If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I need to get my political strapline right though.. I'm not sure "reform Islam so young WASPy Englishmen can also have a chance with hot Muslim women in their 20s" would have garnered sympathy from all quarters.
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
It seems inconceivable now but I am sure that like me you can remember a time in the distant past when the place was lousy with LibDems.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
I do not think that "Left leaning posters" are in the majority. I think the Tory party has moved to its most extreme-right position I can ever recall and left many of us sitting where we were. From inside the Tory group-think position, we look like lefties.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Weren't you the polanski apologist? While no fan of Boris personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on when casting stones
What a ridiculous post. Polanski is a film director whose behavior has no bearing on the UK or indeed anywhere else. Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. His behaviour has a reach well beyond himself affecting up to 67 million people. Get a grip!
Polanski was a film director that sodomized little girls after drugging them you defended him.
Johnson was a man that made questionable remarks in his newpaper column.
Frankly if you think the first is less bad go fuck yourself
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those who bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Trump is a racist (in my view). Corbyn was an anti-semite.
I don't believe Johnson is a racist - he is a journalist in love of a colourful phrase and an equal-opportunist when it comes to offending people
"Women are shit drivers and can't really do science because their brains are smaller." You sound like you have some pretty sexist views! "Ah, wait. Men are emotional retards who only ever think with their dicks." Oh, ok, now you've said that I recognise that you cannot possibly be sexist.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
That I suspect however is an aberration. I live in a large muslim town and I have only had it be explained to me as I described it. Mostly of pakistani origin not yemen. If I walked through town with a t shirt proclaiming scientology is a cult I would be arrested as others have. Walking through town with a garment that brands all men rapists should be the same.
I don't know yemenis so cant comment and no doubt some wear it for different reasons. However I know when I see a woman in a burqa thats the rebuke I feel. Let us not forget as well its labour that passed the law saying its a hate crime if the victim feels it is. I am the victim here being labelled
I've Googled and maybe I'm being dim, and I haven't found any cases of people being arrested anywhere for wearing "scientology is a cult" T-Shirts. Can you point me to an example?
Given that the CPS refused to prosecute (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/religion), and the City of London police updated their guidance, I think it's fair to say you would not be arrested for wearing a Scientology is a Cult T-Shirt in your town.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Weren't you the polanski apologist? While no fan of Boris personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on when casting stones
What a ridiculous post. Polanski is a film director whose behavior has no bearing on the UK or indeed anywhere else. Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. His behaviour has a reach well beyond himself affecting up to 67 million people. Get a grip!
But you still think Polanski putting his penis inside a 13 year old girl was just fine?
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Weren't you the polanski apologist? While no fan of Boris personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on when casting stones
What a ridiculous post. Polanski is a film director whose behavior has no bearing on the UK or indeed anywhere else. Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. His behaviour has a reach well beyond himself affecting up to 67 million people. Get a grip!
Ok lets put it in perspective
Polanski was charged with drugging and sodomizing under age girls and fled the country. The man you defend
Johnson while an abhorrent individual made some remarks that are at best off colour in his newspaper column
If you think the two are comparable go fuck yourself
apoliogies for double post vanilla froze and didnt think it went through
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
Plato used to post interesting insights from her experience at a fairly high level in the civil service (although perhaps as a contractor) but with time her claims became inconsistent (and my own, wrong, suspicion at the time was that two people, of different generations, shared the Plato account). By 2016 she was a supporter of Donald Trump, often relying on the analysis of cartoonist Scott Adams. She was perhaps the only PBer to take Trump seriously, though she rated his chances of beating Hillary Clinton at only around 30 per cent. The trouble is she followed Trump supporters too far and disappeared down the alt-right rabbit hole, forwarding any nonsensical conspiracy theories that crossed her timeline. She even managed to get herself caught up in a Twitter (or was it Facebook?) purge of Russian troll farms. And then she became ill, isolated, and died. RIP Plato.
I liked her. Quite a lot. She was brutally honest (about herself and her life and her failings), she was often wry, and sometimes rather funny, she was also politically astute (if her emotions weren't invested). She was self aware (even if she did go a bit loopy at the end)
I never met her. But I think if I had met her we'd have got on well. She became quite lonely - and told us so.
It's funny how you can become attached to people online, but you can, and her death saddened me more than I expected. RIP indeed
I know a couple of pb'ers who'd met her although, sadly, I never did.
I regret that.
I met her at a PB bash opposite Liverpool Street, must have been 2010 or 2011. I also remember meeting you too, @Casino_Royale a few years later.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Racist? Just biting satire surely.
Have you heard the one about the Englishman the Irishman and the Jew.....
Richard Nabavi. The thing about racism is that you often don't realise you're saying it or thinking it until it's pointed out. Your examples are all racist. Period.
Take some time to reflect and use it as a learning experience.
No doubt Johnson is a racist, just not a very obvious one. He covers everything he ever does in smoke and mirrors that mean you have to see through the magician's sleight of hand.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
It seems inconceivable now but I am sure that like me you can remember a time in the distant past when the place was lousy with LibDems.
I guess most of them finished up in Jack's pies.
I'm still here - I have grown a beard in lockdown - wouldn't be good pie material.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
That I suspect however is an aberration. I live in a large muslim town and I have only had it be explained to me as I described it. Mostly of pakistani origin not yemen. If I walked through town with a t shirt proclaiming scientology is a cult I would be arrested as others have. Walking through town with a garment that brands all men rapists should be the same.
I don't know yemenis so cant comment and no doubt some wear it for different reasons. However I know when I see a woman in a burqa thats the rebuke I feel. Let us not forget as well its labour that passed the law saying its a hate crime if the victim feels it is. I am the victim here being labelled
I've Googled and maybe I'm being dim, and I haven't found any cases of people being arrested anywhere for wearing "scientology is a cult" T-Shirts. Can you point me to an example?
Given that the CPS refused to prosecute (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/religion), and the City of London police updated their guidance, I think it's fair to say you would not be arrested for wearing a Scientology is a Cult T-Shirt in your town.
Whether he got charged is irrelevant, he was arrested and put in a cell for it. My point was if you wore a t shirt that the police found promoted a message they thought hateful you would get arrested for it. I think I showed that
I do not think that "Left leaning posters" are in the majority. I think the Tory party has moved to its most extreme-right position I can ever recall and left many of us sitting where we were. From inside the Tory group-think position, we look like lefties.
Exactly.
Conservative and Unionists can't vote for the Little Englanders currently in Downing Street.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I have a friend who converted from Episcopalianism to very Orthodox Jewish to be with the one they love.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Racist? Just biting satire surely.
Have you heard the one about the Englishman the Irishman and the Jew.....
One of them was an apologist for paedophilia by fellow film directors and got beaten up by the other two?
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Weren't you the polanski apologist? While no fan of Boris personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on when casting stones
What a ridiculous post. Polanski is a film director whose behavior has no bearing on the UK or indeed anywhere else. Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. His behaviour has a reach well beyond himself affecting up to 67 million people. Get a grip!
Ok lets put it in perspective
Polanski was charged with drugging and sodomizing under age girls and fled the country. The man you defend
Johnson while an abhorrent individual made some remarks that are at best off colour in his newspaper column
If you think the two are comparable go fuck yourself
apoliogies for double post vanilla froze and didnt think it went through
Does your defence of Boris Johnson's racism really rest on the idea that Roman Polanski is a worse person? Would you like to know which logical fallacies you are committing?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
I do not think that "Left leaning posters" are in the majority. I think the Tory party has moved to its most extreme-right position I can ever recall and left many of us sitting where we were. From inside the Tory group-think position, we look like lefties.
Sample of one: i now loathe the tory party so much that I no longer feel I am just waiting for the demise of the current pm and resumption of business as usual. Johnson has pushed me significantly left in absolute terms. Trouble is I find that left looks very much the way Orwell thought it looked, which leaves me as it left him in a bit of a vacuum.
Good plan! Just don’t let them get on the defensive by, for example, letting the Telegraph know beforehand that this is what you intend to do.
How's that going to help catching the person who leaked the info a week ago? Surely the Prime Minister isn't under the impression that there is only one person leaking from the Cabinet? They're all at it.
Of course it would be a good way to get rid of a minister you didn't like.
Give out half a dozen different briefings to half a dozen ministers, and then leak one of them yourself!!!
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I have a friend who converted from Episcopalianism to very Orthodox Jewish to be with the one they love.
Personally, I'd have said 'thanks but no thanks'.
Yes, that's what I said. At the end of the day, I think any relationship has to be founded on respect for each other's beliefs.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
It seems inconceivable now but I am sure that like me you can remember a time in the distant past when the place was lousy with LibDems.
I guess most of them finished up in Jack's pies.
I'm still here - I have grown a beard in lockdown - wouldn't be good pie material.
Keep your head down, Alan. Jack the Knife is back in town.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
That I suspect however is an aberration. I live in a large muslim town and I have only had it be explained to me as I described it. Mostly of pakistani origin not yemen. If I walked through town with a t shirt proclaiming scientology is a cult I would be arrested as others have. Walking through town with a garment that brands all men rapists should be the same.
I don't know yemenis so cant comment and no doubt some wear it for different reasons. However I know when I see a woman in a burqa thats the rebuke I feel. Let us not forget as well its labour that passed the law saying its a hate crime if the victim feels it is. I am the victim here being labelled
I've Googled and maybe I'm being dim, and I haven't found any cases of people being arrested anywhere for wearing "scientology is a cult" T-Shirts. Can you point me to an example?
Given that the CPS refused to prosecute (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/religion), and the City of London police updated their guidance, I think it's fair to say you would not be arrested for wearing a Scientology is a Cult T-Shirt in your town.
Whether he got charged is irrelevant, he was arrested and put in a cell for it. My point was if you wore a t shirt that the police found promoted a message they thought hateful you would get arrested for it. I think I showed that
That was IN THE PAST. And the Crown Prosecution Service made it very clear that this was not in contravention of the law. And the police force in question updated their guidance.
You said that you would be arrested for wearing a "Scientology is a Cult" T-Shirt.
That's simply not true. You wouldn't be.
And if you get to the meat of the story, the teenager in question was never actually arrested. The police confiscated his sign but DID NOT ARREST HIM. He was handed a summons to appear in Court. But the CPS declined to prosecute, and therefore he will never have had to actually appear.
I always thought it described a big beaming smile, straight at the top and curved at the bottom, like a slice of melon sitting rind-side-down on a flat surface - sort of like 😄
I do not think that "Left leaning posters" are in the majority. I think the Tory party has moved to its most extreme-right position I can ever recall and left many of us sitting where we were. From inside the Tory group-think position, we look like lefties.
Exactly.
Conservative and Unionists can't vote for the Little Englanders currently in Downing Street.
When sanity returns, so shall we.
On some issues they are extreme right. On many they are closer to extreme left! Any many have simply deserted them because of manifest incompetence. The point being that whatever they are, they are not something that traditional mainstream Conservatives can support for one reason or another.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
Are you putting us all in the leftie bucket Philip? I think I have more free market views than many Tories here eg HYUFD.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I have a friend who converted from Episcopalianism to very Orthodox Jewish to be with the one they love.
Personally, I'd have said 'thanks but no thanks'.
Yes, that's what I said. At the end of the day, I think any relationship has to be founded on respect for each other's beliefs.
As long as one accepts there are limits. An Arsenal and a Tottenham supporter simply wouldn't work.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I have a friend who converted from Episcopalianism to very Orthodox Jewish to be with the one they love.
Personally, I'd have said 'thanks but no thanks'.
Yes, that's what I said. At the end of the day, I think any relationship has to be founded on respect for each other's beliefs.
Either that, or a willingness to smile and nod a lot.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
Chance would be a fine thing, comrade. But from one wing of politics everyone else seems on the other wing. Big John and I are the only Corbynites here, I think - everyone else ranges from moderate social democrats to hardcore Tory, and the centre of gravity is probably a floating voter dubious about Johnson, considering Starmer but not yet quite convinced. (Lady G is sui generis and I wouldn't rely on her being on any particular wing.) I'm not sure that anyone is a Faragist or a BLM activist, but otherwise we have a pretty full house.The great thing about PB is that you can find civilised opponents to discuss developments with.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
Plato used to post interesting insights from her experience at a fairly high level in the civil service (although perhaps as a contractor) but with time her claims became inconsistent (and my own, wrong, suspicion at the time was that two people, of different generations, shared the Plato account). By 2016 she was a supporter of Donald Trump, often relying on the analysis of cartoonist Scott Adams. She was perhaps the only PBer to take Trump seriously, though she rated his chances of beating Hillary Clinton at only around 30 per cent. The trouble is she followed Trump supporters too far and disappeared down the alt-right rabbit hole, forwarding any nonsensical conspiracy theories that crossed her timeline. She even managed to get herself caught up in a Twitter (or was it Facebook?) purge of Russian troll farms. And then she became ill, isolated, and died. RIP Plato.
I liked her. Quite a lot. She was brutally honest (about herself and her life and her failings), she was often wry, and sometimes rather funny, she was also politically astute (if her emotions weren't invested). She was self aware (even if she did go a bit loopy at the end)
I never met her. But I think if I had met her we'd have got on well. She became quite lonely - and told us so.
It's funny how you can become attached to people online, but you can, and her death saddened me more than I expected. RIP indeed
I know a couple of pb'ers who'd met her although, sadly, I never did.
I regret that.
I met her at a PB bash opposite Liverpool Street, must have been 2010 or 2011. I also remember meeting you too, @Casino_Royale a few years later.
Quite aside from any other unpleasantness, didn't these guys push for a Supreme Court decision which meant people could donate as much as they wanted as money is free speech or something? How could they complain about being outspent?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
I do not think that "Left leaning posters" are in the majority. I think the Tory party has moved to its most extreme-right position I can ever recall and left many of us sitting where we were. From inside the Tory group-think position, we look like lefties.
Sample of one: i now loathe the tory party so much that I no longer feel I am just waiting for the demise of the current pm and resumption of business as usual. Johnson has pushed me significantly left in absolute terms. Trouble is I find that left looks very much the way Orwell thought it looked, which leaves me as it left him in a bit of a vacuum.
Make that a sample of two (or three - I think we can include Scott_xp). Casino asked me some years back what it would take to make me vote Tory again. My answers were basically "... be more like you were 5 or 6 years ago"
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
This is what Nick Cohen, formerly of the PB parish, had to say about it:
Boris Johnson is a former editor of this newspaper, and as such has the right to be treated with a courtesy Spectator journalists do not normally extend to politicians who do not enjoy his advantages.
I am therefore writing with the caution of a lawyer and the deference of a palace flunkey when I say that Johnson showed this morning that he is a man without principle or shame. He is a braying charlatan, who lacks the courage even to be an honest bastard, for there is a kind of bastardly integrity in showing the world who you really are, but instead uses the tactics of the coward and the tricks of the fraudster to advance his worthless career.
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
If anyone should understand transactional politics and that people were never really his friends, it should be Trump, but he seems to think these things go one way.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I need to get my political strapline right though.. I'm not sure "reform Islam so young WASPy Englishmen can also have a chance with hot Muslim women in their 20s" would have garnered sympathy from all quarters.
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
I had the impression that you’re now happily married. Bit late indeed for regrets,
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
That supposes he thinks most of these cases will succeed. What if it's just so he can say to his supporters 'The election was a fraud, there were dozens of cases challenging corrupt practices'? He doesn't need to say what the outcome of the cases was.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I need to get my political strapline right though.. I'm not sure "reform Islam so young WASPy Englishmen can also have a chance with hot Muslim women in their 20s" would have garnered sympathy from all quarters.
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
I had the impression that you’re now happily married. Bit late indeed for regrets,
I am, but as a red-blooded male when I was twenty-six I really really wanted to see her [MODERATED].
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
Are you putting us all in the leftie bucket Philip? I think I have more free market views than many Tories here eg HYUFD.
No I wouldn't class you as a lefty. Your views are very similar to my own on most things.
On the other hand I see no reason not to consider Theuniondivvie or RochdalePioneer for instance to be of the left just because they don't support the Labour Party.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Weren't you the polanski apologist? While no fan of Boris personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on when casting stones
What a ridiculous post. Polanski is a film director whose behavior has no bearing on the UK or indeed anywhere else. Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. His behaviour has a reach well beyond himself affecting up to 67 million people. Get a grip!
Ok lets put it in perspective
Polanski was charged with drugging and sodomizing under age girls and fled the country. The man you defend
Johnson while an abhorrent individual made some remarks that are at best off colour in his newspaper column
If you think the two are comparable go fuck yourself
apoliogies for double post vanilla froze and didnt think it went through
Does your defence of Boris Johnson's racism really rest on the idea that Roman Polanski is a worse person? Would you like to know which logical fallacies you are committing?
Sorry what gave you the idea I was defending Boris when I called him an abhorrent individual. I was merely calling out roger who defends the indefensible then attacks others for defending people that have not done anything so extreme
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
I do not think that "Left leaning posters" are in the majority. I think the Tory party has moved to its most extreme-right position I can ever recall and left many of us sitting where we were. From inside the Tory group-think position, we look like lefties.
Sample of one: i now loathe the tory party so much that I no longer feel I am just waiting for the demise of the current pm and resumption of business as usual. Johnson has pushed me significantly left in absolute terms. Trouble is I find that left looks very much the way Orwell thought it looked, which leaves me as it left him in a bit of a vacuum.
If it's any consolation those of us who have always been on the Left often despair about the rest of it.
Quite aside from any other unpleasantness, didn't these guys push for a Supreme Court decision which meant people could donate as much as they wanted as money is free speech or something? How could they complain about being outspent?
Because too much came from small donations.
Citizens United was about corporations’ rights to free speech...
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I have a friend who converted from Episcopalianism to very Orthodox Jewish to be with the one they love.
Personally, I'd have said 'thanks but no thanks'.
Yes, that's what I said. At the end of the day, I think any relationship has to be founded on respect for each other's beliefs.
As long as one accepts there are limits. An Arsenal and a Tottenham supporter simply wouldn't work.
My Arsenal supporting brother has three sons and one of them has decided to support Tottenham. Now that's a rebel looking for a cause.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
This is what Nick Cohen, formerly of the PB parish, had to say about it:
Boris Johnson is a former editor of this newspaper, and as such has the right to be treated with a courtesy Spectator journalists do not normally extend to politicians who do not enjoy his advantages.
I am therefore writing with the caution of a lawyer and the deference of a palace flunkey when I say that Johnson showed this morning that he is a man without principle or shame. He is a braying charlatan, who lacks the courage even to be an honest bastard, for there is a kind of bastardly integrity in showing the world who you really are, but instead uses the tactics of the coward and the tricks of the fraudster to advance his worthless career.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I need to get my political strapline right though.. I'm not sure "reform Islam so young WASPy Englishmen can also have a chance with hot Muslim women in their 20s" would have garnered sympathy from all quarters.
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
I had the impression that you’re now happily married. Bit late indeed for regrets,
I am, but as a red-blooded male when I was twenty-six I really really wanted to see her [MODERATED].
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I have a friend who converted from Episcopalianism to very Orthodox Jewish to be with the one they love.
Personally, I'd have said 'thanks but no thanks'.
Yes, that's what I said. At the end of the day, I think any relationship has to be founded on respect for each other's beliefs.
As long as one accepts there are limits. An Arsenal and a Tottenham supporter simply wouldn't work.
My Arsenal supporting brother has three sons and one of them has decided to support Tottenham. Now that's a rebel looking for a cause.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
This is what Nick Cohen, formerly of the PB parish, had to say about it:
Boris Johnson is a former editor of this newspaper, and as such has the right to be treated with a courtesy Spectator journalists do not normally extend to politicians who do not enjoy his advantages.
I am therefore writing with the caution of a lawyer and the deference of a palace flunkey when I say that Johnson showed this morning that he is a man without principle or shame. He is a braying charlatan, who lacks the courage even to be an honest bastard, for there is a kind of bastardly integrity in showing the world who you really are, but instead uses the tactics of the coward and the tricks of the fraudster to advance his worthless career.
I believe there's some sort of tampon or sanitary pad, and probably some other products promoted by @Roger, that @IanB2 ought to be publicly boycotting until @Roger has recanted his support for paedophile rapists.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
Hey! I'm not a leftist but a centrist dad. See Political Compass and the SNP marks therein.
On second thoughts, by UK political standards, maybe I am a raving leftie.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
That was in the days when we still had a "Tory Herd".
That's gone now, and I think left-leaning posters are in a clear majority now.
If left-leaning means former- Remainers, yes. If left-leaning means supporters of the Labour Party, no.
The Labour Party aren't the only leftists on the site. We also have SNPers, independent, Lib Dems etc.
Are you putting us all in the leftie bucket Philip? I think I have more free market views than many Tories here eg HYUFD.
No I wouldn't class you as a lefty. Your views are very similar to my own on most things.
On the other hand I see no reason not to consider Theuniondivvie or RochdalePioneer for instance to be of the left just because they don't support the Labour Party.
My post was really a bit of a tease. Appreciated that you have noticed my posts. I tend to find I either strongly agree with you on stuff or strongly disagree with you on stuff. I am very rarely indifferent to your views. Not sure what that means other than you get a lot of likes and some arguments.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Racist? Just biting satire surely.
Have you heard the one about the Englishman the Irishman and the Jew.....
One of them was an apologist for paedophilia by fellow film directors and got beaten up by the other two?
Is this the English irony that Corbyn was going on about? I fear I must be a Zionist.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
Plato used to post interesting insights from her experience at a fairly high level in the civil service (although perhaps as a contractor) but with time her claims became inconsistent (and my own, wrong, suspicion at the time was that two people, of different generations, shared the Plato account). By 2016 she was a supporter of Donald Trump, often relying on the analysis of cartoonist Scott Adams. She was perhaps the only PBer to take Trump seriously, though she rated his chances of beating Hillary Clinton at only around 30 per cent. The trouble is she followed Trump supporters too far and disappeared down the alt-right rabbit hole, forwarding any nonsensical conspiracy theories that crossed her timeline. She even managed to get herself caught up in a Twitter (or was it Facebook?) purge of Russian troll farms. And then she became ill, isolated, and died. RIP Plato.
I liked her. Quite a lot. She was brutally honest (about herself and her life and her failings), she was often wry, and sometimes rather funny, she was also politically astute (if her emotions weren't invested). She was self aware (even if she did go a bit loopy at the end)
I never met her. But I think if I had met her we'd have got on well. She became quite lonely - and told us so.
It's funny how you can become attached to people online, but you can, and her death saddened me more than I expected. RIP indeed
I know a couple of pb'ers who'd met her although, sadly, I never did.
I regret that.
I met her at a PB bash opposite Liverpool Street, must have been 2010 or 2011. I also remember meeting you too, @Casino_Royale a few years later.
Did you think that plato was....?
I did think long and hard about her when I got home
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I need to get my political strapline right though.. I'm not sure "reform Islam so young WASPy Englishmen can also have a chance with hot Muslim women in their 20s" would have garnered sympathy from all quarters.
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
I had the impression that you’re now happily married. Bit late indeed for regrets,
I am, but as a red-blooded male when I was twenty-six I really really wanted to see her [MODERATED].
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
Google "my ip" which should tell you your external IP address. You can then look up where that is assigned. However, it is probably easier to email the help address.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
Plato used to post interesting insights from her experience at a fairly high level in the civil service (although perhaps as a contractor) but with time her claims became inconsistent (and my own, wrong, suspicion at the time was that two people, of different generations, shared the Plato account). By 2016 she was a supporter of Donald Trump, often relying on the analysis of cartoonist Scott Adams. She was perhaps the only PBer to take Trump seriously, though she rated his chances of beating Hillary Clinton at only around 30 per cent. The trouble is she followed Trump supporters too far and disappeared down the alt-right rabbit hole, forwarding any nonsensical conspiracy theories that crossed her timeline. She even managed to get herself caught up in a Twitter (or was it Facebook?) purge of Russian troll farms. And then she became ill, isolated, and died. RIP Plato.
I liked her. Quite a lot. She was brutally honest (about herself and her life and her failings), she was often wry, and sometimes rather funny, she was also politically astute (if her emotions weren't invested). She was self aware (even if she did go a bit loopy at the end)
I never met her. But I think if I had met her we'd have got on well. She became quite lonely - and told us so.
It's funny how you can become attached to people online, but you can, and her death saddened me more than I expected. RIP indeed
I know a couple of pb'ers who'd met her although, sadly, I never did.
I regret that.
I met her at a PB bash opposite Liverpool Street, must have been 2010 or 2011. I also remember meeting you too, @Casino_Royale a few years later.
Did you think that plato was....?
I did think long and hard about her when I got home
Too much information!
I think the Geordie lass could have eaten you for breakfast.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
In case anyone thinks I've just got it in for Roger; I have it in for all apologists for paedophiles. This guy was my cricket coach in 1990, when I was 12. I was lucky I'd been told by other boys he was "Paedo Green" (which I didn't understand then) and to never be alone with him.
Hove paedophile Michael Green jailed, again Michael Green targeted young boys in Sussex
A FORMER sports coach has been jailed for the second time for historic sex attacks on young boys.
Michael Green was sent to prison for 12 years after being found guilty of attacks on young boys in Brighton and West Sussex between 24 and 38 years ago.
The 74-year-old, of Aldrington Close in Hove faced 17 charges of indecent assault against seven boys, which included jumping into bed as their sports coach and groping them at his home.
The victims were between 12 and 16 between 1980 and 1994.
He was previously jailed for nine years in 2014, for offences including buggery.
Green was also known as a friend and mentor of Sarah Payne's killer Roy Whiting.
Detective Constable Dawn Robertson said the paedophile actively engaged himself in sports in order to gain access to his victims.
He had met three of those boys while he was head coach of juniors at the Brighton Ice Hockey Club, and one while he was involved in coaching junior cycle speedway in Havant.
The other three boys were separately assaulted while pupils at Windlesham House School in Washington, West Sussex, on dates between 1988 and 1994, where Green was a cricket coach at the time.
Green was convicted of four offences against one of them, three of which were committed during school trips to the cinema in Brighton and one at the school, and two offences against each of the other two boys, one of which was committed at Green's then address, the other three being committed at the school.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
1) Is a matter of tactics rather than analysis. The defensive reaction to claims od white privilege is, in many cases, off the scale. And therefore it’s not a great route towards changing people’s attitudes.
I hope he (rs) finds his way back into the commons.
There will be a vacancy in Uxbridge and South Ruislip at some point...
Perhaps in 2029. More likely in 2034. I'd bet against RS ever standing in that constituency.
Boris is still pretty young - I know he looks a bit knackered, but with all that's going on and his rather complicated life it's no surprise.
As a follow up if Boris wanted to serve to the same age as Biden is starting his Presidency we'd be at 2041 before there was a vacancy as PM, and presumably after that for his seat.
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Racist? Just biting satire surely.
Have you heard the one about the Englishman the Irishman and the Jew.....
One of them was an apologist for paedophilia by fellow film directors and got beaten up by the other two?
Is this the English irony that Corbyn was going on about? I fear I must be a Zionist.
Is it ironic somehow that Roger doesn't condemn some known paedophiles if he admires their work?
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
Google "my ip" which should tell you your external IP address. You can then look up where that is assigned. However, it is probably easier to email the help address.
Some of the legal cases cannot have been serious, as they don't list what happened, when or by whom, which that lady should not have needed to explain are pretty critical when making a complaint.
Had wondered what Plato would have made of the US Presidential campaign. When @ladyG 's and @Casino_Royale 's comments I thought, I wanted to type something similar.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Sure. But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin. ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them. I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
I'm ok with (1). I think (2) would be ok if it gave direct before/after comparators - for example, in the Gold Coast, Zimbabwe or Jamaica - and a hat tip for how things would be run by us today to make a point.
I'm less convinced by (3). I detest the burka/niqab but I am aware Muslim women sometimes get abused by these names, which I don't think is right - particularly since they don't always have a choice. So I personally wouldn't use it.
I think (4) is too broad-brush. It tries to apologise for Islamophobia whereas I'd prefer to distinguish between the parts of the Koran that are violent and how extremists exploit that, rather than insinuate it's vicious as a whole and heartless to any unbelievers. I'd prefer to encourage and motivate the liberal reformers and isolate the extreme voices.
I knew a gorgeous Muslim girl (moderate) who I really fancied once, and I think she did me. It irritated me that nothing could or would ever happen unless I converted, and she made it clear she would never be able to do the same.
That annoyed me then and it still does!
I need to get my political strapline right though.. I'm not sure "reform Islam so young WASPy Englishmen can also have a chance with hot Muslim women in their 20s" would have garnered sympathy from all quarters.
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
I had the impression that you’re now happily married. Bit late indeed for regrets,
I am, but as a red-blooded male when I was twenty-six I really really wanted to see her [MODERATED].
Face? (only kidding!)
I was going to go with [MODERATED] being completely unnecessary if she was wearing a Burqua, but I think you have me beat.
Quite aside from any other unpleasantness, didn't these guys push for a Supreme Court decision which meant people could donate as much as they wanted as money is free speech or something? How could they complain about being outspent?
Which is the point entirely. They are not complaining about being outspent, they are complaining about who has spent the money.
In my view the left are in a clear majority here now. That comes with 10 years of CON led government.
In the old days the right were much more in evidence!
Chance would be a fine thing, comrade. But from one wing of politics everyone else seems on the other wing. Big John and I are the only Corbynites here, I think - everyone else ranges from moderate social democrats to hardcore Tory, and the centre of gravity is probably a floating voter dubious about Johnson, considering Starmer but not yet quite convinced. (Lady G is sui generis and I wouldn't rely on her being on any particular wing.) I'm not sure that anyone is a Faragist or a BLM activist, but otherwise we have a pretty full house.The great thing about PB is that you can find civilised opponents to discuss developments with.
There is a big space between Corbynite and Social Democrat that you've jumped over there Nick. Mainstream, soft-left democratic socialism. The centre of gravity of the Labour Party.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
Is Betvictor down? I get a "banned in your jurisdiction" page.
Seems to be up.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
Do you have a link? I get this..
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
Google "my ip" which should tell you your external IP address. You can then look up where that is assigned. However, it is probably easier to email the help address.
Ha! It says I'm near Belgium!
WTF? Have I been hacked?
Curiously, your IP has you in Belgium, but it is also an IP address owned by British Telecom.
My guess is they've done an internal network reorg and you have assigned one that was previously in Belgium.
Alternatively, does your home look different this morning?
I didn't realise Johnson had made insulting racist comments about Obama. Somehow I missed it but it's now being reported everywhere. He really is a piece of work. A humiliation to the UK and the Tory Party.
Racist? Just biting satire surely.
Have you heard the one about the Englishman the Irishman and the Jew.....
Yes but you're telling it wrong! An Englishman, Scottsman Irishman, two vicars and a Rabbi went in to a pub. The Barman said ....
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
So your position is that being white is the norm for all others to be measured against? Presumably being male is also the default norm when talking about (in your preferred terminology) female disadvantage?
No. What an idiotic thing to say.
1) if there is "black disadvantage" rather than "white privilege" yet white is not the norm, then what is the norm?
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
Black people are treated differently to white people in many situations.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
I have had similar conversations, indeed it describes the experience of "white privilege" very well without using the term, but it was not really an answer to my question, was it?
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?
Comments
Anyway, it's too late for me now. But the next generation needs to be saved.
Johnson was a man that made questionable remarks in his newpaper column.
Frankly if you think the first is less bad go fuck yourself
You sound like you have some pretty sexist views!
"Ah, wait. Men are emotional retards who only ever think with their dicks."
Oh, ok, now you've said that I recognise that you cannot possibly be sexist.
Convincing?
Polanski was charged with drugging and sodomizing under age girls and fled the country. The man you defend
Johnson while an abhorrent individual made some remarks that are at best off colour in his newspaper column
If you think the two are comparable go fuck yourself
apoliogies for double post vanilla froze and didnt think it went through
I'm not surprised they do so well.
Conservative and Unionists can't vote for the Little Englanders currently in Downing Street.
When sanity returns, so shall we.
Personally, I'd have said 'thanks but no thanks'.
Would you like to know which logical fallacies you are committing?
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1325535211069845505
Of course it would be a good way to get rid of a minister you didn't like.
Give out half a dozen different briefings to half a dozen ministers, and then leak one of them yourself!!!
You said that you would be arrested for wearing a "Scientology is a Cult" T-Shirt.
That's simply not true. You wouldn't be.
And if you get to the meat of the story, the teenager in question was never actually arrested. The police confiscated his sign but DID NOT ARREST HIM. He was handed a summons to appear in Court. But the CPS declined to prosecute, and therefore he will never have had to actually appear.
I always thought it described a big beaming smile, straight at the top and curved at the bottom, like a slice of melon sitting rind-side-down on a flat surface - sort of like 😄
He's a running.
Ah, but he's no Roman Polanski.
One of the two.
ETA are you using a phone or work machine whose external IP address is geolocated somewhere funny? Try the usual stuff like clearing your browser cache as well.
"It appears you are accessing our website from a prohibited location.
Local regulations prohibit us from allowing you to log in or place bets on our website.
We cannot accept any transactions from this Jurisdiction.
If you believe you have been incorrectly transferred to this page, please contact help@betvictor.com"
On the other hand I see no reason not to consider Theuniondivvie or RochdalePioneer for instance to be of the left just because they don't support the Labour Party.
Citizens United was about corporations’ rights to free speech...
I don't think I'd let my child do work experience with Roger.
As would the reverse process have been.
On second thoughts, by UK political standards, maybe I am a raving leftie.
Abrams says Georgia Democratic Senate candidates can 'absolutely' win runoff races
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/525015-abrams-says-democratic-senate-candidates-can-absolutely-win-runoff-races
2) So do you prefer "male privilege" as a term to "female disadvantage", or do you deny that there is an issue?
https://twitter.com/thekoreanvegan/status/1325479249189482498
Boris is still pretty young - I know he looks a bit knackered, but with all that's going on and his rather complicated life it's no surprise.
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
I think the Geordie lass could have eaten you for breakfast.
When I've talked to black colleagues and friends in private this is what they mention to me: they describe the looks, the nudges and the street-crossing and excessive police stopping. How their kids are tolerated less when they misbehave than white kids. They also mention that because some white people *assume* many others are racist (often the well-meaning but patronising ones who say how different they are personally) they also soft pedal their ambition too - saying they should become a technician or nurse rather than an engineer or doctor, because they'd definitely succeed at the former.
They haven't *once* talked about White Privilege or statues that need to come down. Nor has colonialism come up except in passing in one conversation where she just said "the past is the past".
This is an obsession White Liberals have - probably because it makes it all about them rather than the real racism and disadvantage black people experience.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16895311.hove-paedophile-michael-green-jailed/
Hove paedophile Michael Green jailed, again
Michael Green targeted young boys in Sussex
A FORMER sports coach has been jailed for the second time for historic sex attacks on young boys.
Michael Green was sent to prison for 12 years after being found guilty of attacks on young boys in Brighton and West Sussex between 24 and 38 years ago.
The 74-year-old, of Aldrington Close in Hove faced 17 charges of indecent assault against seven boys, which included jumping into bed as their sports coach and groping them at his home.
The victims were between 12 and 16 between 1980 and 1994.
He was previously jailed for nine years in 2014, for offences including buggery.
Green was also known as a friend and mentor of Sarah Payne's killer Roy Whiting.
Detective Constable Dawn Robertson said the paedophile actively engaged himself in sports in order to gain access to his victims.
He had met three of those boys while he was head coach of juniors at the Brighton Ice Hockey Club, and one while he was involved in coaching junior cycle speedway in Havant.
The other three boys were separately assaulted while pupils at Windlesham House School in Washington, West Sussex, on dates between 1988 and 1994, where Green was a cricket coach at the time.
Green was convicted of four offences against one of them, three of which were committed during school trips to the cinema in Brighton and one at the school, and two offences against each of the other two boys, one of which was committed at Green's then address, the other three being committed at the school.
WTF? Have I been hacked?
But the only thing that ‘white privilege’ means is the other side of that coin.
ie of all the shitty things that might happen to you in life, those things are not among them.
I don’t know that it’s a particularly useful term, but it’s not without meaning.
They are closet racists, the lot of them.
My guess is they've done an internal network reorg and you have assigned one that was previously in Belgium.
Alternatively, does your home look different this morning?
An Englishman, Scottsman Irishman, two vicars and a Rabbi went in to a pub. The Barman said ....
What is the norm that these people have been disadvantaged relative to?