Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…287288290292293…509

Comments

  • my_grandadʹs_bike
    my_grandadʹs_bike Posts: 1,300
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.
    True, especially on this forum.

    Isn't that all of us then? :lol:
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,549
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Never trust anyone that makes up their own nickname.
    True, especially on this forum.
    :D
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    : "Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel."

    Apparently tweeting that several years ago when you aren't a member of the party will get you suspended should you ever choose to join Labour.

    Ok let me explain why this is antisemitic and why it isn't an attempt at stifling debate, which I'm inferring you're getting at based on:
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents.
    Jewish people
    He's calling to everyone based on their religion and assuming they'll have one view/opinion. (anti-semitic trope right there)
    ...with any sense of humanity...
    Jews who don't agree with him aren't human (antisemitic trope right there)
    ...need to start...
    They haven't done it to date and given what he's said already, we know that makes all Jews sub-human (antisemitic trope right there)
    ...ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel...
    Why's it incumbent on all (to-date) sub-human Jews to comment on Israel? Is it perhaps because he thinks we have unfailing and unquestioning loyalty to Israel - what could be described at best as dual-loyalty? (guess what, antisemitic trope right there).

    So what he said was dripping with antisemitism. That's why he was suspended. It's also why he shouldn't have been allowed in.

    On a broader point, having been born in this country and being Jewish and now middle age, I am genuinely scared and saddened that so many people could not care less about the vile racism that is being flaunted. I don't understand why the response is so often a shrug of the shoulders or dismissive. I know this is self-interested, but I would have thought that with so many Jews saying "this is antisemitic, it is hurtful", others would listen. The weird thing is, too often the response to that is "oh it's not that bad, and anyway Israel..."

    A good post. Whilst it is very unlikely to mean anything to an anti-Semite it is a very good learn for those of us not directly effected.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,549
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    : "Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel."

    Apparently tweeting that several years ago when you aren't a member of the party will get you suspended should you ever choose to join Labour.

    Ok let me explain why this is antisemitic and why it isn't an attempt at stifling debate, which I'm inferring you're getting at based on:
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    It's a problem though if adults in public life can't discuss issues for fear of falling foul of being called anti Semitic. It is being used as a way of shutting down debate over Israel and more widely of simply smearing political opponents.
    Jewish people
    He's calling to everyone based on their religion and assuming they'll have one view/opinion. (anti-semitic trope right there)
    ...with any sense of humanity...
    Jews who don't agree with him aren't human (antisemitic trope right there)
    ...need to start...
    They haven't done it to date and given what he's said already, we know that makes all Jews sub-human (antisemitic trope right there)
    ...ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel...
    Why's it incumbent on all (to-date) sub-human Jews to comment on Israel? Is it perhaps because he thinks we have unfailing and unquestioning loyalty to Israel - what could be described at best as dual-loyalty? (guess what, antisemitic trope right there).

    So what he said was dripping with antisemitism. That's why he was suspended. It's also why he shouldn't have been allowed in.

    On a broader point, having been born in this country and being Jewish and now middle age, I am genuinely scared and saddened that so many people could not care less about the vile racism that is being flaunted. I don't understand why the response is so often a shrug of the shoulders or dismissive. I know this is self-interested, but I would have thought that with so many Jews saying "this is antisemitic, it is hurtful", others would listen. The weird thing is, too often the response to that is "oh it's not that bad, and anyway Israel..."

    Excellent post. And also explains why Corbyn's endless promises to do something about it are just hot air.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    Jewish people
    He's calling to everyone based on their religion and assuming they'll have one view/opinion. (anti-semitic trope right there)
    ...with any sense of humanity...
    Jews who don't agree with him aren't human (antisemitic trope right there)

    That's just a repetition of the same point. There's nothing anti-semitic about the term "Jewish people" (afaik) nor the phrase "with any sense of humanity" unless they are combined. Furthermore, it does not imply that someone isn't human if you describe them as having no sense of humanity. It just means they have no sense of humanity. The sentence can only really imply that "Jews who don't agree with him aren't compassionate" which, whilst being a generalisation, is surely no different to saying the same sentence with random alternative religious affiliation.

    But anyway, to clarify, would the sentence then be OK if it just said "Israelis need to speak out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel"?
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,549
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,549
    Rolf F wrote:
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    Jewish people
    He's calling to everyone based on their religion and assuming they'll have one view/opinion. (anti-semitic trope right there)
    ...with any sense of humanity...
    Jews who don't agree with him aren't human (antisemitic trope right there)

    That's just a repetition of the same point. There's nothing anti-semitic about the term "Jewish people" (afaik) nor the phrase "with any sense of humanity" unless they are combined. Furthermore, it does not imply that someone isn't human if you describe them as having no sense of humanity. It just means they have no sense of humanity. The sentence can only really imply that "Jews who don't agree with him aren't compassionate" which, whilst being a generalisation, is surely no different to saying the same sentence with random alternative religious affiliation.

    But anyway, to clarify, would the sentence then be OK if it just said "Israelis need to speak out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel"?

    A paragraph is more than the sum of its constituent sentences. By deconstructing it, you miss what is a pretty clear overall tone. If you were to break it down to individual words you could 'prove' that the whole thing is absolutely fine.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.
    "TIG of the Dumped" according to The Times' sketch writer.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    Jewish people
    He's calling to everyone based on their religion and assuming they'll have one view/opinion. (anti-semitic trope right there)
    ...with any sense of humanity...
    Jews who don't agree with him aren't human (antisemitic trope right there)

    That's just a repetition of the same point. There's nothing anti-semitic about the term "Jewish people" (afaik) nor the phrase "with any sense of humanity" unless they are combined. Furthermore, it does not imply that someone isn't human if you describe them as having no sense of humanity. It just means they have no sense of humanity. The sentence can only really imply that "Jews who don't agree with him aren't compassionate" which, whilst being a generalisation, is surely no different to saying the same sentence with random alternative religious affiliation.

    But anyway, to clarify, would the sentence then be OK if it just said "Israelis need to speak out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel"?

    A paragraph is more than the sum of its constituent sentences. By deconstructing it, you miss what is a pretty clear overall tone. If you were to break it down to individual words you could 'prove' that the whole thing is absolutely fine.

    Not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. The former I think. By splitting the sentence up into almost individual words Thigh_Burn is finding more wrong than there actually is.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    edited February 2019
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.
  • Thigh_burn
    Thigh_burn Posts: 489
    Rolf F wrote:
    By splitting the sentence up into almost individual words Thigh_Burn is finding more wrong than there actually is.

    That's your opinion. My opinion is that what he said was deeply antisemitic. Much of it was dog whistle type stuff and I understand on the face of it, some people might feel it was innocuous. But as with so much racist language, words and phrases are exceptionally loaded. Their usage, context and authors matter.

    I know you have no idea who I am or my back story or anything. But if you're happy to accept face value, I'm a moderate (in all senses) male British Jew. I find his statement antisemitic. I'd like to think that me expressing my concern counts for something. Unfortunately, somehow it no longer does.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,549
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    By splitting the sentence up into almost individual words Thigh_Burn is finding more wrong than there actually is.

    That's your opinion. My opinion is that what he said was deeply antisemitic. Much of it was dog whistle type stuff and I understand on the face of it, some people might feel it was innocuous. But as with so much racist language, words and phrases are exceptionally loaded. Their usage, context and authors matter.

    I know you have no idea who I am or my back story or anything. But if you're happy to accept face value, I'm a moderate (in all senses) male British Jew. I find his statement antisemitic. I'd like to think that me expressing my concern counts for something. Unfortunately, somehow it no longer does.

    I mean this is Derek Hatton we are talking about. He's not someone any reputable political party should be anywhere near, let alone allowing to be a member. What is the most likely explanation of that paragraph?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    By splitting the sentence up into almost individual words Thigh_Burn is finding more wrong than there actually is.

    That's your opinion. My opinion is that what he said was deeply antisemitic. Much of it was dog whistle type stuff and I understand on the face of it, some people might feel it was innocuous. But as with so much racist language, words and phrases are exceptionally loaded. Their usage, context and authors matter.

    I know you have no idea who I am or my back story or anything. But if you're happy to accept face value, I'm a moderate (in all senses) male British Jew. I find his statement antisemitic. I'd like to think that me expressing my concern counts for something. Unfortunately, somehow it no longer does.

    I'll rephrase it then. I think you find more points to complain about than there actually are but that that doesn't mean that the sentence is any less wrong overall. To me, the problem with the sentence is the implication that the entire Jewish faith is responsible for the actions of the Israeli government and that can't be overstated. But apart from that it is just a carelessly phrased sentence that has as much precise meaning as most of the stuff we speak - which isn't a lot IMO.

    Why do you think you expressing your concern (presumably here) counts for nothing? Do you want to be able to express your concern without anyone questioning it? Nobody learns anything from that.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.

    and is that little bit further from having a majority in the commons.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rolf F wrote:
    Thigh_burn wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    By splitting the sentence up into almost individual words Thigh_Burn is finding more wrong than there actually is.

    That's your opinion. My opinion is that what he said was deeply antisemitic. Much of it was dog whistle type stuff and I understand on the face of it, some people might feel it was innocuous. But as with so much racist language, words and phrases are exceptionally loaded. Their usage, context and authors matter.

    I know you have no idea who I am or my back story or anything. But if you're happy to accept face value, I'm a moderate (in all senses) male British Jew. I find his statement antisemitic. I'd like to think that me expressing my concern counts for something. Unfortunately, somehow it no longer does.

    I'll rephrase it then. I think you find more points to complain about than there actually are but that that doesn't mean that the sentence is any less wrong overall. To me, the problem with the sentence is the implication that the entire Jewish faith is responsible for the actions of the Israeli government and that can't be overstated. But apart from that it is just a carelessly phrased sentence that has as much precise meaning as most of the stuff we speak - which isn't a lot IMO.

    Why do you think you expressing your concern (presumably here) counts for nothing? Do you want to be able to express your concern without anyone questioning it? Nobody learns anything from that.

    My understanding is that those are carefully chosen words and phrases. The author and his supporters know exactly what he means.

    If you go back to thigh Burns’s first post he explains the background to the words.

    Maybe I am overstating things but there are people still alive who survived the concentration camps which were an attempt at the genocide of the Jewish people. That started by dehumanising them and blaming them for all sorts of problems but predominantly financial. I can easily see why to a Jewish person this could look like the start of history repeating itself.

    In a few short years we have reached a point where people are being hounded out of the Labour Party because they are Jewish.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.

    and is that little bit further from having a majority in the commons.

    It is quite remarkable how far they have fallen since Cameron won the election before last.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.

    and is that little bit further from having a majority in the commons.

    It is quite remarkable how far they have fallen since Cameron won the election before last.

    Arguably off the back of Lib Dem successes who naturally curbed Tories worst instincts (as Cameron has broadly admitted in relation to an EU ref).
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.

    and is that little bit further from having a majority in the commons.

    It is quite remarkable how far they have fallen since Cameron won the election before last.

    Arguably off the back of Lib Dem successes who naturally curbed Tories worst instincts (as Cameron has broadly admitted in relation to an EU ref).

    Nothing wrong with coalition governments
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    No, though UK voters seem to disagree.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    No, though UK voters seem to disagree.

    Never forget that half of them are below average intelligence
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    No, though UK voters seem to disagree.

    Never forget that half of them are below average intelligence
    Do we know which way that half voted in the ref? :wink:
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Ask coopster.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.

    and is that little bit further from having a majority in the commons.

    It is quite remarkable how far they have fallen since Cameron won the election before last.

    Arguably off the back of Lib Dem successes who naturally curbed Tories worst instincts (as Cameron has broadly admitted in relation to an EU ref).
    I love this Lib Dem generalisation about 'curbing the Tories'. No, you just got in the way and destroyed your own electoral credibility with your sandal wearing core voters in the process.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    That Degsy wording I thought was a bit wrong. I'm not that educated on antisemitism but I assumed it had all the "in the know" phrases that signify antisemitism. Thigh burn put it better but my view was that he was making an antisemitic statement with a deliberate use of words that his supporters can argue as being innocent. Or at least put enough doubt in the minds of the general public. I suspect Ken Livingston does the same but I can't give examples.

    For me the idea that all Jewish people should have a view on Israel is a little wrong IMHO. Nobody should be expected to have a view on something because of their religion. I think.

    Mind you I still think there's more incendiary stuff from Degsy to use to keep him out of any mainstream party. I don't understand why pick on something that could be in dispute when I really do expect news said things that are beyond doubt against the Labour party's interests. Still, it's done now. Things will quieten down then the suspension will be converted to expulsion quietly or he'll take the hint and leave.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    I thought Cameron just used LibDems to put through his policies that the right wingers in his party wouldn't like and him having others to blame for it. Political cover I think it's called. LibDems were always planned as Cameron's patsys. I'm glad they fell for it.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Slightly lost track of which thread is which, but Grieve and Greening reported to be on the verge of jumping ship, presumably to join TIG.

    I'll wait until this is confirmed before celebrating but if/when this does happen it will just mean the Conservative party better represents the democratic outcome from the 2016 referendum.

    and is that little bit further from having a majority in the commons.

    It is quite remarkable how far they have fallen since Cameron won the election before last.

    Arguably off the back of Lib Dem successes who naturally curbed Tories worst instincts (as Cameron has broadly admitted in relation to an EU ref).
    I love this Lib Dem generalisation about 'curbing the Tories'. No, you just got in the way and destroyed your own electoral credibility with your sandal wearing core voters in the process.
    https://inews.co.uk/culture/stupid-davi ... -election/
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    It’s a documentary worth watching if you haven’t.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s a documentary worth watching if you haven’t.
    I've read the above article previously Could be read as the Liberals failure to get enough votes and seats in parliament in 2015 was a trigger for the Brexit referendum. You'll have that on your conscience for a bit :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s a documentary worth watching if you haven’t.
    I've read the above article previously Could be read as the Liberals failure to get enough votes and seats in parliament in 2015 was a trigger for the Brexit referendum. You'll have that on your conscience for a bit :)

    Naah, if you must find someone other than the Ultra Tool Cameron then blame it on the Unions for backing the wrong Milliband.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,549
    Just in case anyone was unsure about antisemitism in the Labour party.
    A Labour MP has apologised for suggesting Israel could be secretly funding Luciana Berger and other MPs who quit the party on Monday citing unhappiness with Labour’s approach to tackling complaints of antisemitism.

    Ruth George, the MP for High Peak, withdrew the comment and said she had no intention of invoking a conspiracy theory, when she responded to someone asking whether it was appropriate to say the seven departing MPs were “Israelis”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ana-berger
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition

Categories