It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.
I had no idea.
I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.
What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.
I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
I actually like Rowson’s grotesques. He is in the tradition of Gillray. I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
What you know changes what you see, is the point I am making. It’s the point I thought you were making.
I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic. The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.
People are touchy, though.
However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy
Right on the edge I’d say
Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper
And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic
Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
Lazy bugger.
Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt? How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.
But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
Here they are.
My point in a nutshell. It's not a recognisable caricature of Richard Sharp. It's a very recognisable caricature of a Jewish stereotype.
No but yes. It does look like an antisemitic stereotype but it also does look like the cartoonist has copied a photo of Sharp, insofar as their are points of similarity: hairline, a touch of grey hair at the sides, nose, bottom lip. Look at one of the larger versions of the cartoon posted earlier in this thread.
I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic. The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.
People are touchy, though.
However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy
Right on the edge I’d say
Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper
And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic
Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
Lazy bugger.
Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt? How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.
But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
Here they are.
The caricature looks nothing like Sharp, who is good-looking, and neither hook-nosed nor thick-lipped.
Interesting how the left are warming to Charles because they think he's a bit of a lefty and may be more left-wing than any politicians who could be running the country in the future.
There are clearly elements of the Left and even the centre Left which have now crossed into blatant anti semitism, and aren’t even embarrassed about it
And the right with even MPs banging on about Cultural Marxists and North London Intellectuals.
The trouble is that both of those are blatantly true. It's unfortunate that cultural marxism is associated with antisemitism but what are you supposed to call social and cultural theorists heavily influenced by Marx. North London intellectuals is one I hadn't considered before. Again though, there are a lot of political and intellectual types in Islington.
It’s very simple.
Palestine is one of the big causes of the hard left.
A lot of countries in the area preach (literally) antisemitism as part of the blame-the-Jews-for-everything-not-the-wankers-running-the-country thing.
So quite a few people from the region are steeped in anti-semitism.
A tenant of modern progressivism is that non-white people can’t be racist. This means that white, middle class progressives feel they can’t push back against minorities expressing antisemitism.
So the antisemitism is allowed. And so people are listening to it, seeing the cartoons etc on a regular basis. And it rubs off on them….
It’s a debate I avoid generally as there are always accusations of bigotry made, on both sides of the debate, and partly due to suppress criticism.
Even criticism of the Israeli govt it ‘anti semitic’ to some. But then there’s a nasty streak of islamophobia in this debate as well as anti semitism.
It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.
I had no idea.
I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.
What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.
I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
I actually like Rowson’s grotesques. He is in the tradition of Gillray. I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
Is Rowson ever funny or insightful? Is Steve Bell?
They are both desperately repetitive, heavy handed and dull
That is of course, their chief fault as cartoonists.
I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic. The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.
People are touchy, though.
However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy
Right on the edge I’d say
Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper
And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic
Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
Lazy bugger.
Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt? How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.
But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
Here they are.
My point in a nutshell. It's not a recognisable caricature of Richard Sharp. It's a very recognisable caricature of a Jewish stereotype.
No but yes. It does look like an antisemitic stereotype but it also does look like the cartoonist has copied a photo of Sharp, insofar as their are points of similarity: hairline, a touch of grey hair at the sides, nose, bottom lip. Look at one of the larger versions of the cartoon posted earlier in this thread.
That photo also looks about twenty years out of date. This suggests more of a likeness.
People mock the Telegraph nowadays but Matt cartoons are superb. What is the value of these more dubious cartoons on the whole. And isn't it odd that the supposedly high brow Guardian likes this stuff? Repeatedly depicting David Cameron with a condom on his head made even this Toryphobe sigh.
Satirical caricatures go back to the dawn of time and are intended to make a point. Matt intends to tell a joke. It's not quite the same thing.
Matt does his job brilliantly, but his cartoons wouldn't work blown up to the op-ed page. Steve Bell often managed more reliable amusement in the If... strips (especially the ones that were just silly) than in the larger format.
Has there ever been a reliably funny editorial cartoonist? Most of them (left and right) find it hard to avoid spilling into angry and frankly nasty. Maybe Peter Brookes's Nature Notes series.
On the whole Matt is creating cartoons 'for us' rather than 'against them'. It is the haplessness of life and its subtle ironies rather than its grotesque and horrific nature which he depicts.
The French police chasing a burqa clad woman on a nudist beach; the tweed jacket chap in prison ('religious hatred') for saying 'Not one of your best sermons vicar'. And countless others.
"Bullying claims deepen divide between ministers and civil service Ministers complain that policies are being obstructed, while officials say they are treated like ‘naughty schoolkids’" (£)
Seems fair enough. Did the Times apologise for their cartoon depicting Biden as a leprechaun?
Yes, it strikes me as a fair apology. As he says he was not apologising if people were offended. He properly apologises. He also explains his thoughts behind it.
It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.
I had no idea.
I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.
What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.
I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
I actually like Rowson’s grotesques. He is in the tradition of Gillray. I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
Is Rowson ever funny or insightful? Is Steve Bell?
They are both desperately repetitive, heavy handed and dull
Believe it or not there are a certain number of 'blokes' who read the Guardian. Usually class warrior types or guys born/married into progressive politics. I suppose the cartoons are for them.
FPT, private education seems like a waste of money. Typically, one is spending £20,000 a year, per head, out of after-tax income, to have some privileged left wing head teacher trying to indoctrinate one's children into far left politics.
Far better just to move to a place where the State schools are good.
I’ve come to think that myself. Our son is at a private school. It’s bloody expensive, and yes he’s getting good teaching and pastoral support but he’d have done fine in the state school he had a place for too, and would be better placed for university applications. I wouldn’t describe his teachers as remotely far (or privileged for that matter).
Once you get sucked into the private system it’s a massive guilt trip. Because you’re shelling out cash it has to be better? No. You can be far better off elsewhere and if you think of the opportunity cost it’s a very bad deal.
I went through a few months of guilt tripping myself about not sending my older shyer daughter to a private school. But in the end she went to a jolly good comp and is now at an outstanding 6th form and is thriving, in her own way, and looking at top notch universities so I think hey, maybe I saved £200,000, nice one
My younger daughter is ebullient and would probably thrive anywhere so it didn’t matter
The local comp delivered straight A*s , a love of Rugby, a musical instrument and friends for life. With money saved, we did all sorts of trips.
Job done.
Agreed
I also think it’s spiritually and morally better to go to a state school, if you can. You will understand your own country and your compatriots so much better
Public school kids are always faintly and embarrassingly clueless about fundamental aspects of Britain
What is this “Britain” you mention?
But seriously there’s a weird reverse snobbery about public school kids I find a bit odd. It’s usually along the lines of them being so isolated and in a bubble they have no idea about “real life”.
It shows a lack of knowledge that people at public schools have a wider exposure to people from different countries and cultures than anyone who isn’t in some cosmopolitan inner city state school. My housemates were literally from all around the world; Thai, Russian, Malaysian, HK, China, India, France, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Philippines and Scotland.
That same group consisted of Catholic, CofE, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and atheist.
Their backgrounds were wide ranging from children of overseas politicians, nobles, diplomats, sons of small business owners whose grandparents were helping with the fees and assisted places kids. And the British kids were from all parts of the country from all furthest points of the compass.
And funnily enough we also mixed socially with our peers in the state system out of school.
Your average state school kid will go through their time with a cohort from a pretty similar demographic because of catchment areas. A state school in a wealthy part of Cheshire might have as many wealthy kids but probably drawn from a pretty identikit background and a comp in inner city Southampton is going to generally have kids from similar backgrounds.
So no school system gives kids some total “real” insight into the makeup of the country and if you go to your state school in a very white middle class area then you can’t fling shit at public school kids re having their finger on the pulse of the nation as they will have had a narrower experience of people in their formative years.
I went to a state school. But half my friends are private school kids. The latter are genuinely and notably more clueless about normal daily life in the UK. It’s just a fact
On the other hand I have seen the big advantage you get from a really good private school - eg Westminster, Winchester, Eton - in terms of lifelong networks
Also, a small number of public schools - particularly places like Winchester and Westminster, I would say, are good at teaching at critical thinking. Two of the most intelligent people I've met were from those two schools, and not particuiarly socially networked. PBers will know that my views on Eton and a few other schools are less favourable.
Once Labour changes the rules on VAT and charitable status, the last of the non-ultra rich British-based kids now there will be forced to leave. The most famoust schools have a huge ready market and profile in Asia, which will step in instead, and fill the gap.
It's a myth that these give "life long" networks that, if it was ever true, expired a hundred years ago.
I'm only in touch with two people I used to go to school with, neither of which are particularly influential. All my useful professional contacts have come from ex-university friends or colleagues and peers I've worked with since graduation.
That's how it works these days. Not the old school tie.
Did you go to Winchester, Westminster or Eton?
I know a dozen people that did, and their networks are remarkably advantageous. I’m talking about the really elite public schools here
Friends who went to middling or minor private schools barely have old school networks at all. University was more important for them (as it was for me)
Nope. Very small and minor private schools.
I know how tightly they operate and the sacrifices my parents made to send me there - we didn't go abroad for the first 10 years of my life. At all.
Probably why I feel so passionately about it.
I didn't go abroad for the first 15 years of my life. At all. But that's because we were poor.
The fact this Four Yorkshiremen post got seven likes is very instructive of Britain today.
We were also "poor" because my parents spent all their money on school fees, whilst cross-subsidising other children who could not.
But, we're not an aspirational society anymore. Now, because everyone is struggling, anyone is angry about anyone that might be doing slightly better than them - because they're not - so the politics of envy and class war rules.
This is how you apologise - no weasel words, just a clearly sincere explanation. Kudos to @MartinRowson for a convincing apology. But as I posted above, my real anger is directed at @guardian who only decided there was an issue when social media vented.
I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic. The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.
People are touchy, though.
However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy
Right on the edge I’d say
Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper
And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic
Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
Lazy bugger.
Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt? How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.
But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
Here they are.
My point in a nutshell. It's not a recognisable caricature of Richard Sharp. It's a very recognisable caricature of a Jewish stereotype.
No but yes. It does look like an antisemitic stereotype but it also does look like the cartoonist has copied a photo of Sharp, insofar as their are points of similarity: hairline, a touch of grey hair at the sides, nose, bottom lip. Look at one of the larger versions of the cartoon posted earlier in this thread.
That photo also looks about twenty years out of date. This suggests more of a likeness.
I think Sean F is the only one going PHWOAAARRR at that pic.
Just to add I used to read the Guardian myself. I like to think it left me rather than the other way around. And I don't think I ever made a conscious decision to look at one of their cartoons.
Just to add I used to read the Guardian myself. I like to think it left me rather than the other way around. And I don't think I ever made a conscious decision to look at one of their cartoons.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The "the gold coins are really just the squid's suckers" is a bit dubious too. I mean, it's possible. But why are they gold and much wider than the arms?
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
First, if you look at the cartoon, it does not say Gold Sacs, if anything it says Gold Sacl. Second, the point is that Goldman Sachs plays into the antisemitic trope whereas Gold Sacs barely means anything at all and if it is not understood to mean the bank then the squid and Rishi make no sense either. Most Guardian readers would get it as such.
It’s entirely possible, if not probable, that Rowson does not know Sharp is Jewish.
I had no idea.
I don’t know about others on this board, but I don’t typically assign people to “Jewish” or “not Jewish” unless in some way it’s really really obvious. That’s not me professing some kind of amazing anti-prejudice, it’s just not something that’s really top of mind.
What you know impacts on what you see, you are saying? Rowson is an archetypal fully signed up Corbynista. Know that and look again.
I used to think Rowson caricature of Sunak was harsh, but in that coke factory in Northern Ireland, with his mouth open and tongue out to greet his audience it was a spitting image. Life imitating art.
I actually like Rowson’s grotesques. He is in the tradition of Gillray. I don’t care if he was a Corbynista, lots of people were/are. Doesn’t mean we should cancel them.
Is Rowson ever funny or insightful? Is Steve Bell?
They are both desperately repetitive, heavy handed and dull
Funny no. But sometimes grotesquerie is enough.
No, it’s not, then it is just crude and childish insult
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The "the gold coins are really just the squid's suckers" is a bit dubious too. I mean, it's possible. But why are they gold and much wider than the arms?
You basically need a magnifying glass to see them. If you’re at that level of “finding” anti-semitism, then, in the words of Reddit, “you are the asshole”.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Sadly you are guilty of the trope that prejudice is somehow a monopoly of the left. It’s quite offensive, really.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
First, if you look at the cartoon, it does not say Gold Sacs, if anything it says Gold Sacl. Second, the point is that Goldman Sachs plays into the antisemitic trope whereas Gold Sacs barely means anything at all and if it is not understood to mean the bank then the squid and Rishi make no sense either. Most Guardian readers would get it as such.
Yeah, absolutely no one would understand the intent, in a cartoon of a heavily Jewish looking man carrying a box full of gold coins with “Gold Sac“ written on the front
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Any belief system that sees people primarily as part of groups, rather than as individuals, is going to end up being prejudiced. That is true for woke leftism just as its true for American Christian nationalism.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
First, if you look at the cartoon, it does not say Gold Sacs, if anything it says Gold Sacl. Second, the point is that Goldman Sachs plays into the antisemitic trope whereas Gold Sacs barely means anything at all and if it is not understood to mean the bank then the squid and Rishi make no sense either. Most Guardian readers would get it as such.
Yeah, absolutely no one would understand the intent, in a cartoon of a heavily Jewish looking man carrying a box full of gold coins with “Gold Sac“ written on the front
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The "the gold coins are really just the squid's suckers" is a bit dubious too. I mean, it's possible. But why are they gold and much wider than the arms?
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
First, if you look at the cartoon, it does not say Gold Sacs, if anything it says Gold Sacl. Second, the point is that Goldman Sachs plays into the antisemitic trope whereas Gold Sacs barely means anything at all and if it is not understood to mean the bank then the squid and Rishi make no sense either. Most Guardian readers would get it as such.
Yeah, absolutely no one would understand the intent, in a cartoon of a heavily Jewish looking man carrying a box full of gold coins with “Gold Sac“ written on the front
Again, the position of the CV covering the words could be a coincidence, but how many coincidences can there be?
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
First, if you look at the cartoon, it does not say Gold Sacs, if anything it says Gold Sacl. Second, the point is that Goldman Sachs plays into the antisemitic trope whereas Gold Sacs barely means anything at all and if it is not understood to mean the bank then the squid and Rishi make no sense either. Most Guardian readers would get it as such.
Yeah, absolutely no one would understand the intent, in a cartoon of a heavily Jewish looking man carrying a box full of gold coins with “Gold Sac“ written on the front
It's a squid because that is Goldman Sachs. If you take another look at the cartoon you will see the chap who *is* depicted hoarding sacks of cash is Boris Johnson and not Richard Sharp.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Maybe some types of prejudice are ok, others not so? That is how it looks like to me.
I remember I once bought up this - Prejudice Reporting in Education. People who think that, rather than being a pervasive and inevitable human emotion ('Pride and Prejudice?'!!) , prejudice is in fact something that can be identified, logged, treated and eradicated. And these ideas are taken seriously, infiltrating the establishment.
It is all just really the folly of progressivism. You can see why people think, "yeah I don't like (insert 'far right hate figure' here), but they're going too far; someone's just got to shut all this stuff down". I must confess I have been pretty close to this point myself at times over the last few years, and I'm sure I am not the only one.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Sadly you are guilty of the trope that prejudice is somehow a monopoly of the left. It’s quite offensive, really.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Maybe some types of prejudice are ok, others not so?
@Casino_Royale is deeply prejudiced against small 'r' republicans, vegetarians and lefty lawyers
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Indeed, it was the Romans. We are supposed to skip over that because Constantine turned the Romans into goodies.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Maybe some types of prejudice are ok, others not so?
@Casino_Royale is deeply prejudiced against small 'r' republicans, vegetarians and lefty lawyers
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Indeed, it was the Romans. We are supposed to skip over that because Constantine turned the Romans into goodies.
Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. The Jews, if they really were the ones who had Jesus executed, would have stoned him.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
First, if you look at the cartoon, it does not say Gold Sacs, if anything it says Gold Sacl. Second, the point is that Goldman Sachs plays into the antisemitic trope whereas Gold Sacs barely means anything at all and if it is not understood to mean the bank then the squid and Rishi make no sense either. Most Guardian readers would get it as such.
Yeah, absolutely no one would understand the intent, in a cartoon of a heavily Jewish looking man carrying a box full of gold coins with “Gold Sac“ written on the front
It's a squid because that is Goldman Sachs. If you take another look at the cartoon you will see the chap who *is* depicted hoarding sacks of cash is Boris Johnson and not Richard Sharp.
Just one of many reasons that the cartoon doesn't work. Johnson is no miser hoarding money. He spends like a drunken sailor.
i don’t believe Rowson set out to do an anti-Semitic cartoon. I do believe that, as a Corbynite, he is surrounded by expressions of anti-Semitism to an extent where it becomes so normalized he no longer notices them, especially when they are subtle visual signals. So he has - probably unwittingly - inserted several of them in this cartoon. There are too many for it to be pure coincidence
Realizing his career is in the balance, he has now hastily but persuasively apologized, albeit in a way which, if you analyse it, rather falls apart
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Maybe some types of prejudice are ok, others not so?
@Casino_Royale is deeply prejudiced against small 'r' republicans, vegetarians and lefty lawyers
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Sadly you are guilty of the trope that prejudice is somehow a monopoly of the left. It’s quite offensive, really.
It's on both sides. But it does grate when lectured to about it by those who believe they've expunged it and are whiter than white.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
The New Testament and the foundational documents of the church are clear, even though much anti-semitism surrounds all of this in history. All four gospels make it clear this is a Roman punishment under Pontius Pilate with Roman soldiers assisting. The Apostles' and Nicene Creed both make it clear that Jesus was killed under the orders of Pontius Pilate. There is a thicket of polemic as well - but they were in the middle of a massive split.
In theological terms, all sinners (ie everyone) are complicit in the death of Jesus, those who are actually complicit being our representatives.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Maybe some types of prejudice are ok, others not so?
@Casino_Royale is deeply prejudiced against small 'r' republicans, vegetarians and lefty lawyers
Don't mind vegetarians actually. It's vegans who trigger.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Indeed, it was the Romans. We are supposed to skip over that because Constantine turned the Romans into goodies.
Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. The Jews, if they really were the ones who had Jesus executed, would have stoned him.
There is a huge debate going on for decades as to whether in 1st century Judea the local community could have lawfully imposed a death penalty (eg stoning) under Roman rule. There is a lack of sources outside the New Testament itself, which has a bias. The balance of scholars opinion is: No.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Sadly you are guilty of the trope that prejudice is somehow a monopoly of the left. It’s quite offensive, really.
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
As Goldman Sachs, which is where Sharp was Rishi's boss. Everyone knows that. Ironically for your case, it would probably be less antisemitic if it were read as Gold Sacs and not the bank, because the trope is of a cabal of Jewish bankers running the world.
So why truncate Goldman Sachs to “Gold Sacs” unless he wanted to play upon the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish bankers escaping with sacks of public gold?
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
The idea that prejudice is dead is a myth, particularly amongst those who call themselves "progressive".
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
Maybe some types of prejudice are ok, others not so? That is how it looks like to me.
I remember I once bought up this - Prejudice Reporting in Education. People who think that, rather than being a pervasive and inevitable human emotion ('Pride and Prejudice?'!!) , prejudice is in fact something that can be identified, logged, treated and eradicated. And these ideas are taken seriously, infiltrating the establishment.
It is all just really the folly of progressivism. You can see why people think, "yeah I don't like (insert 'far right hate figure' here), but they're going too far; someone's just got to shut all this stuff down". I must confess I have been pretty close to this point myself at times over the last few years, and I'm sure I am not the only one.
Only by convention.
Either judging groups of people at face value by popular stereotypes is wrong, or it isn't.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
I think the roots of antisemitism go back to jews historic role as money lenders.
Is that not a trope too? Beginning with Jesus and his team violent attack on the money lenders in the Temple? Hence all Christendom puts it around Jews = Money lenders = bad?
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
It is not clear that blaming Christianity is especially useful, or any other large group.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
I think the roots of antisemitism go back to jews historic role as money lenders.
Let’s be honest and clear about the history of Jesus death here. We think Jews as all on same side, but there was sectarian turbulence going on. Jesus and his followers launched what can be called a terror attack on the Temple. Romans frown at the Jewish leaders “what’s that all about. Sort your shit out.” Some on the council more than happy Jesus over stepped the mark. Jesus arrest is also another sword fight, indeed the lead Jew arresting him lost an ear (AN Wilson reckons it was Paul). He was handed over to the Romans with the strong recommendation from the Jewish Council to execute him. Joseph (Of Aramathea) was at the meeting but out voted.
I don’t think the cartoon was anti-Semitic. The “vampire” squid is a reference to the famous epithet for Goldman Sachs, coined in a Rolling Stone article.
People are touchy, though.
However Rowson chose to give Sharp a classically hook nosed Jewish face. And the “gold sack” thing is both pathetic and whiffy
Right on the edge I’d say
Certainly not as obviously repellant as the Abbott letter. Which was printed just last week in the same paper
And if you’ve got form for publishing overtly anti semitic crap you are going to get scrutinised for such more severely. So it’s either a massive blind spot or the guardian is now outright anti semitic
Hard to know what this is all about since I can't see the cartoon that gave offence. What's the issue here?
You’ll find it on Twitter. Just search “Rowson” and “cartoon” or “guardian”
If I have To go on Twitter I can't be arsed. I read PB so I can get Twitter content pre digested.
Lazy bugger.
Not only anti-semitic, but over-labelled like an American cartoon.
I'm struggling a bit to get too outraged by this. The bulging bags of money belong to Boris Johnson, who as far as I know isn't Jewish. Sharp used to work for Goldman, where Sunak worked for him. Goldman is widely known as the vampire squid. The image of redundant bankers walking home with a box of their possessions is a widely known one. Is Sharp Jewish? I don't know. Isn't the meaning of the cartoon that Johnson is corrupt and his appointment of Sharp also corrupt? How many elements of the cartoon need to be removed before it becomes OK? If the box was unlabelled and the squid taken out would it be OK? This outrage feels a bit like a deflection game. Maybe I am part of the problem. I thought the famous Corbyn grafiti was anti Semitic but this one feels a bit of a reach.
I struggle to be outraged by a lot of the things some people complain about. Nor did I know previously that Richard Sharp was Jewish.
But for me Sharp's face in this cartoon is unmistakably a stereotypical caricature of a Jew. If it was recognisably a caricature of Sharp himself, it might be different, but I think most people would find it difficult to identify him as the target without the context.
Here they are.
He used to draw Michael Howard in a very similar way. I wonder why that might be?
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
It is not clear that blaming Christianity is especially useful, or any other large group.
You are not in the mood to be helpful or even honest here are you? You know I’m a staunch Christian. But I fairly acknowledge history of Christian countries is horrible treatment of Jews. England probably being one of the worst in history, probably more so than the Germanic countries. Though having said that, the biggest anti Semite of all time being Martin Luther.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
It is not clear that blaming Christianity is especially useful, or any other large group.
You are not in the mood to be helpful or even honest here are you? You know I’m a staunch Christian. But I fairly acknowledge history of Christian countries is horrible treatment of Jews. England probably being one of the worst in history, probably more so than the Germanic countries. Though having said that, the biggest anti Semite of all time being Martin Luther.
There are other and more recent candidates for 'biggest anti Semite of all time'. Luther, despite his disgusting traits in this direction, doesn't make the top 10.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world. Am I wrong?
Yes. Hugely. Anti-Jewish prejudice and hatred predates Christ by centuries. The "Jews killed Jesus" trope is an antisemitic trope, not a Christian trope per se. It's like saying Biden created Ireland.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
It is not clear that blaming Christianity is especially useful, or any other large group.
You are not in the mood to be helpful or even honest here are you? You know I’m a staunch Christian. But I fairly acknowledge history of Christian countries is horrible treatment of Jews. England probably being one of the worst in history, probably more so than the Germanic countries. Though having said that, the biggest anti Semite of all time being Martin Luther.
I don't remember England ever killing millions of Jews in a Holocaust? Indeed after Israel and the USA the UK has one of the highest percentages of Jews in its population in the world
OT but of interest as an insight into GB News - and perhaps the wider media.
As some of you are aware, one of my friends and long time Ops Geology colleagues is Marcus Bawdon, one of the leading exponents of BBQ in the UK. Three best selling books, numerous TV and media apperences and a very successful BBQ school in Devon (which I can very heartily recomend to anyone with even a passing interest in BBQ.)
So earlier today he was contacted by GB News. They wanted him to appear on TV tomorrow morning to talk about an article in the Daily Star on how women are taking over the BBQ from men.
The email exchange went:
GB News contact: I was wondering if you would be free tomorrow at 7.20am to talk about this
MB: Hi, yes happy to help
GBN: OK Great : We are doing a debate : Basically if you would say that women can't grill.
MB: I'm sorry I can't do that : I think we should be encouraging more women to grill
End of discussion.
Is it normal for news channels to contact contributors and instruct them in advance as to what their position should be on a subject so as to stir up discord and division? Or is it just GB News?
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Martin Goodman’s Rome and Jerusalem is very good on this point.
Simply, “Greeks” utterly loathed Jews, in the ancient world. Greeks were not necessarily ethnic Greeks. They were people who spoke Greek, adopted Greek culture and worshipped the Greek pantheon.
Jewish monotheism was deeply offensive to them.
Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to forcibly convert the Jews, provoking the Maccabean revolt.
The Romans were initially far more tolerant. Pompey, Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius were philosemites. They disagreed with monotheism, but respected it as an ancient belief. They accepted that Jews were loyal subjects, and would accept prayers for the Emperor, in place of sacrifice.
Things got worse under Caligula, a lunatic who wanted to erect a statue to himself in the Jewish temple. Claudius disliked Jews and expelled them from Italy. Roman rule got worse, until the Jews revolted in 66, put down with extreme brutality. The Romans were vindictive, still collecting the temple tax, but refusing to let Jews rebuild their destroyed temple. Roman anti-semitism reached its peak under Hadrian who carried out a genocide of Palestine’s Jewish population.
The Christian emperors inherited the deep-rooted anti-semitism of the Roman state.
When did absolutely everybody first start disliking Jews and giving them such a bad press? Does it start with the Jews having Jesus killed?
Careful, that is another antisemitic trope. Two of them in fact. That Jews killed Jesus and more fundamentally that Jews did anything to deserve universal antisemitism.
Yes. We have to be careful. But Jews were slaves of the Arabs, and everyone likes an under dog, as Moses leads them to freedom, with Gods help. so something changed at some point for anti semitism to begin. because they don’t deserve anti semitism so why does it exist? What its starting point?
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
It is not clear that blaming Christianity is especially useful, or any other large group.
You are not in the mood to be helpful or even honest here are you? You know I’m a staunch Christian. But I fairly acknowledge history of Christian countries is horrible treatment of Jews. England probably being one of the worst in history, probably more so than the Germanic countries. Though having said that, the biggest anti Semite of all time being Martin Luther.
I don't remember England ever killing millions of Jews in a Holocaust? Indeed after Israel and the USA the UK has one of the highest percentages of Jews in its population in the world
Today yes. But worth remembering that thousands of Jews were massacred in England during the Middle Ages and all Jews were expelled from England in 1290 under an act that wasn't overturned until 1656
OT but of interest as an insight into GB News - and perhaps the wider media.
As some of you are aware, one of my friends and long time Ops Geology colleagues is Marcus Bawdon, one of the leading exponents of BBQ in the UK. Three best selling books, numerous TV and media apperences and a very successful BBQ school in Devon (which I can very heartily recomend to anyone with even a passing interest in BBQ.)
So earlier today he was contacted by GB News. They wanted him to appear on TV tomorrow morning to talk about an article in the Daily Star on how women are taking over the BBQ from men.
The email exchange went:
GB News contact: I was wondering if you would be free tomorrow at 7.20am to talk about this
MB: Hi, yes happy to help
GBN: OK Great : We are doing a debate : Basically if you would say that women can't grill.
MB: I'm sorry I can't do that : I think we should be encouraging more women to grill
End of discussion.
Is it normal for news channels to contact contributors and instruct them in advance as to what their position should be on a subject so as to stir up discord and division? Or is it just GB News?
I used to get on radio every so often to talk about employment law topics. One of the more memorable was with BBC Radio WM talking about facial tatoos and whether they could be a legitimate expression of cultural or religious identity but I was never asked to express a specific view save on one occasion. Mid interview in her LBC days Julia Hartley-Brewer essentially asked me to agree that teachers were lazy and feckless. Which was awkward.
Everyone stop and rejoice at Ipswich’s promotion. It is all, literally all, that matters this evening. Everything else is mere bagatelle.
Should we be rejoicing at the return of the East Anglian Derby and the fact most other championship sides will be dreading the Tuesday evening trip to Plymouth?
OT but of interest as an insight into GB News - and perhaps the wider media.
As some of you are aware, one of my friends and long time Ops Geology colleagues is Marcus Bawdon, one of the leading exponents of BBQ in the UK. Three best selling books, numerous TV and media apperences and a very successful BBQ school in Devon (which I can very heartily recomend to anyone with even a passing interest in BBQ.)
So earlier today he was contacted by GB News. They wanted him to appear on TV tomorrow morning to talk about an article in the Daily Star on how women are taking over the BBQ from men.
The email exchange went:
GB News contact: I was wondering if you would be free tomorrow at 7.20am to talk about this
MB: Hi, yes happy to help
GBN: OK Great : We are doing a debate : Basically if you would say that women can't grill.
MB: I'm sorry I can't do that : I think we should be encouraging more women to grill
End of discussion.
Is it normal for news channels to contact contributors and instruct them in advance as to what their position should be on a subject so as to stir up discord and division? Or is it just GB News?
You wouldn't have thought so, but if you accept GB News isn't a news channel in the typically accepted sense but is, in fact, bargain bucket entertainment providing confirmation bias for its target audience of gollywog owners, then it makes complete sense. After all, a lot of "reality" content is heavily rigged/scripted in advance.
Everyone stop and rejoice at Ipswich’s promotion. It is all, literally all, that matters this evening. Everything else is mere bagatelle.
Should we be rejoicing at the return of the East Anglian Derby and the fact most other championship sides will be dreading the Tuesday evening trip to Plymouth?
What’s not to like about the Old Farm derby? And West Devon’s lovely midweek in January! Particularly when it rains.
OT but of interest as an insight into GB News - and perhaps the wider media.
As some of you are aware, one of my friends and long time Ops Geology colleagues is Marcus Bawdon, one of the leading exponents of BBQ in the UK. Three best selling books, numerous TV and media apperences and a very successful BBQ school in Devon (which I can very heartily recomend to anyone with even a passing interest in BBQ.)
So earlier today he was contacted by GB News. They wanted him to appear on TV tomorrow morning to talk about an article in the Daily Star on how women are taking over the BBQ from men.
The email exchange went:
GB News contact: I was wondering if you would be free tomorrow at 7.20am to talk about this
MB: Hi, yes happy to help
GBN: OK Great : We are doing a debate : Basically if you would say that women can't grill.
MB: I'm sorry I can't do that : I think we should be encouraging more women to grill
End of discussion.
Is it normal for news channels to contact contributors and instruct them in advance as to what their position should be on a subject so as to stir up discord and division? Or is it just GB News?
Disappointing, but I can't say it surprises me. I presume they keep going until they find someone who does agree.
Not sure it's just them - MSM channels also do this. BBC Question Time do it in search of a "balanced" audience. They basically ask your position in advance.
Comments
Did the Times apologise for their cartoon depicting Biden as a leprechaun?
Even criticism of the Israeli govt it ‘anti semitic’ to some. But then there’s a nasty streak of islamophobia in this debate as well as anti semitism.
The French police chasing a burqa clad woman on a nudist beach; the tweed jacket chap in prison ('religious hatred') for saying 'Not one of your best sermons vicar'. And countless others.
Ministers complain that policies are being obstructed, while officials say they are treated like ‘naughty schoolkids’" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/divide-between-civil-service-and-ministers-deepens-amid-bullying-claims-h85n63b9c
Fair play to him.
We were also "poor" because my parents spent all their money on school fees, whilst cross-subsidising other children who could not.
But, we're not an aspirational society anymore. Now, because everyone is struggling, anyone is angry about anyone that might be doing slightly better than them - because they're not - so the politics of envy and class war rules.
It will not have a happy ending.
But as I posted above, my real anger is directed at @guardian who only decided there was an issue when social media vented.
https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1652334673182314500?s=20
I simply do not believe this bit
“Finally, fatally, many people assumed the yellow polyps on the squid were gold coins and the truncated Goldman Sachs logo simply read “Gold Sacs”.”
Really? Whether it was understood as a truncation or not, the logo says “Gold Sacs”. And that is deliberate by Rowson
How did he expect people to read “Gold Sacs”?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Kenneth_Colley&psig=AOvVaw1xxZa-Pst4sCd99NONaXt3&ust=1682869531166000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCNDDrJGsz_4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
I’m sorry, his apology is articulate and effective, but I think it’s shite. And he knows Sharp is Jewish?
I suspect he wittingly or unwittingly drew an explicitly anti-Semitic cartoon, and he has simply been forced to backtrack and grovel, due to the social media critique
Rowson’ s apology is an eloquent lie
It's absolutely fine to be violently prejudiced about Jews and Gammons, whilst turning a blind-eye to Chinese genocide of the Uighars, as long as you make an anti-imperialist argument to cover it to boot.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1652344154716880896
For the Gary Lineker fans amongst us, no, I don't mean the Weimar Republic.
I remember I once bought up this - Prejudice Reporting in Education. People who think that, rather than being a pervasive and inevitable human emotion ('Pride and Prejudice?'!!) , prejudice is in fact something that can be identified, logged, treated and eradicated. And these ideas are taken seriously, infiltrating the establishment.
https://www.prfe.education/
It is all just really the folly of progressivism. You can see why people think, "yeah I don't like (insert 'far right hate figure' here), but they're going too far; someone's just got to shut all this stuff down". I must confess I have been pretty close to this point myself at times over the last few years, and I'm sure I am not the only one.
Realizing his career is in the balance, he has now hastily but persuasively apologized, albeit in a way which, if you analyse it, rather falls apart
Eheu. He lives to draw again
And now, Masterchef: THE QUARTER FINAL
In theological terms, all sinners (ie everyone) are complicit in the death of Jesus, those who are actually complicit being our representatives.
But, I don't claim to be perfect.
I have looked through the PDF and that “the Jews killed Jesus” is supposed to be a trope, and we are not allowed to mention it? However there is a lot of historical truth to it. I don’t think it’s an excuse for anti semitism, but looking at how Christians were in history, their bad treatment of Jews is on a par with their brutality towards those following Pagan religions, is that where it comes from? Anti semitism comes firstly from Christianity?
Jesus was a Jew, and majority of the Jewish council didn’t like the trouble he was making, I think partly in fear of Romans using it as excuse for a clamp down, maybe also it wasn’t orthodox enough for Pharisee as he was mingling Greek philosophy particularly from Plato, the attack on money exchanges in the temple was a tipping point, so yes, it was other Jews who had Jesus crucified. Why can’t we mention that bit of history without being called anti Semitic?
I do have a strong feeling anti-semitism is strong in Christemdom because of that. And the start of treating Jews as harshly as those following other pagan religion. unfairly bigging that fact up as Jews being anti christian.
Christianity created and spread anti semitism through Europe and the world.
Am I wrong?
Either judging groups of people at face value by popular stereotypes is wrong, or it isn't.
The injustice to the individual is the same.
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1652358804837629959?t=RPe0DTCROHNZyTcobz-84Q&s=19
As some of you are aware, one of my friends and long time Ops Geology colleagues is Marcus Bawdon, one of the leading exponents of BBQ in the UK. Three best selling books, numerous TV and media apperences and a very successful BBQ school in Devon (which I can very heartily recomend to anyone with even a passing interest in BBQ.)
So earlier today he was contacted by GB News. They wanted him to appear on TV tomorrow morning to talk about an article in the Daily Star on how women are taking over the BBQ from men.
The email exchange went:
GB News contact: I was wondering if you would be free tomorrow at 7.20am to talk about this
MB: Hi, yes happy to help
GBN: OK Great
: We are doing a debate
: Basically if you would say that women can't grill.
MB: I'm sorry I can't do that
: I think we should be encouraging more women to grill
End of discussion.
Is it normal for news channels to contact contributors and instruct them in advance as to what their position should be on a subject so as to stir up discord and division? Or is it just GB News?
Damning report on BBC chairman prompts the question: will Simon Case quit after the coronation?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/richard-sharp-bbc-chairman-loan-boris-johnson-news-resigned-67rvh338p (£££)
What if Big Bird Exploded in the Challenger Disaster?
It's a real thing and takes a surprisingly plausible (if a bit conspiracy theory) turn
Simply, “Greeks” utterly loathed Jews, in the ancient world. Greeks were not necessarily ethnic Greeks. They were people who spoke Greek, adopted Greek culture and worshipped the Greek pantheon.
Jewish monotheism was deeply offensive to them.
Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to forcibly convert the Jews, provoking the Maccabean revolt.
The Romans were initially far more tolerant. Pompey, Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius were philosemites. They disagreed with monotheism, but respected it as an ancient belief. They accepted that Jews were loyal subjects, and would accept prayers for the Emperor, in place of sacrifice.
Things got worse under Caligula, a lunatic who wanted to erect a statue to himself in the Jewish temple. Claudius disliked Jews and expelled them from Italy. Roman rule got worse, until the Jews revolted in 66, put down with extreme brutality. The Romans were vindictive, still collecting the temple tax, but refusing to let Jews rebuild their destroyed temple. Roman anti-semitism reached its peak under Hadrian who carried out a genocide of Palestine’s Jewish population.
The Christian emperors inherited the deep-rooted anti-semitism of the Roman state.
Pause
"bagatelle"
Geddit?
Ho, hum...
It's been a good season for PB football fans - Ipswich up and Orient winning league two.
That Tottenham meanwhile appear to be going down the tubes only adds to the jollity.
Not sure it's just them - MSM channels also do this. BBC Question Time do it in search of a "balanced" audience. They basically ask your position in advance.
I know because they once asked me. And I said no.
Seems Dan Hodges is on the case ( no not Simon Case)
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1652355067834429440?t=ey89RSFJXatdzoX2SUvJ1w&s=19
However, it's worth remembering that Dan Hodges has predicted five of the last zero things that were going to bring Starmer down.