politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What might the Tories learn from Labour
Comments
-
Just passing through...
Yesterday I was travelling on the London Underground. I changed at Baker Street from the pink to the brown.
Some PBers might be interested to know this...0 -
-
She’s right, but the ERG will never blame themselves.rottenborough said:
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:0 -
I am talking about peoples' reactions. Not the profile of the subjects of the reaction.Philip_Thompson said:
The key difference is that being fair-haired isn't a belief system either. People are committing violence inspired by their beliefs, in the name of their beliefs, not in the name of a trait they were born with. Beliefs and traits are not the same thing.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.0 -
-
So antisemitism amongst those on the Left who identify strongly with the cause of the Palestinians, is that unjustified but kind of understandable then?TOPPING said:Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.0 -
I think you can see, as well as I can, that there are people here who think anti-Muslim prejudice is not only unsurprising but justified.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
Unfortunately, I don't think racial and religious prejudice is ever surprising.
But if you think it's unjustified, what I'd like to know is why you felt the need to draw a contrast between Muslims and Jews - pointing out that there was Muslim terrorism and not Jewish terrorism. What were you trying to achieve by saying that? What you hsve thought if a Labour politician - for example - had gone to the trouble of pointing out that antisemitism was unsurprising because of the actions of the state of Israel? Would that be fine?0 -
The Telegraph this morning allowed Fraser Nelson to tout a conspiracy theory that Philip Hammond has been sabotaging Brexit, complete with cartoon portraying him as an evil mad scientist. The hardliners are nowhere near ready to accept responsibility for their own failings yet.0
-
oh god - not again lol.SandyRentool said:Just passing through...
Yesterday I was travelling on the London Underground. I changed at Baker Street from the pink to the brown.
Some PBers might be interested to know this...0 -
I have come to the conclusion that many in the ERG/DUP do not really want to leave. Leaving would mean they had to spend the rest of their lives explaining away their role in the disastrous clusterf*ck that Brexit has become. Remaining would enable them to retreat into their comfort zone and spend the rest of their lives ranting about the evils of the EU and how leavers were betrayed by May/the civil service/the political class/the establishment/uncle Tom Cobbley etc etc.Casino_Royale said:
She’s right, but the ERG will never blame themselves.rottenborough said:
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm kinda confused about the basis of these questions. I oppose fascists because I oppose fascism, not because I hold all fascists responsible for the actions of a few. Try replacing the word "fascist" in your questions with a political ideology you agree withPhilip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?0 -
Are you telling us that Phil has been working hard to get the Brexit that the people voted for ?AlastairMeeks said:The Telegraph this morning allowed Fraser Nelson to tout a conspiracy theory that Philip Hammond has been sabotaging Brexit, complete with cartoon portraying him as an evil mad scientist. The hardliners are nowhere near ready to accept responsibility for their own failings yet.
If so I have a bridge for sale.0 -
Here's hoping that what it means is that the UK has no intention of electing an anti-Semitic government and that millions of ordinary people are viewing Labour's machinations with horror and shame.AlastairMeeks said:
I'm not doubting the poll any more than any other (all of them have problems of one kind or another and no single poll should be taken very seriously). I'm certainly not going to be unskewing it.Stereotomy said:
I feel we're at risk of straying into "unskewing" territory herewilliamglenn said:
The heavy down-weighting of Remain voters in their sample has been a feature of their polls for a long time.AlastairMeeks said:
It's worth noting that Remainers are heavily downweighted in that poll to get them to 48% of the sample. If in fact what is happening is false recall, Labour may be doing substantially better, given their much better showing with Remainers.Tissue_Price said:
I note merely that it is possibly overstating the Conservative lead for a particular reason.
A few Tory MPs have left the party because they don't agree with its politics. Luciana Berger has left the Labour party because she was hounded out by the fascist, racist Left. Maybe a few million middle of the road voters will notice the difference.
0 -
Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.kinabalu said:
So antisemitism amongst those on the Left who identify strongly with the cause of the Palestinians, is that unjustified but kind of understandable then?TOPPING said:Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.0 -
There have been at least three referenda/plebiscites or similar in Crimea in the recent past. How 'free and fair' any or all of them were is open to doubt, but it does appear that the current population, ie that imported after that there during and before the Nazi occupation had been deported, regards itself as primarily Russian, rather than Ukraniankingbongo said:
There was a plebiscite in Crimea in 1991, held under the rules recognised in international law and it voted both to be part of Ukraine and to be independent of Russia. The crazy thing about the invasion of Crimea is that with a bit of patience Putin probably could have helped build an indy movement and win Crimea legitimately - now he has a big headache trying to feed and maintain a disgruntled population who are not being showered with the goodies they were promised - quelle surprisePhilip_Thompson said:
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.YBarddCwsc said:
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?Philip_Thompson said:YBarddCwsc said:williamglenn said:
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.YBarddCwsc said:
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.Sean_F said:
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia._Anazina_ said:
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.williamglenn said:
.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.0 -
I "failed to answer them" because the idea that the analogy between Muslims and fascists is in any way relevant to the discussion we're having is absurd. Every bit as absurd as an analogy between Jews and fascists in relation to a discussion of antisemitism.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
But thank you again for illustrating your thought processes.0 -
If by "the people" you mean "you", the answer is probably no. If by "the people" you mean "the people", the answer seems to me to be unarguably yes.TGOHF said:
Are you telling us that Phil has been working hard to get the Brexit that the people voted for ?AlastairMeeks said:The Telegraph this morning allowed Fraser Nelson to tout a conspiracy theory that Philip Hammond has been sabotaging Brexit, complete with cartoon portraying him as an evil mad scientist. The hardliners are nowhere near ready to accept responsibility for their own failings yet.
If so I have a bridge for sale.0 -
anothernick said:
I have come to the conclusion that many in the ERG/DUP do not really want to leave. Leaving would mean they had to spend the rest of their lives explaining away their role in the disastrous clusterf*ck that Brexit has become. Remaining would enable them to retreat into their comfort zone and spend the rest of their lives ranting about the evils of the EU and how leavers were betrayed by May/the civil service/the political class/the establishment/uncle Tom Cobbley etc etc.Casino_Royale said:
She’s right, but the ERG will never blame themselves.rottenborough said:
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:
0 -
It would be unsurprising if an Arab who had suffered at the hands of Jewish settlers on the West Bank was anti-Semitic. It would be unsurprising if a Jewish Israeli citizen whose family had been thrown out of Iraq or Egypt was anti-Arab.Chris said:
I think you can see, as well as I can, that there are people here who think anti-Muslim prejudice is not only unsurprising but justified.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
Unfortunately, I don't think racial and religious prejudice is ever surprising.
But if you think it's unjustified, what I'd like to know is why you felt the need to draw a contrast between Muslims and Jews - pointing out that there was Muslim terrorism and not Jewish terrorism. What were you trying to achieve by saying that? What you hsve thought if a Labour politician - for example - had gone to the trouble of pointing out that antisemitism was unsurprising because of the actions of the state of Israel? Would that be fine?0 -
Will May survive next week ?
Looks her deal will get voted down.
Can she hang on for a 3rd attempt ?
0 -
I reckon she will.TGOHF said:Will May survive next week ?
Looks her deal will get voted down.
Can she hang on for a 3rd attempt ?0 -
The place to perch in Grimsby is where you can see the Dock Tower, which is a masterpiece (I am not making this up) modelled on the Torre del Mangia in Siena. Lincolnshire has many surprises, but few more surprising than this.Pulpstar said:
Optics, you don't get much more leavery than a workshop in Grimsby.rottenborough said:0 -
Indeed. But as you can see, that isn't the question I was asking Topping.Sean_F said:
It would be unsurprising if an Arab who had suffered at the hands of Jewish settlers on the West Bank was anti-Semitic. It would be unsurprising if a Jewish Israeli citizen whose family had been thrown out of Iraq or Egypt was anti-Arab.Chris said:
I think you can see, as well as I can, that there are people here who think anti-Muslim prejudice is not only unsurprising but justified.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
Unfortunately, I don't think racial and religious prejudice is ever surprising.
But if you think it's unjustified, what I'd like to know is why you felt the need to draw a contrast between Muslims and Jews - pointing out that there was Muslim terrorism and not Jewish terrorism. What were you trying to achieve by saying that? What you hsve thought if a Labour politician - for example - had gone to the trouble of pointing out that antisemitism was unsurprising because of the actions of the state of Israel? Would that be fine?0 -
The other aspect is what people claim is “discrimination.”TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
For example it is possible to argue legitimately for integration not multiculturalism.
Someone on the right night argue that without integration you create the basis for alienation and disassociation and create an environment where terrorist can flourish. So it is rational and the right thing to do to encourage integration, possibly from first principles and possibly as a reaction to terrorism.
Someone on the left, however, might believe that the desire for integration represents extreme anti-Muslim prejudice because you are insisting they give up essential elements of their historical culture by, for example, insisting on equal rights for women and homosexuals.0 -
A member of the NEC...rottenborough said:
No idea, but probably a Momentum activist.Floater said:
That's why I was asking as that would surely have been big newsrottenborough said:
One member did. Not sure about the NEC as whole.Floater said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6784495/Sickening-cartoons-jibes-lay-bare-Labours-institutional-anti-Semitism.html
Trevor Phillips
"That is because for many in Labour’s far-Left there are only two battles worth fighting. One is against the class enemy represented by the Tories; the other, internationally, is the war against the imperialist Americans and their allies, whose principal running dog is, of course, Israel."
"And unfortunately, by their behaviour, the Labour leadership seems to have bought this barrel-load of nonsense completely. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and – whatever they think they are doing – are behaving like anti-Semites.
I am sure any defence of the EHRC’s action in starting an investigation will become part of a fresh conspiracy theory. It happens that both the chair and chief executive of the EHRC are Jewish. The Twitter-sphere is already in overdrive and last night Labour’s National Executive Committee was calling for the EHRC to be abolished!"
They called for the EHRC to be abolished?
Who was this numpty in any case?
https://twitter.com/hudaelmi_/status/11036901492113735680 -
I am not surprised that there is anti-semitism on account of the actions of the Jewish State. We can discuss (perhaps over on CiF and at length) about the legitimacy or otherwise of Israel's actions but as there has been established a direct correlation between anti-semitic attacks and increased ME tension I can certainly say that I am not surprised.Chris said:
I think you can see, as well as I can, that there are people here who think anti-Muslim prejudice is not only unsurprising but justified.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
Unfortunately, I don't think racial and religious prejudice is ever surprising.
But if you think it's unjustified, what I'd like to know is why you felt the need to draw a contrast between Muslims and Jews - pointing out that there was Muslim terrorism and not Jewish terrorism. What were you trying to achieve by saying that? What you hsve thought if a Labour politician - for example - had gone to the trouble of pointing out that antisemitism was unsurprising because of the actions of the state of Israel? Would that be fine?0 -
Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.Chris said:
I "failed to answer them" because the idea that the analogy between Muslims and fascists is in any way relevant to the discussion we're having is absurd. Every bit as absurd as an analogy between Jews and fascists in relation to a discussion of antisemitism.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
But thank you again for illustrating your thought processes.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?0 -
Indeed and I oppose both fascism and fundamentalist Islam.Stereotomy said:
I'm kinda confused about the basis of these questions. I oppose fascists because I oppose fascism, not because I hold all fascists responsible for the actions of a few. Try replacing the word "fascist" in your questions with a political ideology you agree withPhilip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?0 -
Great answer! Mrs May has just shot up in my estimation.williamglenn said:0 -
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?0 -
Seriously, if you want to make a case for prejudice against the entire population of Muslims, as far as I'm concerned that's your right in a free society, so long as you stay within the law. I don't agree and I don't approve, but I think it's your right. If you want to do that, I think you should do it by arguing directly rather than by analogy with fascism, but that's up to you.Philip_Thompson said:
Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.Chris said:
I "failed to answer them" because the idea that the analogy between Muslims and fascists is in any way relevant to the discussion we're having is absurd. Every bit as absurd as an analogy between Jews and fascists in relation to a discussion of antisemitism.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
But thank you again for illustrating your thought processes.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
I think we're at cross purposes. I'm not advocating being righteous, or ignoring the reasons why somebody might have become a bad person, my point is that to make negative assumptions about an individual who is one of the world's 2 billion Muslims, based purely on the knowledge that they are a Muslim, makes no sense and really ought to be refrained from.OblitusSumMe said:The desirable endpoint is not to feel righteous about identifying other people as bad, but to reduce the incidence of bad things occurring.
I think that understanding why a person did a bad thing is not likely to be productive than denouncing that person as bad for doing that bad thing. It's much easier to convince someone to try to change if you don't make them so defensive in the first place.0 -
I think you have twisted the argument, here, Chris. As far as I can remember, no one made "a case for prejudice against the entire population of Muslims", much as it would excite your SJW credentials if they had. What people here said was that it was understandable, but not justified, on account of the terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam, that a degree of Islamophobia was present in the country or whatever Richard said.Chris said:Seriously, if you want to make a case for prejudice against the entire population of Muslims, as far as I'm concerned that's your right in a free society, so long as you stay within the law. I don't agree and I don't approve, but I think it's your right. If you want to do that, I think you should do it by arguing directly rather than by analogy with fascism, but that's up to you.
0 -
I discovered this week that my son habitually describes his gender as "other" when given a chance to do so. As do most of the teenage boys in his year. They think it is funny. As teenage boys do.Sandpit said:
Isn't there also an exceptionally high rate of transgenderism in prisons?TrèsDifficile said:I worry about the high rates of conversion to Islam in our prisons, and the susceptibility of these converts to radicalisation. Is this a form of Islamophobia?
The commonality being that those who are Muslim or Female are treated differently by the prison system, in ways that to a long-term prisoner would be seen as advantageous.
Radicalisation is certainly a potential issue in prisons though, and one that the authorities should monitor closely both before and after release.0 -
Brexit isn't about damage limitation any more, it's about disassociation from failure. It's telling Mrs May doesn't present a single advantage to her deal, except voters voted to Leave so you had better agree to do it.anothernick said:
I have come to the conclusion that many in the ERG/DUP do not really want to leave. Leaving would mean they had to spend the rest of their lives explaining away their role in the disastrous clusterf*ck that Brexit has become. Remaining would enable them to retreat into their comfort zone and spend the rest of their lives ranting about the evils of the EU and how leavers were betrayed by May/the civil service/the political class/the establishment/uncle Tom Cobbley etc etc.Casino_Royale said:
She’s right, but the ERG will never blame themselves.rottenborough said:
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:0 -
0
-
The pedant in me insists that there are other differences between Fascists and Muslims.Philip_Thompson said:
Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.Chris said:
I "failed to answer them" because the idea that the analogy between Muslims and fascists is in any way relevant to the discussion we're having is absurd. Every bit as absurd as an analogy between Jews and fascists in relation to a discussion of antisemitism.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
But thank you again for illustrating your thought processes.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
I should say, I have some sympathy for rejectionist Leavers. As a Remainer I can get on board with damage limitation, to see things getting worse to the smallest extent possible. If asked, in that case, why leave, I can say, I didn't vote for it, I was overruled and am getting with the programme. But Leavers voted to make things better and find it difficult to accept the reality of things getting worse.FF43 said:
Brexit isn't about damage limitation any more, it's about disassociation from failure. It's telling Mrs May doesn't present a single advantage to her deal, except voters voted to Leave so you had better agree to do it.anothernick said:
I have come to the conclusion that many in the ERG/DUP do not really want to leave. Leaving would mean they had to spend the rest of their lives explaining away their role in the disastrous clusterf*ck that Brexit has become. Remaining would enable them to retreat into their comfort zone and spend the rest of their lives ranting about the evils of the EU and how leavers were betrayed by May/the civil service/the political class/the establishment/uncle Tom Cobbley etc etc.Casino_Royale said:
She’s right, but the ERG will never blame themselves.rottenborough said:
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:0 -
Fundamentalist anything religious can, and does, easily become nasty.Chris said:
Seriously, if you want to make a case for prejudice against the entire population of Muslims, as far as I'm concerned that's your right in a free society, so long as you stay within the law. I don't agree and I don't approve, but I think it's your right. If you want to do that, I think you should do it by arguing directly rather than by analogy with fascism, but that's up to you.Philip_Thompson said:
Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.Chris said:
I "failed to answer them" because the idea that the analogy between Muslims and fascists is in any way relevant to the discussion we're having is absurd. Every bit as absurd as an analogy between Jews and fascists in relation to a discussion of antisemitism.Philip_Thompson said:
I didn't make an argument I asked you a question. Two questions actually. You failed to answer them, so I will repeat them.Chris said:
Many thanks. The more bone-headedly stupid arguments people post here in favour of prejudice against Muslims, the better.Philip_Thompson said:
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
Should all fascists be treated with respect despite the actions of other fascists?
Is opposing fascists or being concerned about fascists wrong because the actions of all fascists aren't the same?
But thank you again for illustrating your thought processes.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.0 -
Afternoon all
Once again we see the remarkable stability of the core Conservative vote at or around 40% while Labour's vote splinters down toward 30%. As HYUFD opines, we would be in landslide territory on these numbers but given the experience of 2017 it's hard to be too dogmatic.
What then is holding up the Conservative share? Corbyn or the fear of him and all his works must be a factor - beyond that, there must be a core group of Remain supporters who were and remain Conservative irrespective of the Government and the Referendum.
I don't believe for a nanosecond all Conservative voters backed LEAVE nor that all LEAVE voters now support the Conservatives. As to how the vote share will change, it's impossible to know but clearly, for now, despite everything, the 40% feel either they like being where they are or they have nowhere else to go.
I also think the TMP (Theresa May Party) has a larger presence than is often believed - I think she evokes a degree of sympathy and understanding in the wider public that is not seen within the Westminster bubble. Her diligence is exemplary and there will be those who will blame anyone and everyone else if the WA falls on Tuesday.0 -
How can an Arab be anti-Semitic? Anti-jewish yes, anti-Israeli yes, but .....Chris said:
Indeed. But as you can see, that isn't the question I was asking Topping.Sean_F said:
It would be unsurprising if an Arab who had suffered at the hands of Jewish settlers on the West Bank was anti-Semitic. It would be unsurprising if a Jewish Israeli citizen whose family had been thrown out of Iraq or Egypt was anti-Arab.Chris said:
I think you can see, as well as I can, that there are people here who think anti-Muslim prejudice is not only unsurprising but justified.TOPPING said:
Chris if I may say you are making the classic mistake of fixing on your conclusion first and then shaping the experiment to justify that conclusion.Chris said:What I'm suggesting is that people should be treated with respect despite the fact that someone of the same skin colour or the same religion has done something bad. I take that as common sense.
What I said was that the argument to the contrary was stupid. And I'm sorry, but if someone comes out with a stupid argument to try to justify racial or religious prejudice, then I'm not going to refrain from saying I think it's stupid out of politeness.
But, as I said, the more people use every rhetorical trick in the book to justify prejudice, the clearer it is what's going on.
Back in the mists of time in this thread it was observed that if you have a group of people (brown eyed, fair haired, Jews, Muslims - it works with each of these groups) who are *in the name of that group* committing terrorist acts then it is not surprising that some people will take against every member of that group.
Is it justified? No of course not because there are plenty of fair-haired people who wouldn't dream of committing terrorist acts and wholly disassociate themselves from the terrorists. But the fact remains that those terrorists are committing their terrorists acts globally in the name of fair-haired people. So discrimination against fair-haired people is not justified. Nor, however, is it surprising.
Unfortunately, I don't think racial and religious prejudice is ever surprising.
But if you think it's unjustified, what I'd like to know is why you felt the need to draw a contrast between Muslims and Jews - pointing out that there was Muslim terrorism and not Jewish terrorism. What were you trying to achieve by saying that? What you hsve thought if a Labour politician - for example - had gone to the trouble of pointing out that antisemitism was unsurprising because of the actions of the state of Israel? Would that be fine?0 -
May answered the questions? Well that's a first!williamglenn said:0 -
More vacuous nonsense from May.
Desperate to blame everyone but herself . The EU should tell her to get lost . She agreed to the deal she needs to honour it .
Any problems needed to be addressed before she proclaimed victory last November.0 -
Because the highly technical point that Arabs are semitic is a highly technical one, and linguistically obsolete, and in practice anti-Semitic is synonymous with anti-jewish.OldKingCole said:
How can an Arab be anti-Semitic? Anti-jewish yes, anti-Israeli yes, but .....0 -
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/08/children-knife-crime-school-exclusions
Or is there only a particular list of crimes where we're not allowed to consider possible contributory causes?0 -
No, I think prejudice against Muslims in general is exactly what Richard Thompson is arguing for.TOPPING said:
I think you have twisted the argument, here, Chris. As far as I can remember, no one made "a case for prejudice against the entire population of Muslims", much as it would excite your SJW credentials if they had. What people here said was that it was understandable, but not justified, on account of the terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam, that a degree of Islamophobia was present in the country or whatever Richard said.Chris said:Seriously, if you want to make a case for prejudice against the entire population of Muslims, as far as I'm concerned that's your right in a free society, so long as you stay within the law. I don't agree and I don't approve, but I think it's your right. If you want to do that, I think you should do it by arguing directly rather than by analogy with fascism, but that's up to you.
And don't come out with this silly "SJW" stuff. Please just say what you have to say.0 -
Actions of the State of Israel very much occupy a huge part of the attention of Jeremy Corbyn and his lefty acolytes. Actions of Muslim terrorists very much occupy a huge part of the attention of the entire British population. So anti-Muslim prejudice is more unsurprising than anti-Jewish prejudice.Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.0 -
Important and weighty as all this discussion of racism is, I think you guys might be missing Brexit collapsing in front of our eyes right now. Jeremy Hunt was blaming the EU this morning. And May has just warned that we might not get Brexit at all if her deal doesn't go through. (You know, the one that was less popular with parliament than Charles the First.)
0 -
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".Richard_Nabavi said:
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.0 -
I thought Brexit had already happened?Recidivist said:Important and weighty as all this discussion of racism is, I think you guys might be missing Brexit collapsing in front of our eyes right now. Jeremy Hunt was blaming the EU this morning. And May has just warned that we might not get Brexit at all if her deal doesn't go through. (You know, the one that was less popular with parliament than Charles the First.)
0 -
Do you think they're equally wrong?TOPPING said:
Actions of the State of Israel very much occupy a huge part of the attention of Jeremy Corbyn and his lefty acolytes. Actions of Muslim terrorists very much occupy a huge part of the attention of the entire British population. So anti-Muslim prejudice is more unsurprising than anti-Jewish prejudice.Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.0 -
Well I guess my point would be that prejudice against Muslims should be viewed as just as irrational and reprehensible and worthy of condemnation as that against Jews.TOPPING said:Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
And I am not sure that it is.0 -
And I have just noticed the Telegraph is blaming Phil Hammond for wrecking Brexit.
The game might be up.0 -
Another subgroup that can throw up anti-semitism allegations are very left wing, anti-Israeli Jews.Ishmael_Z said:
Because the highly technical point that Arabs are semitic is a highly technical one, and linguistically obsolete, and in practice anti-Semitic is synonymous with anti-jewish.OldKingCole said:
How can an Arab be anti-Semitic? Anti-jewish yes, anti-Israeli yes, but .....0 -
What has changed since Bradley did not understand that nationalists and loyalists voted differently? Soubry's joined TIG.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
It fits with this thread's topic. Crass ignorance or prejudice is all right when it is *my* party but intolerable from the other side.0 -
- Mrs May, what are you clear about today?SandyRentool said:
May answered the questions? Well that's a first!williamglenn said:
- Well I’m clear that we’ve got a good deal, and Parliament now has a choice between my deal and a choice.0 -
You really do need to look at your own motives. Why on earth are you so blind that you can't see that I was making a completely uncontroversial point about the likely factors behind the rise in Islamophobia, no different in principle to looking at possible factors behind a rise in knife crime?Chris said:
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".Richard_Nabavi said:
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
I suggest you start again and read what I wrote, and then apologise. I don't mind too much that you accused me of bigotry - that's so daft that no-one could take it seriously - but accusing me of being like Boris FFS!0 -
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.0 -
Looking at it from a slightly different angle... What sane person would want to spend time studying the arcane history of NI? Do we want a sane person as NI Secretary? Do we have to accept that the venn diagram between a knowledge of NI and sanity has a very small area of overlap? Does this make this sort of criticism unfair?williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
I really can't help feeling that NI politicians and others really need to get over themselves sometimes. It's just not that interesting.0 -
They are all talking about Brexit not happening.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/11037773090420531200 -
The game is certainly up for anybody who had money on Hammond as next Tory leader/PM.....Recidivist said:And I have just noticed the Telegraph is blaming Phil Hammond for wrecking Brexit.
The game might be up.0 -
She has had six months to educate herself. Which have clearly been wasted.DecrepitJohnL said:
What has changed since Bradley did not understand that nationalists and loyalists voted differently? Soubry's joined TIG.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=210 -
Prejudice against Muslims is not irrational. It's understandable. Just as prejudice against the Jews is not irrational to Jeremy Corbyn and any like-minded lefty types.kinabalu said:
Well I guess my point would be that prejudice against Muslims should be viewed as just as irrational and reprehensible and worthy of condemnation as that against Jews.TOPPING said:Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
And I am not sure that it is.0 -
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....Nigelb said:
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.0 -
Yes. I began by disregarding this view as a flight of fancy on my part but the evidence keeps mounting.anothernick said:
I have come to the conclusion that many in the ERG/DUP do not really want to leave. Leaving would mean they had to spend the rest of their lives explaining away their role in the disastrous clusterf*ck that Brexit has become. Remaining would enable them to retreat into their comfort zone and spend the rest of their lives ranting about the evils of the EU and how leavers were betrayed by May/the civil service/the political class/the establishment/uncle Tom Cobbley etc etc.Casino_Royale said:
She’s right, but the ERG will never blame themselves.rottenborough said:
Well, at least she can say to ERG I told you so, when Remain wins the forthcoming referendum.Scott_P said:0 -
she will need to be dragged out kicking and screaming , she has a brass neck.rottenborough said:
I reckon she will.TGOHF said:Will May survive next week ?
Looks her deal will get voted down.
Can she hang on for a 3rd attempt ?0 -
As I said, that's a discussion for CiF.Chris said:
Do you think they're equally wrong?TOPPING said:
Actions of the State of Israel very much occupy a huge part of the attention of Jeremy Corbyn and his lefty acolytes. Actions of Muslim terrorists very much occupy a huge part of the attention of the entire British population. So anti-Muslim prejudice is more unsurprising than anti-Jewish prejudice.Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.0 -
TBF, the driver of Islamophobia is rarely a passionate desire to further the interests of women and homosexuals.Charles said:The other aspect is what people claim is “discrimination.”
For example it is possible to argue legitimately for integration not multiculturalism.
Someone on the right night argue that without integration you create the basis for alienation and disassociation and create an environment where terrorist can flourish. So it is rational and the right thing to do to encourage integration, possibly from first principles and possibly as a reaction to terrorism.
Someone on the left, however, might believe that the desire for integration represents extreme anti-Muslim prejudice because you are insisting they give up essential elements of their historical culture by, for example, insisting on equal rights for women and homosexuals.0 -
What is it Spurs fans say: I can cope with the despair, it's the hope I can't stand?Recidivist said:They are all talking about Brexit not happening.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/11037773090420531200 -
OldKingCole said:
sigh.... that's why I said Putin might have got hold of Crimea legitimately - he panicked and now has ended up basically stuck with a disgruntled bunch of pensioners, a Tatar population who will be permanent pain in the neck and a couple of military bases with massive drug problems and criminality. Also most of Odessa thinks of itself as Russian but over the last 5 years I have seen this change quite noticeably and Putin greatest achievement has actually been to forge a Ukrainian identity across the country- just because someone has Russian heritage doesn't mean they want to be occupied by Russia.kingbongo said:
There have been at least three referenda/plebiscites or similar in Crimea in the recent past. How 'free and fair' any or all of them were is open to doubt, but it does appear that the current population, ie that imported after that there during and before the Nazi occupation had been deported, regards itself as primarily Russian, rather than UkranianPhilip_Thompson said:
There was a plebiscite in Crimea in 1991, held under the rules recognised in international law and it voted both to be part of Ukraine and to be independent of Russia. The crazy thing about the invasion of Crimea is that with a bit of patience Putin probably could have helped build an indy movement and win Crimea legitimately - now he has a big headache trying to feed and maintain a disgruntled population who are not being showered with the goodies they were promised - quelle surpriseYBarddCwsc said:
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.Philip_Thompson said:
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?YBarddCwsc said:williamglenn said:YBarddCwsc said:Sean_F said:_Anazina_ said:
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.williamglenn said:
.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.0 -
Shouldn't be a problem...kingbongo said:
There was a plebiscite in Crimea in 1991, held under the rules recognised in international law and it voted both to be part of Ukraine and to be independent of Russia. The crazy thing about the invasion of Crimea is that with a bit of patience Putin probably could have helped build an indy movement and win Crimea legitimately - now he has a big headache trying to feed and maintain a disgruntled population who are not being showered with the goodies they were promised - quelle surprisePhilip_Thompson said:
Maybe if the people of Crimea had elected a party backing a plebiscite, you know how like the SNP won elections in Scotland to trigger theirs.YBarddCwsc said:
Under what circumstance do you envisage the Government of the Ukraine would have given their assent for a plebiscite in the Crimea?Philip_Thompson said:YBarddCwsc said:
The legality of the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 is highly debatable.williamglenn said:
You are reading something into my comments that I haven't said. Your starting position is that Ukraine "as presently conceived by the West is like Yugoslavia" and that Russia somehow has a right to claim territories with majority ethnic Russian populations. It is this argument I am disputing.YBarddCwsc said:
It is unbelievable that all the Remainers (Meeks, WilliamGlenn, Anazina) can't accept a very simple statement of the bleeding obvious.Sean_F said:
Re Crimea the issue is one of self-determination. There's not much doubt that most of the inhabitants view themselves as Russian and want to be part of Russia._Anazina_ said:
Canada adjoins the United States. Is it therefore naturally part of the United States?YBarddCwsc said:
Excellent analogy ... apart from, I guess, Russia adjoins the Crimea, and Australia is the other end of the world from Britain.williamglenn said:
When you start talking about ethnicity in respect of Russia and Ukraine it shows that you've wholly bought into the way the Kremlin wants you to see it.
.
According to wiki, Henry Kissinger stated it was possible Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine because he was drunk at the time.
My guess is that is not a basis for a long-lived solution.
The fact the military invaded first and then the public under military occupation "voted" makes that void though.
Anything after a military occupation simply doesn't count.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/russian-parliament-outlaws-online-disrespect0 -
Having pondered it for two and a half years, can we agree Brexit mean's Brexit and move onto more important things?0
-
IT IS UNSURPRISING!!Chris said:
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".Richard_Nabavi said:
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
It is not justified (it is of course justified in the subset of Muslims who want to kill us, although perhaps you disagree) but nor is it surprising.0 -
FFS, is there a single inspired cabinet appointment ?MarqueeMark said:
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....Nigelb said:
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.
(i'll grant maybe a couple rise just above the mediocre.)0 -
How many of the world's 2 billion Muslims do you think believe in the violent subjugation of non believers?Philip_Thompson said:Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
Yeah. I can't see her bottling out before some sort of resolution to the current question (whatever that may be), and if I was anyone in the Tory party who could encourage her to go or had pretensions of replacing her, I'd be waiting until that point too.rottenborough said:
I reckon she will.TGOHF said:Will May survive next week ?
Looks her deal will get voted down.
Can she hang on for a 3rd attempt ?
I suppose the Gods might align in a Commons VONC, but I can't see the shared motivation for such a coalition beyond "bored now.. let's see where the cards land".
I think that protection lasts until we leave (sometime before June 30 and maybe longer in case of Deal), or until a long A50 extension is negotiated.
The moment we're in to the "next phase" of negotiations, be that a new exit agreement or the future relationship, I think there'll be a head of steam for a change.
(EDIT: I appreciate this post will not age well if she quits next week or lasts till 2022)0 -
On grounds of public health, it is important to wipe your feet.SandyRentool said:Just passing through...
Yesterday I was travelling on the London Underground. I changed at Baker Street from the pink to the brown.
Some PBers might be interested to know this...0 -
I am happy to take the apostrophe for the nation. We all have to make sacrifices in this time of crisis.Nigelb said:
Not if you're going to abuse the apostrophe like that...FF43 said:Having pondered it for two and a half years, can we agree Brexit mean's Brexit and move onto more important things?
0 -
.
If one wishes to try another analogy, let's suppose evangelical Protestant terrorists were blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors, it would be understandable if there were prejudice against evangelical Protestants in general, even though it would be unfair to tar all of them with the same brush as the terroristsRichard_Nabavi said:
You really do need to look at your own motives. Why on earth are you so blind that you can't see that I was making a completely uncontroversial point about the likely factors behind the rise in Islamophobia, no different in principle to looking at possible factors behind a rise in knife crime?Chris said:
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".Richard_Nabavi said:
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
I suggest you start again and read what I wrote, and then apologise. I don't mind too much that you accused me of bigotry - that's so daft that no-one could take it seriously - but accusing me of being like Boris FFS!0 -
Someone's going to roll out that Muslims' attitude survey shortly, I'll warrant.kinabalu said:
How many of the world's 2 billion Muslims do you think believe in the violent subjugation of non believers?Philip_Thompson said:Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
Bradley is there for unswerving loyalty and a trouble-free existence. Once one of those disappears, I tend to agree her usefulness declines. That said, a cabinet reshuffle is probably not on TM's to-do list in the next few weeks.Nigelb said:
FFS, is there a single inspired cabinet appointment ?MarqueeMark said:
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....Nigelb said:
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.
(i'll grant maybe a couple rise just above the mediocre.)0 -
O tempora! O mores!FF43 said:
I am happy to take the apostrophe for the nation. We all have to make sacrifices in this time of crisis.Nigelb said:
Not if you're going to abuse the apostrophe like that...FF43 said:Having pondered it for two and a half years, can we agree Brexit mean's Brexit and move onto more important things?
0 -
Compare and contrast:
Jeremy Corbyn, today's speech at the Scottish Labour conference:
We believe that the real divide in our society is not between people who voted yes or no for independence. And it’s not between people who voted to remain or to leave the EU.
The real divide is between the many – who do the work, create the wealth and pay their taxes – and the few, who set the rules, reap the rewards and dodge their taxes. So let me spell it out: our mission is to back the working class, in all its diversity.
Theresa May, 2016 Conference speech:
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff... a director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
So today, I want to set out my plan for a Britain where everyone plays by the same rules and every person has the opportunity to be all they want to be.0 -
Always fascinating to get down and dirty with an identity politics fight though.. odd bedfellows... For instance.. Vegans defending halal forms of animal slaughter.kinabalu said:
TBF, the driver of Islamophobia is rarely a passionate desire to further the interests of women and homosexuals.Charles said:The other aspect is what people claim is “discrimination.”
For example it is possible to argue legitimately for integration not multiculturalism.
Someone on the right night argue that without integration you create the basis for alienation and disassociation and create an environment where terrorist can flourish. So it is rational and the right thing to do to encourage integration, possibly from first principles and possibly as a reaction to terrorism.
Someone on the left, however, might believe that the desire for integration represents extreme anti-Muslim prejudice because you are insisting they give up essential elements of their historical culture by, for example, insisting on equal rights for women and homosexuals.0 -
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.MarqueeMark said:
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....Nigelb said:
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.0 -
You have a good view of the tower from across the waters at Spurn Head.algarkirk said:
The place to perch in Grimsby is where you can see the Dock Tower, which is a masterpiece (I am not making this up) modelled on the Torre del Mangia in Siena. Lincolnshire has many surprises, but few more surprising than this.Pulpstar said:
Optics, you don't get much more leavery than a workshop in Grimsby.rottenborough said:0 -
Yes, you commented that anti-Muslim prejudice had become normalised. Then you went on to say it wasn't surprising, and I commented that that in itself was an illustration of how it had become acceptable. I suggested you applied the test of substituting "Muslims" for "Jews".Richard_Nabavi said:
You really do need to look at your own motives. Why on earth are you so blind that you can't see that I was making a completely uncontroversial point about the likely factors behind the rise in Islamophobia, no different in principle to looking at possible factors behind a rise in knife crime?Chris said:
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".Richard_Nabavi said:
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
I suggest you start again and read what I wrote, and then apologise. I don't mind too much that you accused me of bigotry - that's so daft that no-one could take it seriously - but accusing me of being like Boris FFS!
Your response to that was the stuff we've seen over and over again, about Muslims being terrorists and Jews not being terrorists. Surely you could see that wasn't the point?
And of course I didn't accuse you of bigotry - I said that what you had written was an excuse for bigotry. Wasn't that amply borne out by the subsequent discussion?
And as for my "motives", what the hell do you think you know about them? Just say what you have to say, please.0 -
Do you mean the Pew surveys?TOPPING said:
Someone's going to roll out that Muslims' attitude survey shortly, I'll warrant.kinabalu said:
How many of the world's 2 billion Muslims do you think believe in the violent subjugation of non believers?Philip_Thompson said:Fundamentalist Islam is extremely similar to fascism.
Both are belief systems.
Both have inspired violence.
Both have violent acts taken out in their name.
Both have ideologues and preachers.
Both view outsiders as lessers.
If you are prepared to reject one violent belief system then why not others?0 -
In normal times it wouldn't matter but with NI at the epicentre of the entire Brexit conundrum, it is magnified tremendously.Sean_F said:
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.MarqueeMark said:
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....Nigelb said:
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.0 -
Karen Bradley is so useless that she is harmless. Would that one could say the same of all Cabinet ministers.Sean_F said:
Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.MarqueeMark said:
May needs to carry the can for this appointment, which looks singularly uninspired....Nigelb said:
Given she was saying this back in September: “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa", her ignorance is utterly remarkable for a secretary of state, and it is now clear that she lacks either the will or the capacity to educate herself about her brief.williamglenn said:Tiggers go in for the kill.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1104012590580203521?s=21
Soubry is correct.0 -
In general (and in another context), I'd agree, but NI Secretary is a role where you really do need to be careful how you choose your words. She just doesn't seem to be very good.Sean_F said:Bradley may not be very good, but the reaction to her comments is absurdly overblown. As @David L says, these people need to get over themselves.
0 -
LOL - nicely doneRichard_Nabavi said:
You really do need to look at your own motives. Why on earth are you so blind that you can't see that I was making a completely uncontroversial point about the likely factors behind the rise in Islamophobia, no different in principle to looking at possible factors behind a rise in knife crime?Chris said:
Not at all. My objection is to singling one group out and saying prejudice against them is "unsurprising".Richard_Nabavi said:
By your logic, this article excuses and justifies murder:Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
I suggest you start again and read what I wrote, and then apologise. I don't mind too much that you accused me of bigotry - that's so daft that no-one could take it seriously - but accusing me of being like Boris FFS!0 -
No point saying more on the subject here then.TOPPING said:
As I said, that's a discussion for CiF.Chris said:
Do you think they're equally wrong?TOPPING said:
Actions of the State of Israel very much occupy a huge part of the attention of Jeremy Corbyn and his lefty acolytes. Actions of Muslim terrorists very much occupy a huge part of the attention of the entire British population. So anti-Muslim prejudice is more unsurprising than anti-Jewish prejudice.Chris said:
Just that Richard Nabavi said anti-Muslim prejudice was unsurprising, and I suggested the test of substituting "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he had just written. You responded by implying that wouldn't be appropriate because there was Muslim terrorism but not Jewish terrorism.TOPPING said:
Of course they are understandable. I understand many of the causes of islamophobia and anti-semitism. I believe @Richard_Nabavi said that a degree of whatever word he used I don't think islamophobia is not surprising in the light of the Islamic terrorists trying to blow us up. There is also plenty of anti-semitism around and that is not surprising either.kinabalu said:
Indeed. Israel is not the Jews. Just as ISIS, say, is not the Muslims. In fact far less so, based on relative numbers.TOPPING said:Yes in a way, but no because it is Israel not the Jews.
Conclusion - either both antisemitism and islamophobia are in some cases understandable or neither are.
Yes?
What exact point are you and @Chris trying to make?
My point, of course, was that anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism were equally bad, but - from your response - you seemed to disagree. Now you seem to be broadly agreeing.
My "exact point" really is that I'm puzzled by what your "exact point" was in drawing a distinction between Jews and Muslims in relation to terrorism. That's what kicked off the whole argument.
But if you can't even bring yourself to say that anti-Muslim prejudice is as wrong as anti-Jewish prejudice, please don't play the victim here and make out you're being hard-done by.0 -
Always change your shoes, especially if going from brown to pink.notme2 said:
On grounds of public health, it is important to wipe your feet.SandyRentool said:Just passing through...
Yesterday I was travelling on the London Underground. I changed at Baker Street from the pink to the brown.
Some PBers might be interested to know this...0 -
Comment is Free on the Graun - discussions on Israel/Palestine are a national sport over there.kinabalu said:
What's CiF as a matter of interest?TOPPING said:As I said, that's a discussion for CiF.
Hey and what's happening with our Deal? - You still confident it's going through eventually?
Don't panic! The deal will pass. Or we get that second referendum (much less likely). There are many three steps forwards two steps backwards comments from and about ERG-ers and the Deal which still leaves us moving forwards!!0
