islamophobia is, then anyone who isn't Islamophobic needs their head examining.

"Phobia" now basically means "you dislike something which I think you shouldn't be allowed to dislike".

Lady Warsi has being trying for at least the last two years to get the issue of Islamophobia - the real stuff that parallels antisemitism - within the Conservative party to be seriously addressed. With his faux liberalism, Johnson has hindered that as he has created a situation where real examples can be dismissed as "oh, this is just like that Boris article in the Telegraph. Boris was just being Boris. Honestly, you can't say anything these days."

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As if to illustrate Rolf's point, Johnson is doubling down and refusing to apologise because he doesn't want to stifle debate. Perhaps he should link up with Yaxley Lennon and all the other 'free speech advocates'.

The extremism very much goes both ways though. The nastier end of the polictally correct/social justice warrior spectrum could generally do with getting a grip.

If Bojo is genuinely bothered about women's rights within Islam, making fun of their dress is an odd way of going about it. Most people I knew generally thought he was a pretty average politician playing an amusing buffoon character. Now they just think he's gone to far in playing the character and has become the character..

I read much the same about JRM. He only started the whole 17th century thing at Oxford and now it has taken over his life.

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

previously to win elections they were chasing the middle ground and there was enough party discipline to sideline the nutters and those on the fringes. Now the two main parties are locked in mortal internal combat for control of their own organisations and need to appeal to a membership/electorate that is dominated by fringe nutters

Ultimately it is a shift from the vaguely positive to the extremely negative that (for me) is the distinction between extremist politics and middle of the road. Extremism just seems to be about blindly blaming someone else for all that is wrong and, in the unlikely event that Brexit does happen, I wonder (and worry) who will be blamed for our future woes - because we can't really blame Europe for them. If we end up poorer outside of Europe than within (as we will) then obviously that will show that for all the writing on the side of buses, Europe did make us wealthier. So who will become the target for all the hatred about how crap everything is in future when Europe is out of the frame?

That you view Brexit as an unlikely event to happen puts you as an extremist and aligns you to a dictatorship party.

Is this a wind up? Surely even you can't be this dense..... How does the belief that something is going to happen make anyone an extremist? Fair enough, you could make a case to say that my desire for brexit not to happen might make me an extremist (though that implies that the majority of the country are also extremists and it's hard to make a case for that) but a believe of the likelihood of an outcome based on reasoned argument, however misguided you might feel it is, cannot make me an extremist.

You might as well say I'm all in favour of climate change because I believe (well, to be fair, I know) it is happening.

And do please tell me which dictatorship party I am aligned to. I am genuinely interested to know as I have no idea which one you are referring to.

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

Interesting to me that Johnson is being vilified as an "Islamophobe". For an article that states clearly that he is opposed to banning the burka.

My opinion is that there are two reasons for the "outrage":
1. Simple whataboutery. "Labour is getting it for in the neck for its antisemitism so we have to shout about some equivalent, however far it is from being a real equivalent, on the other side"
2. "We hate Boris so we're really happy that he's given us a stick, any stick, to beat him with, but we need to look sad and offended to play the game right"

As usual Brendan O'Neill - no BoJo fan, and FWIW I'm not either - gets it right: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/b ... -of-islam/

Is he opposed to banning the burka in the same way that he is in favour of brexit? I think that it is fairly obvious that he will say anything to further his career whether he believes in it or not so I would take it that the opposition to the ban would a) just be words, who knows, he can't be trusted and b) not in any case necessarily imply he isn't an islamophobe anyway; you can have a strong moral belief that Britain isn't a country that goes around banning things but at the same time still be an islamophobe.

I don't know if Bojo is an islamophobe or not. I just know he is an idiot.

It does all seem a bit OTT but if you are a politician and don't want to be vilified then it's not as though you don't know what to do - keep your mouth shut unless you can think of something constructive to say.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Interesting to me that Johnson is being vilified as an "Islamophobe". For an article that states clearly that he is opposed to banning the burka.

My opinion is that there are two reasons for the "outrage":
1. Simple whataboutery. "Labour is getting it for in the neck for its antisemitism so we have to shout about some equivalent, however far it is from being a real equivalent, on the other side"
2. "We hate Boris so we're really happy that he's given us a stick, any stick, to beat him with, but we need to look sad and offended to play the game right"

As usual Brendan O'Neill - no BoJo fan, and FWIW I'm not either - gets it right: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/b ... -of-islam/

I haven’t had a chance to read the article but the comments BoJo make are fairly obviously derogatory - a bank robber isn’t really a favourable comparison - and the burka has become a rhetorical shorthand for Muslims. It is a symbol that is very Muslim and not much else.
(After all, bank robbers don’t look like they’re wearing Burkas and if the issue is you can only see the eyes then I can introduce Borris to a whole host of motorcyclists who walk around with their helmets on, let alone people on here who commute in balaclavas in cold conditions. )


In the context that there is a current of islamophobis in the U.K., and criticism of the Burka has become a vehicle to express that islsmophobia by a number of far right organisations, you can see why it’s seen that way.

Furthermore, given Muslim women are a minority in the U.K. who do suffer from many types of discrimination, and that is an evidence based conclusion from a study May herself commissioned, it’s not responsible for an MP to make such derogatory comments about them.


So, as ever Bom, it’s about context.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

previously to win elections they were chasing the middle ground and there was enough party discipline to sideline the nutters and those on the fringes. Now the two main parties are locked in mortal internal combat for control of their own organisations and need to appeal to a membership/electorate that is dominated by fringe nutters

Ultimately it is a shift from the vaguely positive to the extremely negative that (for me) is the distinction between extremist politics and middle of the road. Extremism just seems to be about blindly blaming someone else for all that is wrong and, in the unlikely event that Brexit does happen, I wonder (and worry) who will be blamed for our future woes - because we can't really blame Europe for them. If we end up poorer outside of Europe than within (as we will) then obviously that will show that for all the writing on the side of buses, Europe did make us wealthier. So who will become the target for all the hatred about how crap everything is in future when Europe is out of the frame?

That you view Brexit as an unlikely event to happen puts you as an extremist and aligns you to a dictatorship party.

Is this a wind up? Surely even you can't be this dense..... How does the belief that something is going to happen make anyone an extremist? Fair enough, you could make a case to say that my desire for brexit not to happen might make me an extremist (though that implies that the majority of the country are also extremists and it's hard to make a case for that) but a believe of the likelihood of an outcome based on reasoned argument, however misguided you might feel it is, cannot make me an extremist.

You might as well say I'm all in favour of climate change because I believe (well, to be fair, I know) it is happening.

And do please tell me which dictatorship party I am aligned to. I am genuinely interested to know as I have no idea which one you are referring to.

You know, the Dictatorship Party. Didn't you get the leaflet? Ever such nice chaps.

rick_chasey

Ok so I read the spectator article.

I think the author is starting from the point that stating that burkas shouldn’t be banned is some kind of wonderful statement of liberalism, rather than the default expected position.

If BoJo wants to “express distaste” he could do it more responsibly than comparing the garment to those of bank robbers.

That turn of phrase undoes his previous statement and you wonder what point he is making by saying it. He’s a journalist by background so we assume he understood how one piece of his article can undermine the other.

And as many at the extremes seem to forget in the context of free speech, criticism of their positions is as valid as the original statement of their positions.

Sometimes it hurts that your opinion and use of language is unpopular. Get over it.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

And as many at the extremes seem to forget in the context of free speech, criticism of their positions is as valid as the original statement of their positions.

Precisely. As illustrated by all the FreeTommy f***wits who complain that "your not allowed to say...".

Jez mon

Meh.

He doesn't seem to have anything particularly original or useful to say about the issue, so he writes a bland article which he can correctly point to as not bigoted, then throws in a line about bankrobbers which he knows will play well with a certain crowd.

bompington

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/a ... the-niqab/

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/as-a-muslim-woman-id-like-to-thank-boris-johnson-for-calling-out-the-niqab/

And if Boris had made his points rationally like that rather than the way he did then maybe he wouldn't be in the position he is in. Unless of course he is exactly where he wants to be in which case he is using the issue to further his own ends.

Bojo comes out of this badly however you look at it.

bompington

Rolf F wrote:

Unless of course he is exactly where he wants to be in which case he is using the issue to further his own ends.

Bojo comes out of this badly however you look at it.

I don't disagree that he is a prat and up to no good. What I find a bit rich is the way this particular article has been jumped on.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Unless of course he is exactly where he wants to be in which case he is using the issue to further his own ends.

Bojo comes out of this badly however you look at it.

I don't disagree that he is a prat and up to no good. What I find a bit rich is the way this particular article has been jumped on.

Why?

It seems very obvious to me.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Unless of course he is exactly where he wants to be in which case he is using the issue to further his own ends.

Bojo comes out of this badly however you look at it.

I don't disagree that he is a prat and up to no good. What I find a bit rich is the way this particular article has been jumped on.

Why?

It seems very obvious to me.

Goes back to my point about the normalising of extremism. We are now in a position where a senior Politian, someone who by definition should be a skilled diplomat, can make this sort of comment and people are surprised at the reaction it gets. He's paid not to do this. If Bojo was working for the country rather than himself he wouldn't dream of behaving like this.

Stevo_666

It's starting to look a bit grim for Corbyn:
https://www.politico.eu/article/walls-close-in-on-jeremy-corbynuk-labour-party/amp/

kajjal

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Unless of course he is exactly where he wants to be in which case he is using the issue to further his own ends.

Bojo comes out of this badly however you look at it.

I don't disagree that he is a prat and up to no good. What I find a bit rich is the way this particular article has been jumped on.

Why?

It seems very obvious to me.

Goes back to my point about the normalising of extremism. We are now in a position where a senior Politian, someone who by definition should be a skilled diplomat, can make this sort of comment and people are surprised at the reaction it gets. He's paid not to do this. If Bojo was working for the country rather than himself he wouldn't dream of behaving like this.

What you start to wonder is how far this will go as they keep trying to out do each other and remain in the limelight with no consequences at all.

Stevo_666

JC under pressure over his involvement at a ceremony to honour the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics terror attack:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

JC under pressure over his involvement at a ceremony to honour the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics terror attack:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622

Yeah Momentum and his other supporters are really going to be mortified that he turns out to be a terrorist supporting anti-Semite.

rjsterry

Bizarre explanation in the Guardian: "I was present but I don't think I was involved." What? He was just passing? I mean there's a photo of him stood next to the guy laying the wreath. There seems to be some debate over whether the wreath was for victims of an Israeli air strike or members of Black September.