Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously
British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.
One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar
Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.
So why don't you answer CHB's question
"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"
for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?
Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.
So that's that.
Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -
Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election. Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.
The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.
And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.
I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.
Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.
I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.
I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."
I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.
I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."
Yes perhaps. Sounds like they asked for an interview for quiite while leading up to it. Joe doesn't exactly get big viewership, but i would say that guy is a very low risk interview. He is broadly sympathetic and even those he interviews who he isn't, he seems to give them a fair shake e.g. i have seen him talk with douglas murray at length on a number of occasions and it comes across as a perfectly reasonable conversation between two adults who have some different views....quite shocking in the modern media world of so what you mean is...no i never said that....but what you mean is...
That is an excellent piece of work. Thanks for the link.
We can see that Labour are being impeded by an inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate. We can see the tensions in the Muslim community. And we can see George, smart enough to make sure his fingerprints were nowhere near it.
I didn’t realise the bloke having a go at her was from Birmingham. What a pillock.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's the same bloke from Birmingham who was ringleader of the pile-on against LGBT education in a number of Birmingham schools in 2019. It's a great pity that the Imams in Batley haven't told him to keep away (although it is, of course, possible that they have and he's ignored them). He's a shit-stirrer of the worst kind.
I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.
I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."
Yes perhaps. Sounds like they asked for an interview for quiite while leading up to it. Joe doesn't exactly get big viewership, but i would say that guy is a very low risk interview. He is broadly sympathetic and even those he interviews who he isn't, he seems to give them a fair shake e.g. i have seen him talk with douglas murray at length on a number of occasions and it comes across as a perfectly reasonable conversation between two adults who have some different views....quite shocking in the modern media world of so what you mean is...no i never said that....but what you mean is...
Online media is starting to eat the MSM, as more and more people realise that two or three people shoutingly emphasising their small differences for five minutes at a time isn’t really a useful exercise. Way more heat than light, as opposed to online journalists and podcasters prepared to give someone time to make their argument, even when the host disagrees with them.
Mine's also done, and I am pleased to report that it's been both a lovely day in Cambridge and that, apart from a somewhat higher percentage of shuttered shops, and the stupid masks all over the place, things are looking surprisingly normal. I sat myself down on a bench on Parker's Piece, near to a group of athletic, shirtless young men playing volleyball (whom, of course, I scarcely noticed) and ate my lunch, very slowly, thinking that all was almost right with the world.
Now we just need to get over the July 19th hurdle and I think, thanks in no small part to Hancock's naughtiness, we're actually going to get there. I mean, I won't believe it until it actually happens, but I'm feeling a degree of optimism. The glorious day of mask burning approaches...
Yes, July 19th is a racing certainty. If it were to be delayed in any serious fashion I promise here and now to join you in a "mad scientists" rant.
That is an excellent piece of work. Thanks for the link.
We can see that Labour are being impeded by an inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate. We can see the tensions in the Muslim community. And we can see George, smart enough to make sure his fingerprints were nowhere near it.
I didn’t realise the bloke having a go at her was from Birmingham. What a pillock.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's the same bloke from Birmingham who was ringleader of the pile-on against LGBT education in a number of Birmingham schools in 2019. It's a great pity that the Imams in Batley haven't told him to keep away (although it is, of course, possible that they have and he's ignored them). He's a shit-stirrer of the worst kind.
Or the other way around, maybe some of them gave him a ring to stir up shite on behalf of Galloway.
It’s why I have been going on about this for over 2 months. Why have we been so slow in vaxxing the younger cohorts? Is it supply or is it lack of enthusiasm or is it that the government can’t be arsed? Each of these has a different policy solution and we need to choose the right one. Now. Actually a month ago. But now would still help.
If you look at the recent vaccine surveillance report from the government on page 9 it has a graph of vaccine uptake by age group, which I think sheds some light on this. Around weeks 12-15 there's a flattening out of the curve of the 40-45 and 45-50 groups which seems pretty likely to be supply constraints, because after that the curves go up again. But those age groups are now flattening out noticeably below where the older age cohorts have, so that seems like "these groups have more people who've chosen not to get the jab". Finally, the under-40 group is still going up strongly with no sign yet of tailing off, which is good news I think.
I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.
I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."
Agreed,
She is probably a wonderful person, I have no axe to grind here. but in the few clips I've seen of her, she is not a 'robust' candidate, dos not seem to do 'political confutation' well, and did not come across well in the hustings. Perhaps standing in a safe seat at a GE and we would not notice, and possibly has a lot of offer HoC, I don't know. But, I get the feeling she was adopted by Lab, because of who her sister was, and I have empathy for that chose and the people making it, but It does not look like a good chose at the moment.
That is an excellent piece of work. Thanks for the link.
We can see that Labour are being impeded by an inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate. We can see the tensions in the Muslim community. And we can see George, smart enough to make sure his fingerprints were nowhere near it.
I didn’t realise the bloke having a go at her was from Birmingham. What a pillock.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's the same bloke from Birmingham who was ringleader of the pile-on against LGBT education in a number of Birmingham schools in 2019. It's a great pity that the Imams in Batley haven't told him to keep away (although it is, of course, possible that they have and he's ignored them). He's a shit-stirrer of the worst kind.
Or the other way around, maybe some of them gave him a ring to stir up shite on behalf of Galloway.
Possibly, though I don't think he needs any encouragement to show his face.
Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously
British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.
One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar
Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.
So why don't you answer CHB's question
"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"
for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?
Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.
So that's that.
Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -
Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election. Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.
The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.
And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.
I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.
Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.
I wonder why wouldn't Labour give an interview with Joe? The journalist is definitely left leaning, and i have seen him interview a whole range of people across the political spectrum and is always polite and reasonable.
I think @DavidL has hit the nail on the head with "inexperienced and possibly fragile candidate."
As I heard it it was the Press Office that blocked them.
Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously
British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.
One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar
Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.
So why don't you answer CHB's question
"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"
for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?
Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.
So that's that.
Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -
Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election. Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.
The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.
And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.
I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.
Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.
Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously
British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.
One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar
Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.
So why don't you answer CHB's question
"Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"
for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?
Homophobia is more prevalent amongst Muslims than it is in the general population and there's a large Muslim presence in Batley. But Labour have (quite rightly) not let this stop them selecting a gay candidate. It'll cost them votes but so what. Some things are more important than votes. You shouldn't pander to outdated attitudes and bigotry whether it comes from Muslims or from white working class leavers or from wherever.
So that's that.
Now to the general and pertinent point, the point at issue. What's a tell of islamophobia as opposed to pukka by-election analysis? I've done it but I'll do it again. You have to distinguish between the following 2 things -
Somebody using Muslim homophobia to aid their analysis of the by-election. Somebody using the by-election to bang on about Muslim homophobia.
The latter is the tell, the former isn't. And the latter is a tell particularly if the "somebody" is a person who, apart from in the Muslim context, is not known for having any interest whatsoever in LGBT rights.
And you need an ear to tell the difference. To tell the tell from the not a tell.
I have such an ear. I'm not bragging, I just do. Some people are good at cooking, at sport, at playing the piano, at any of a million things. Me I'm good at detecting bigotry (especially of the urbane sort). But I don't want loads of questions on it. Don't want the responsibility or the pressure of that. In the same way people don't bug @Foxy with their personal medical concerns, so I should be left in peace on this.
Thought long and hard about whether to even reply on this thread - but hang it why not. I trust people to take the positives.
The confrontation in B&S is pretty unpleasant. Homophobes shouting at anyone who deviates from their orthodoxy in the street. People playing for sectarian identity politics rather than policy. Friday prayers being the main political event with local imams being kingmakers.
I feel like this could be increasingly common in more constituencies unless we get a lot smarter about immigration and integration policy, rather than taking a Rotherham "let's not upset community relations" approach.
Comments
Tim Montgomery was referring to Hancock calling for Sturgeon to resign when she failed to wear a face mask
Amazing, what goes around comes around
For goodness sake Hancock, just resign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEcNHMLyEYk
Rides a BMX
She is probably a wonderful person, I have no axe to grind here. but in the few clips I've seen of her, she is not a 'robust' candidate, dos not seem to do 'political confutation' well, and did not come across well in the hustings. Perhaps standing in a safe seat at a GE and we would not notice, and possibly has a lot of offer HoC, I don't know. But, I get the feeling she was adopted by Lab, because of who her sister was, and I have empathy for that chose and the people making it, but It does not look like a good chose at the moment.
I feel like this could be increasingly common in more constituencies unless we get a lot smarter about immigration and integration policy, rather than taking a Rotherham "let's not upset community relations" approach.