Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
That must be close to the first wave peak now? It was estimated as 100k a day in the UK.
I'm sure they're above first wave peak, given high positivity levels.
It is worth noting - sotto voce - but while the UK did very badly with the first wave, it appears to be doing much better (relative to peers) with the second.
Which peers? France, obviously. Anyone else?
Yes:
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, all of Eastern Europe, and probably Germany too.
Where are you getting UK probably doing much better than Germany from?
Germany has a similar case count to the UK (albeit with a larger population). However they:
- are seeing cases continuing to rise rapidly, while in the UK they're (at worst) slowing - have a higher positivity rate than the UK, indicating they are probably missing cases
Interesting chart here from David Wasserman. No wonder polls failed to pick swings up!
Note the difference between OH and West PA, though I think postal are still being added in OH and a number of other States. Big swing in southern TX too. Presumably not Cubans there.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
Same. I think the first lockdown was essential to buy time, to better understand the virus and how to treat it. But we're now in a situation where it's either keep locking down until a vaccine is rolled out (with big questions about what will happen if it's ineffective against Covid 20 or Minky Corona or whatever comes next), or learn to live with it by shielding the vulnerable, rolling out wider testing, better track and trace, more severe penalties for not self isolating etc. The NHS won't be overwhelmed because we've never even used all those Nightingale hospitals. And the longer we go on, the more people will suffer through losing their jobs, turning to drink or drugs, missing vital cancer screenings etc.
What I think will happen is we will see deaths rise a bit throughout November and Boris will say sorry, we can't end the lockdown yet, but if you all really behave yourselves I will let you spend Christmas Day with up to 6 friends or family members before reviewing the lockdown again in January.
On the other hand if the lockdown does end in December I expect we will all be back in lockdown by mid to late Jan as people mingle at Christmas, students return home etc. Which is dangerous as I think with each successive lockdown compliance will get lower and lower.
But I don't think things will really change so long as Sunak keeps paying people to sit at home doing nothing. It's only when we're faced with the stark choice between saving every life and saving the economy that lockdown will lose majority support. It's not either / or, it's a balancing act between the two. But the longer this rumbles on, the more the economy goes down the toilet.
All of this is entirely plausible. However I don't think we will be able to avoid a lockdown in Q1 2021 in any case so I think Boris will go for the 'reopening in 3 Dec' and allow it up to early Jan, to keep the electorate happy, even though it should be apparent that a further lockdown will be needed Q1 2021.
Another one to add to the crazies list and to ignore when they ever their articles get posted again.
To be added? It will be interesting to see how many of the "fearless contrarians" will go down this path.
If Trump has proof of fraud, he should provide it. If he hasn't, he shouldn't shout about it;
If he wants a legal recount, and he is within the margins, that is his right;
If there are further examples of software glitches that have caused miscounted votes, they should be investigated properly;
If there are postal votes in the system that should have been counted according to the law, they should be counted.
If courts direct boards of elections to follow orders, they should do it;
[snip]
(4) Judges are going to be incredibly wary of overturning a result. At the very least, they would require overwhelming evidence of fraud. (Have they ever done so, in either the UK or the US?)
The rest of his life. The legal challenges will dry up, but he will nurse this to his grave. I think he believes it - he cannot conceive that he might not have won.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Perhaps unkind. I was referring to the far more foolish and misguided Greek chap. Not sure he ever posted here.
That guy was Socrates's amenuensis and Socrates was here, though not in recent years.
That must be close to the first wave peak now? It was estimated as 100k a day in the UK.
I'm sure they're above first wave peak, given high positivity levels.
It is worth noting - sotto voce - but while the UK did very badly with the first wave, it appears to be doing much better (relative to peers) with the second.
Which peers? France, obviously. Anyone else?
Yes:
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, all of Eastern Europe, and probably Germany too.
Where are you getting UK probably doing much better than Germany from?
Germany has a similar case count to the UK (albeit with a larger population). However they:
- are seeing cases continuing to rise rapidly, while in the UK they're (at worst) slowing - have a higher positivity rate than the UK, indicating they are probably missing cases
The UK is testing at about double the rate per 1000 that Germany is.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
Same. I think the first lockdown was essential to buy time, to better understand the virus and how to treat it. But we're now in a situation where it's either keep locking down until a vaccine is rolled out (with big questions about what will happen if it's ineffective against Covid 20 or Minky Corona or whatever comes next), or learn to live with it by shielding the vulnerable, rolling out wider testing, better track and trace, more severe penalties for not self isolating etc. The NHS won't be overwhelmed because we've never even used all those Nightingale hospitals. And the longer we go on, the more people will suffer through losing their jobs, turning to drink or drugs, missing vital cancer screenings etc.
What I think will happen is we will see deaths rise a bit throughout November and Boris will say sorry, we can't end the lockdown yet, but if you all really behave yourselves I will let you spend Christmas Day with up to 6 friends or family members before reviewing the lockdown again in January.
On the other hand if the lockdown does end in December I expect we will all be back in lockdown by mid to late Jan as people mingle at Christmas, students return home etc. Which is dangerous as I think with each successive lockdown compliance will get lower and lower.
But I don't think things will really change so long as Sunak keeps paying people to sit at home doing nothing. It's only when we're faced with the stark choice between saving every life and saving the economy that lockdown will lose majority support. It's not either / or, it's a balancing act between the two. But the longer this rumbles on, the more the economy goes down the toilet.
All of this is entirely plausible. However I don't think we will be able to avoid a lockdown in Q1 2021 in any case so I think Boris will go for the 'reopening in 3 Dec' and allow it up to early Jan, to keep the electorate happy, even though it should be apparent that a further lockdown will be needed Q1 2021.
If it happens I imagine forced choice most people would prefer to be locked down in January over December.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
I've been reading that recently. "What's he on about?" was my main response.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
As one of those staffing gaps I think I agree. In a partial lockdown like we have now they are paying me to teach from home and someone else to cover the lesson in person: there is a limit to how much of this can be sustained. Having said that we are not yet doing to badly with pupils off and there are only a small number of staff like me who need to be shielded, so who knows?
I seem to remember that 15th October was the last possible date for getting a deal. Does anyone have any idea what the last possible date is now or has the world lost interest in the fact that 1st Jan is coming up soon?
Who is Plato? She lives alongside tim in the pantheon of PBers past.
One day I shall fall away, but I am confident my spirit will find fulfillment in PB Valhalla, locked in endless revelry reliving old battles with the heroes of PB past before the watchful gaze of Allfather Smithson.
Mr. Malmesbury, that's interesting and it'd be useful if someone could work out why Germany is doing so much worse now than it did with the first wave.
Anyway, I must be off. The galaxy isn't going to conquer itself.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
I've been reading that recently. "What's he on about?" was my main response.
I think the lessons we should all learn is philosophers are useful and we can get idea's from them but we should be wary of adopting their entire creed as the truth to strive for. Take an idea from this one and that one and meld them into something that works instead
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I doubt it too I disagree however with your interpretation of the issue, it is not the frailty of man that is the issue it is that the philosophy ignores human nature. Socialism/communism is a good philosophy for a hive. Humans are not a hive
Surely human nature is beset by the frailties of man. On this issue I am not entirely sure we disagree.
Indeed we are not bees.
I don't think we disagree on the whole apart from you see them as frailties I see them as strengths. They are what led us to civillisation and scientific progress. Human's compete to be better than each other. Is it not after all the very definition of Darwins evolution the best pass their genes on.
No we disagree then. I believe more in "the meek inheriting the Earth" rather than "dog eat dog".
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
Same. I think the first lockdown was essential to buy time, to better understand the virus and how to treat it. But we're now in a situation where it's either keep locking down until a vaccine is rolled out (with big questions about what will happen if it's ineffective against Covid 20 or Minky Corona or whatever comes next), or learn to live with it by shielding the vulnerable, rolling out wider testing, better track and trace, more severe penalties for not self isolating etc. The NHS won't be overwhelmed because we've never even used all those Nightingale hospitals. And the longer we go on, the more people will suffer through losing their jobs, turning to drink or drugs, missing vital cancer screenings etc.
What I think will happen is we will see deaths rise a bit throughout November and Boris will say sorry, we can't end the lockdown yet, but if you all really behave yourselves I will let you spend Christmas Day with up to 6 friends or family members before reviewing the lockdown again in January.
On the other hand if the lockdown does end in December I expect we will all be back in lockdown by mid to late Jan as people mingle at Christmas, students return home etc. Which is dangerous as I think with each successive lockdown compliance will get lower and lower.
But I don't think things will really change so long as Sunak keeps paying people to sit at home doing nothing. It's only when we're faced with the stark choice between saving every life and saving the economy that lockdown will lose majority support. It's not either / or, it's a balancing act between the two. But the longer this rumbles on, the more the economy goes down the toilet.
All of this is entirely plausible. However I don't think we will be able to avoid a lockdown in Q1 2021 in any case so I think Boris will go for the 'reopening in 3 Dec' and allow it up to early Jan, to keep the electorate happy, even though it should be apparent that a further lockdown will be needed Q1 2021.
If it happens I imagine forced choice most people would prefer to be locked down in January over December.
Agreed January is horrible. And February. Although I would prefer no lockdown than a lockdown!
Another one to add to the crazies list and to ignore when they ever their articles get posted again.
To be added? It will be interesting to see how many of the "fearless contrarians" will go down this path.
If Trump has proof of fraud, he should provide it. If he hasn't, he shouldn't shout about it;
If he wants a legal recount, and he is within the margins, that is his right;
If there are further examples of software glitches that have caused miscounted votes, they should be investigated properly;
If there are postal votes in the system that should have been counted according to the law, they should be counted.
If courts direct boards of elections to follow orders, they should do it;
[snip]
(4) Judges are going to be incredibly wary of overturning a result. At the very least, they would require overwhelming evidence of fraud. (Have they ever done so, in either the UK or the US?)
Althoug the voters made their views quite clear at the subsequent by-election
Yes, in extremis they might order a do over. But with a 75,000 (1%) cushion, I simply can't see it. (Not to mention the fact that a few hundred ballots is one thing, maybe even a couple of thousand. But 75,000 would leave a massive trail. And a little bit of statistical analysis would spot it easily.)
Electoral college bias currently at 2.18% (National 2.8% / Wisconsin tipping point 0.56%). Could change as more PA/AZ and west coast/New York ballots roll in to the totals though.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
I've been reading that recently. "What's he on about?" was my main response.
I've just had a brief dive into an online copy.
Trying to batter the facts hard enough that they fit his theories, I think....
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I doubt it too I disagree however with your interpretation of the issue, it is not the frailty of man that is the issue it is that the philosophy ignores human nature. Socialism/communism is a good philosophy for a hive. Humans are not a hive
Surely human nature is beset by the frailties of man. On this issue I am not entirely sure we disagree.
Indeed we are not bees.
I don't think we disagree on the whole apart from you see them as frailties I see them as strengths. They are what led us to civillisation and scientific progress. Human's compete to be better than each other. Is it not after all the very definition of Darwins evolution the best pass their genes on.
No we disagree then. I believe more in "the meek inheriting the Earth" rather than "dog eat dog".
Hell what have the meek done to you that you would wish that on them?
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Philip, didn't you say Islamaphobia doesn't exist, or am I mistaken.
Interesting chart here from David Wasserman. No wonder polls failed to pick swings up!
Note the difference between OH and West PA, though I think postal are still being added in OH and a number of other States. Big swing in southern TX too. Presumably not Cubans there.
That's a bit misleading though, because all the big arrows are from rural counties with relatively few people in them.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't think that we will ever have another full lockdown, but we will have continuing measures into Q1 of next year.
We may see Schools and University break a week early on the 11th Dec, at least for face to face teaching.
Not sure if you saw it but teachers have a similar rate to other exposed professionals. See section 9:
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I think it is. As I said in an earlier post, overthrowing the oppressors makes no difference to the vast majority who just have to carry on as before, but with a new crowd calling the shots. And this is my interpretation of what Marx was advocating.
I see nothing in his writings that set out a path to a better life for the proletariat. Indeed, he seems to rail against those offering concrete progress because they don't conform to his ideological purity.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Philip, didn't you say Islamaphobia doesn't exist, or am I mistaken.
It exists.
Complaints of it are exaggerated though as an attempt to distract from the very real anti-Semitism issues though.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Boris is an Islamophobe.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
Indeed, and if I recall correctly, the article in question was saying almost exactly the opposite of what Boris is accused of. He said something like:
You may think the Burqua ridiculous. You may think it makes a woman look like a letterbox. But we are a freedom loving country. The state should not be regulating what people wear. #
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
Same. I think the first lockdown was essential to buy time, to better understand the virus and how to treat it. But we're now in a situation where it's either keep locking down until a vaccine is rolled out (with big questions about what will happen if it's ineffective against Covid 20 or Minky Corona or whatever comes next), or learn to live with it by shielding the vulnerable, rolling out wider testing, better track and trace, more severe penalties for not self isolating etc. The NHS won't be overwhelmed because we've never even used all those Nightingale hospitals. And the longer we go on, the more people will suffer through losing their jobs, turning to drink or drugs, missing vital cancer screenings etc.
What I think will happen is we will see deaths rise a bit throughout November and Boris will say sorry, we can't end the lockdown yet, but if you all really behave yourselves I will let you spend Christmas Day with up to 6 friends or family members before reviewing the lockdown again in January.
On the other hand if the lockdown does end in December I expect we will all be back in lockdown by mid to late Jan as people mingle at Christmas, students return home etc. Which is dangerous as I think with each successive lockdown compliance will get lower and lower.
But I don't think things will really change so long as Sunak keeps paying people to sit at home doing nothing. It's only when we're faced with the stark choice between saving every life and saving the economy that lockdown will lose majority support. It's not either / or, it's a balancing act between the two. But the longer this rumbles on, the more the economy goes down the toilet.
All of this is entirely plausible. However I don't think we will be able to avoid a lockdown in Q1 2021 in any case so I think Boris will go for the 'reopening in 3 Dec' and allow it up to early Jan, to keep the electorate happy, even though it should be apparent that a further lockdown will be needed Q1 2021.
If it happens I imagine forced choice most people would prefer to be locked down in January over December.
Politically the choice between 'Scrooge Boris cancels Christmas' and having Christmas followed by headlines like: '20,000 die, NHS overwhelmed, because Boris allowed us to have Christmas' is not a simple one.
Expect for this Xmas issue each of the 4 nations (maybe other European countries too) to cling unwillingly together so that there is no risk of one being wrong and watching the others being smug about it. As no-one has the tiniest idea what the best plan would actually be.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Philip, didn't you say Islamaphobia doesn't exist, or am I mistaken.
It exists.
Complaints of it are exaggerated though as an attempt to distract from the very real anti-Semitism issues though.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Boris is an Islamophobe.
What an utterly disgraceful and offensive thing to say, shame on you Philip.
It's becoming clearer that those whom think Boris Johnson isn't a racist/sexist, have obvious blindspots of their own.
I have tried to educate myself on anti-Semitism since Corbyn, it's a shame they have not bothered to educate themselves on the real damage Islamaphobia causes. And utterly disgraceful that anyone would say it is exaggerated to undermine anti-Semitism. Imagine saying anti-Semitism was exaggerated, the appalling reaction you would get - and deserve.
Really very disappointed in some users this evening. I'm going to call off, have a nice evening.
The 'Lest We Forget' virtue-signalling stuff is starting to wind me up.
I saw a bus without a digital destination and number today, but with that as a slogan and a digital pixelated poppy instead plus a house bedecked with a MASSIVE 9ft diameter poppy.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
I don't want to be unhelpful, but can you define 'full fat lockdown'? I think there will be lots of shades of grey in restrictions for the next few months, so my answer for now is 'It depends'.
Good question. As in, leave the house only to take exercise and all non-essential economic activity shut down.
I don't think we'll go back to economic shutdown - the evidence seems to be that, of itself, does't drop R that much.
The issue seems to be that the big factors in R, are education and socialisation.
The first of which is continuing at the government’s behest and the second of which will undoubtedly continue anyway whether the government wants it to or not.
And worth noting that the recent stabilisation of cases happened at the right time to match half term in most schools.
Welcome, but potentially fleeting and poising awkward questions...
Well, yes.
Not sure how it is round your way, but in the week before half term cases spiked alarmingly. Last week, it was much quieter.
I am just crossing my fingers this week is an extension of last week, not a return to previous form.
Re: US Court cases. Obviously they are all ridiculous, from what we are hearing completely without evidence or foundation, and aren't of a scale to over-turn results anyway. But i really hope a couple of them actually make it through to the Supreme Court to allow the SC to nail their colours to the mast. I would expect them to chuck anything that reaches them out - but i think that Trump genuinely believes that they will vote in his favour simply because he appointed them, regardless of the merits of any case. The anger when they don't - particularly Amy coney Barrett - will be a sight to behold.
Interesting chart here from David Wasserman. No wonder polls failed to pick swings up!
Note the difference between OH and West PA, though I think postal are still being added in OH and a number of other States. Big swing in southern TX too. Presumably not Cubans there.
That's a bit misleading though, because all the big arrows are from rural counties with relatively few people in them.
The big swings in Utah are due to a lack of a credible third candidate this time, and the smaller ones the other way in Vermont due to a big drop in Bernie write-ins.
The 'Lest We Forget' virtue-signalling stuff is starting to wind me up.
I saw a bus without a digital destination and number today, but with that as a slogan and a digital pixelated poppy instead plus a house bedecked with a MASSIVE 9ft diameter poppy.
Give me a break.
I apply this rule with the poppy:
Don't wear it until 1 Nov. Keep wearing it until the later of 11 Nov or Remembrance Sunday if later ie 14 Nov latest.
Interesting chart here from David Wasserman. No wonder polls failed to pick swings up!
Note the difference between OH and West PA, though I think postal are still being added in OH and a number of other States. Big swing in southern TX too. Presumably not Cubans there.
The Utah numbers are skewed by the absence of a strong third party candidate. In 2016, Trump beat Clinton by 18 points with Evan McMullin polling 21.5%. This time Trump won by 21 and the two main candidates picked up 96% of the vote between them.
Texas was the dog that didn't bark for Biden and I wonder if the pollsters missed the big pro-Trump swing in the far south of the state
Looking at a couple of Texas counties, starting with Brooks (named after Garth presumably), in 2016 it voted 75-24 for Clinton but on Tuesday the result (so far) is 59-40 which I make a 16% swing to Trump.
Willacy voted 67-31 for Clinton in 2016 but last Thursday it was 56-44 so that's a 12% swing to Trump (so far).
Small counties of course but for some reason (energy policy perhaps), the far south of Texas swung strongly to Trump. The University of Houston final poll had Trump up by five and Rasmussen had Trump up by seven.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Philip, didn't you say Islamaphobia doesn't exist, or am I mistaken.
It exists.
Complaints of it are exaggerated though as an attempt to distract from the very real anti-Semitism issues though.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Boris is an Islamophobe.
What an utterly disgraceful and offensive thing to say, shame on you Philip.
It's true.
The difference between Labour and the Tories is the Tories have for decades thrown any actual racists out of the party. Labour did not throw antisemites out.
So Islamophobia exists but not within the Tories.
People exaggerate complaints about Islamophobia within the Tories as a form of "yeah-but" response. Show me any actual Islamophobes and I'd support them being thrown out as the Tories have done for decades and as Labour is now playing catch up on doing.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Philip, didn't you say Islamaphobia doesn't exist, or am I mistaken.
It exists.
Complaints of it are exaggerated though as an attempt to distract from the very real anti-Semitism issues though.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Boris is an Islamophobe.
No it's all just satire?
I'm similarly offended by Johnson's witterings as I am by Corbyn's.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Because you're scraping the barrel CHB.
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Philip, didn't you say Islamaphobia doesn't exist, or am I mistaken.
It exists.
Complaints of it are exaggerated though as an attempt to distract from the very real anti-Semitism issues though.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Boris is an Islamophobe.
No it's all just satire?
I'm similarly offended by Johnson's witterings as I am by Corbyn's.
If so then you clearly haven't actually read them.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Might just as well read Paracelsus these days.
The bloke who spotted Hegel was a fraud at the time and said so was Schopenhauer - who is truly worth reading. Unlike Hegel who isn't. Schopenhauer sadly doesn't make it onto many English philosophy courses and deserves to be better known. ('A gloomy bird' says Bertie Wooster.)
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I think it is. As I said in an earlier post, overthrowing the oppressors makes no difference to the vast majority who just have to carry on as before, but with a new crowd calling the shots. And this is my interpretation of what Marx was advocating.
I see nothing in his writings that set out a path to a better life for the proletariat. Indeed, he seems to rail against those offering concrete progress because they don't conform to his ideological purity.
Hell, this sounds just like Momentum.
If you object to replacing one lot of bosses with another lot, you might find the works of Bakunin to your taste. He anticipated the problems of the implementation of Communism in practice.
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Though of older works on political philosophy, I find Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" the most readable and still relevant today.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
Don't know about you, but I'm smoking weed and listening to a particularly aethereal version of Debussy's Prelude a l'apres-midi D'un faun. I can recommend it. There are worse ways to spend a Sunday twilight in lockdown
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
Indeed, and if I recall correctly, the article in question was saying almost exactly the opposite of what Boris is accused of. He said something like:
You may think the Burqua ridiculous. You may think it makes a woman look like a letterbox. But we are a freedom loving country. The state should not be regulating what people wear. #
Would you equally accept the "water melon smiles" critique of Blair as just satire, free of racist stereotyping?
Re: US Court cases. Obviously they are all ridiculous, from what we are hearing completely without evidence or foundation, and aren't of a scale to over-turn results anyway. But i really hope a couple of them actually make it through to the Supreme Court to allow the SC to nail their colours to the mast. I would expect them to chuck anything that reaches them out - but i think that Trump genuinely believes that they will vote in his favour simply because he appointed them, regardless of the merits of any case. The anger when they don't - particularly Amy coney Barrett - will be a sight to behold.
Roberts is also a canny political operator. He's going to only accept cases where he is certain the Court will rule 9-0.
It's becoming clearer that those whom think Boris Johnson isn't a racist/sexist, have obvious blindspots of their own.
I have tried to educate myself on anti-Semitism since Corbyn, it's a shame they have not bothered to educate themselves on the real damage Islamaphobia causes. And utterly disgraceful that anyone would say it is exaggerated to undermine anti-Semitism. Imagine saying anti-Semitism was exaggerated, the appalling reaction you would get - and deserve.
Really very disappointed in some users this evening. I'm going to call off, have a nice evening.
Hoity toity, and why do you keep saying whom when you mean who? Sorry, but there are degrees of racism, and you know it as well as anybody. Or do you contend that Bernard Manning was exactly as bad a man as Adolf Hitler? Johnson is a loathsome man, but he is only a bit, casually racist in his spare time. Corbyn was an antisemite through and through.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
Great Post, and I agree that no philosophy has all the answers, but these ideas do throw fresh light on society and are worthy of study, just don't expect all the answers.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Wasn’t Marx the synthesis of Schleimacher and Hegelian philosophy?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Might just as well read Paracelsus these days.
The bloke who spotted Hegel was a fraud at the time and said so was Schopenhauer - who is truly worth reading. Unlike Hegel who isn't. Schopenhauer sadly doesn't make it onto many English philosophy courses and deserves to be better known. ('A gloomy bird' says Bertie Wooster.)
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
I've been reading that recently. "What's he on about?" was my main response.
I've just had a brief dive into an online copy.
Trying to batter the facts hard enough that they fit his theories, I think....
Re: US Court cases. Obviously they are all ridiculous, from what we are hearing completely without evidence or foundation, and aren't of a scale to over-turn results anyway. But i really hope a couple of them actually make it through to the Supreme Court to allow the SC to nail their colours to the mast. I would expect them to chuck anything that reaches them out - but i think that Trump genuinely believes that they will vote in his favour simply because he appointed them, regardless of the merits of any case. The anger when they don't - particularly Amy coney Barrett - will be a sight to behold.
Roberts is also a canny political operator. He's going to only accept cases where he is certain the Court will rule 9-0.
But but, I thought politics was set aside by the courts, why should they need to be canny political operators? This is shocking!
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Might just as well read Paracelsus these days.
The bloke who spotted Hegel was a fraud at the time and said so was Schopenhauer - who is truly worth reading. Unlike Hegel who isn't. Schopenhauer sadly doesn't make it onto many English philosophy courses and deserves to be better known. ('A gloomy bird' says Bertie Wooster.)
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
Old Soviet joke:
Karl Marx returns from the dead, and visits Moscow. And he looks round and sees how his ideas have worked in practice. So he asks to go on radio and broadcast. Gorbachev is uneasy, so he limits Marx to one sentence.
The moment comes. The great man has the microphone. Out of his mouth come the words:
‘Proletarian alle lande - forgive me.’
Its always the excuse of the left communism/socialism wasn't tried properly and they weren't really socialist/communist. Imagine if someone came along and said mussolini's italy and hitlers germany weren't really fascist and proper fascism had never been tried. Quite rightly there would be huge outrage.
All attempts at Communism seem to have arrived at Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe it is inevitable because of the frailties of man (or pigs). I don't think the outcome is what Marx and Engels had in mind however.
I think it is. As I said in an earlier post, overthrowing the oppressors makes no difference to the vast majority who just have to carry on as before, but with a new crowd calling the shots. And this is my interpretation of what Marx was advocating.
I see nothing in his writings that set out a path to a better life for the proletariat. Indeed, he seems to rail against those offering concrete progress because they don't conform to his ideological purity.
Hell, this sounds just like Momentum.
If you object to replacing one lot of bosses with another lot, you might find the works of Bakunin to your taste. He anticipated the problems of the implementation of Communism in practice.
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Though of older works on political philosophy, I find Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" the most readable and still relevant today.
The 'Lest We Forget' virtue-signalling stuff is starting to wind me up.
I saw a bus without a digital destination and number today, but with that as a slogan and a digital pixelated poppy instead plus a house bedecked with a MASSIVE 9ft diameter poppy.
Give me a break.
I apply this rule with the poppy:
Don't wear it until 1 Nov. Keep wearing it until the later of 11 Nov or Remembrance Sunday if later ie 14 Nov latest.
Interesting chart here from David Wasserman. No wonder polls failed to pick swings up!
Note the difference between OH and West PA, though I think postal are still being added in OH and a number of other States. Big swing in southern TX too. Presumably not Cubans there.
So this is how the election panned out: The Chinook and Nez Perce fled to the sea while the Shoshone biffed the Cheyenne and Crow meanwhile the Pawnee smote the Arapaho and the Apache assailed the Comanche who themselves were under attack from the Choctaw The Creek and the Cherokee were restive in the Appalachians and the Powhaton laid into the Shawnee The Sioux under Sitting Bull kept themselves to themselves.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Wasn’t Marx the synthesis of Schleimacher and Hegelian philosophy?
Not sure but if they played together that would have been one hell of a half-back line.
It's becoming clearer that those whom think Boris Johnson isn't a racist/sexist, have obvious blindspots of their own.
I have tried to educate myself on anti-Semitism since Corbyn, it's a shame they have not bothered to educate themselves on the real damage Islamaphobia causes. And utterly disgraceful that anyone would say it is exaggerated to undermine anti-Semitism. Imagine saying anti-Semitism was exaggerated, the appalling reaction you would get - and deserve.
Really very disappointed in some users this evening. I'm going to call off, have a nice evening.
I believe that it is much more dangerous to mock Islam than it is to mock any other religion. This fact alone makes me want to mock it more than I want to mock any other religion. I don't know if this makes me Islamophobic. Maybe an expert like you can tell me.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
Indeed, and if I recall correctly, the article in question was saying almost exactly the opposite of what Boris is accused of. He said something like:
You may think the Burqua ridiculous. You may think it makes a woman look like a letterbox. But we are a freedom loving country. The state should not be regulating what people wear. #
Would you equally accept the "water melon smiles" critique of Blair as just satire, free of racist stereotyping?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Might just as well read Paracelsus these days.
The bloke who spotted Hegel was a fraud at the time and said so was Schopenhauer - who is truly worth reading. Unlike Hegel who isn't. Schopenhauer sadly doesn't make it onto many English philosophy courses and deserves to be better known. ('A gloomy bird' says Bertie Wooster.)
Yes, I keep meaning to reread 'The World as Will and Representation'. Last looked at it - and it scares me to write this - over a quarter of a century ago.
It's becoming clearer that those whom think Boris Johnson isn't a racist/sexist, have obvious blindspots of their own.
I have tried to educate myself on anti-Semitism since Corbyn, it's a shame they have not bothered to educate themselves on the real damage Islamaphobia causes. And utterly disgraceful that anyone would say it is exaggerated to undermine anti-Semitism. Imagine saying anti-Semitism was exaggerated, the appalling reaction you would get - and deserve.
Really very disappointed in some users this evening. I'm going to call off, have a nice evening.
I believe that it is much more dangerous to mock Islam than it is to mock any other religion. This fact alone makes me want to mock it more than I want to mock any other religion. I don't know if this makes me Islamophobic. Maybe an expert like you can tell me.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
Great Post, and I agree that no philosophy has all the answers, but these ideas do throw fresh light on society and are worthy of study, just don't expect all the answers.
Cheers thanks. Yes, live and breathe it? No. But it deserves better than whipping boy for the reactionary populist tendency.
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
It makes a lot more sense if you know that at the time of writing Hegel was the accepted wisdom.
Now that's buggered you, hasn't it. You gotta go read Hegel now.
By comparison, Marx is positively racy.
Wasn’t Marx the synthesis of Schleimacher and Hegelian philosophy?
Not sure but if they played together that would have been one hell of a half-back line.
Football and philosophy do have quite an overlap. My favourite quote is the Sartre one.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
A two week lockdown is useless virtue signalling. Utterly pointless and damaging. 4 weeks is the minimum that makes sense
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
Indeed, and if I recall correctly, the article in question was saying almost exactly the opposite of what Boris is accused of. He said something like:
You may think the Burqua ridiculous. You may think it makes a woman look like a letterbox. But we are a freedom loving country. The state should not be regulating what people wear. #
Would you equally accept the "water melon smiles" critique of Blair as just satire, free of racist stereotyping?
It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving picaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness. They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in Watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.
We’ve got some pretty smart people on this board. We come from many parts of the UK, and abroad. We represent a wide variety of professions, and we come together, mostly anonymously, because of our shared love of politics and interest in gambling or probability.
From what we can see in our professions and our towns - and realising that with a couple of exceptions we are speaking without knowledge of epidemiology - do we think that we are going to have a a second full fat lockdown this winter?
I’ll go first. I think in education the odds of getting through to Christmas are no better than even. Large numbers of cases are spreading in schools, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to cover staffing gaps as they open up. And the ‘no better than even,’ incidentally, assumes that about 25% of students will be isolated or otherwise sent home at some point.
Personally I dont think we have a chance of avoiding ongoing lockdowns including over christmas and new year. This is while I supported the first lockdown I have switched to not supporting further lockdowns. Seems to me from the evidence yes it reduces cases but as soon as we try to unlock cases go up and lockdown is required again. We can't go on like this without running out of money. The toll in jobs, mental wellbeing is becoming a price not worth paying
Same. I think the first lockdown was essential to buy time, to better understand the virus and how to treat it. But we're now in a situation where it's either keep locking down until a vaccine is rolled out (with big questions about what will happen if it's ineffective against Covid 20 or Minky Corona or whatever comes next), or learn to live with it by shielding the vulnerable, rolling out wider testing, better track and trace, more severe penalties for not self isolating etc. The NHS won't be overwhelmed because we've never even used all those Nightingale hospitals. [snip]
The Manchester Nightingale hospital is being used right now.
But the Nightingale hospitals in general are going to be of very limited use if they can't be staffed.
I sometimes wonder what would have to happen to make some people face the facts.
There won't be a book from Melania, I think - as with Marla Maples, the pre-nup was, and the divorce settlement will be, pretty damned clear on that.
But do they expire on his death?
Depends how agreements are drafted. Could be drafted to transfer the benefit to Trump's heirs, so not necessarily. You probably couldn't get away with an indefinite one, but you could be waiting a hell of a long time.
And I doubt Melania is looking for revenge - if she wanted revenge at any cost, she's missed the optimal window. She probably just wants the exit and an embarrassingly large cheque, thanks very much, and won't be talking.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
A two week lockdown is useless virtue signalling. Utterly pointless and damaging. 4 weeks is the minimum that makes sense
It might have worked. But only if he had locked down for two weeks, not one. Schools went back as far as Year 8 on Monday.
At some stage Dominic is going to have to sack Boris
He will only do that if he’s sure Gove is going to replace Johnson.
If it were Sunak or Hunt...Cummings would be out faster than you can say ‘eye test.’
I read on the last thread you called the Welsh first minister a bastard. Was there any need for that on this site.
Did I?
I don’t recall mentioning him at all on that thread. Can you quote that for me?
He is, incidentally, but that’s another story.
Why is he?
Ydoether you were replying to big g about Welsh lockdown. You said if we are stuck with this bastard through the winter ........
Riiight...
The ‘bastard’ in this case was the virus.
If you wish to say Mark Drakeford is comparable to Coronavirus, then even though I will cheerfully admit to not being a fan, I will suggest that perhaps you are not being entirely fair to him.
My apologies then misunderstood your original post.
No worries.
Truthfully, I don’t like him much as I have indicated. I consider him a typical third rate machine politician out for himself and his own ego. I was just rather surprised to find I had expressed that opinion so fruitily without apparently realising it.
And incidentally, I fully expect him to stay FM for at least another three years.
I do not know a lot about Welsh politics. However there seemed to be an extreme reaction on here by many to the Welsh lockdown. Which seemed a bit over the top , when 2 weeks later England announced a similar one. Many of them critical of the Welsh and supportive of the English one.
A two week lockdown is useless virtue signalling. Utterly pointless and damaging. 4 weeks is the minimum that makes sense
I think its right to try different things.
But its looking pretty unlikely that Wales has 'broken the circuit'.
Re: US Court cases. Obviously they are all ridiculous, from what we are hearing completely without evidence or foundation, and aren't of a scale to over-turn results anyway. But i really hope a couple of them actually make it through to the Supreme Court to allow the SC to nail their colours to the mast. I would expect them to chuck anything that reaches them out - but i think that Trump genuinely believes that they will vote in his favour simply because he appointed them, regardless of the merits of any case. The anger when they don't - particularly Amy coney Barrett - will be a sight to behold.
Roberts is also a canny political operator. He's going to only accept cases where he is certain the Court will rule 9-0.
But but, I thought politics was set aside by the courts, why should they need to be canny political operators? This is shocking!
Different type of politics. Not the politics of partisan policies or power, but the politics of the separation of powers and the reputation and sanctity of SCOTUS.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
This - "saying" vs "doing" - is the false distinction typically rolled out to downplay the toxic real world impact of people like Donald Trump.
"I don't like what he says and how he says it sometimes but ..."
"He might come over as racist but black employment has gone up and that's far more important."
Nonsense, isn't it. Total nonsense. Strictly for the apologists. If I abuse somebody using only words have I not abused them?
Which is worse, clipping a child around the ear or destroying their confidence with a barrage of ridicule and putdowns?
The difference between an aside in an article written by a journalist and a President standing up using the authority of his office to make bullying remarks?
Indeed, and if I recall correctly, the article in question was saying almost exactly the opposite of what Boris is accused of. He said something like:
You may think the Burqua ridiculous. You may think it makes a woman look like a letterbox. But we are a freedom loving country. The state should not be regulating what people wear. #
Would you equally accept the "water melon smiles" critique of Blair as just satire, free of racist stereotyping?
It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving picaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness. They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in Watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.
- Boris in The Daily Telegraph, 10 January 2002
When Papua New Guinea objected to him calling them cannibals a couple of years later, he infamously apologised with the sarcastic comment, ‘I meant no disrespect to the people of Papua New Guinea, who I am sure lead lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity like the rest of us.’
Comments
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
- are seeing cases continuing to rise rapidly, while in the UK they're (at worst) slowing
- have a higher positivity rate than the UK, indicating they are probably missing cases
Note the difference between OH and West PA, though I think postal are still being added in OH and a number of other States. Big swing in southern TX too. Presumably not Cubans there.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/tory-goes-to-court-over-poll-defeat-1261912.html
Althoug the voters made their views quite clear at the subsequent by-election
Charles will find a way to explain these away.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54181291
This combined with the positivity data mentioned means that it it virtually certain that the real case level is higher there, now.
Having said that we are not yet doing to badly with pupils off and there are only a small number of staff like me who need to be shielded, so who knows?
Anyway, I must be off. The galaxy isn't going to conquer itself.
Plato
Mark Senior
Byronic
Despite having been a major journalist and politician for three decades known for colourful remarks the same few out of context quotes always get quoted. Eg from an article where Boris was defending Muslim women's right to wear what they want when other nations were banning it as evidence Boris was against those women. 🙄
Whereas Corbyn had hundreds of complaints down decades that were constantly added to, we keep hearing the same whinging out of context quotes from Boris's past again and again and again.
Could change as more PA/AZ and west coast/New York ballots roll in to the totals though.
Trying to batter the facts hard enough that they fit his theories, I think....
We may see Schools and University break a week early on the 11th Dec, at least for face to face teaching.
Not sure if you saw it but teachers have a similar rate to other exposed professionals. See section 9:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/6november2020
I see nothing in his writings that set out a path to a better life for the proletariat. Indeed, he seems to rail against those offering concrete progress because they don't conform to his ideological purity.
Hell, this sounds just like Momentum.
Often subject to the ban hammer as I recall.
Complaints of it are exaggerated though as an attempt to distract from the very real anti-Semitism issues though.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Boris is an Islamophobe.
You may think the Burqua ridiculous. You may think it makes a woman look like a letterbox. But we are a freedom loving country. The state should not be regulating what people wear. #
Expect for this Xmas issue each of the 4 nations (maybe other European countries too) to cling unwillingly together so that there is no risk of one being wrong and watching the others being smug about it. As no-one has the tiniest idea what the best plan would actually be.
I have tried to educate myself on anti-Semitism since Corbyn, it's a shame they have not bothered to educate themselves on the real damage Islamaphobia causes. And utterly disgraceful that anyone would say it is exaggerated to undermine anti-Semitism. Imagine saying anti-Semitism was exaggerated, the appalling reaction you would get - and deserve.
Really very disappointed in some users this evening. I'm going to call off, have a nice evening.
I saw a bus without a digital destination and number today, but with that as a slogan and a digital pixelated poppy instead plus a house bedecked with a MASSIVE 9ft diameter poppy.
Give me a break.
Not sure how it is round your way, but in the week before half term cases spiked alarmingly. Last week, it was much quieter.
I am just crossing my fingers this week is an extension of last week, not a return to previous form.
Edit - there is a statement that makes all the right noises. Why couldn’t he have been more like that in office?
Don't wear it until 1 Nov. Keep wearing it until the later of 11 Nov or Remembrance Sunday if later ie 14 Nov latest.
Remove it after then
Texas was the dog that didn't bark for Biden and I wonder if the pollsters missed the big pro-Trump swing in the far south of the state
Looking at a couple of Texas counties, starting with Brooks (named after Garth presumably), in 2016 it voted 75-24 for Clinton but on Tuesday the result (so far) is 59-40 which I make a 16% swing to Trump.
Willacy voted 67-31 for Clinton in 2016 but last Thursday it was 56-44 so that's a 12% swing to Trump (so far).
Small counties of course but for some reason (energy policy perhaps), the far south of Texas swung strongly to Trump. The University of Houston final poll had Trump up by five and Rasmussen had Trump up by seven.
The difference between Labour and the Tories is the Tories have for decades thrown any actual racists out of the party. Labour did not throw antisemites out.
So Islamophobia exists but not within the Tories.
People exaggerate complaints about Islamophobia within the Tories as a form of "yeah-but" response. Show me any actual Islamophobes and I'd support them being thrown out as the Tories have done for decades and as Labour is now playing catch up on doing.
I'm similarly offended by Johnson's witterings as I am by Corbyn's.
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."
Though of older works on political philosophy, I find Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" the most readable and still relevant today.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
https://shopclass.threadless.com/designs/four-seasons-total-landscaping/mens/t-shirt
https://twitter.com/TedPetrou/status/1325476266619924481?s=19
I suspect he was refer to Covid19...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfAdHBtK_Q
Put it in a drawer until next year.
The Chinook and Nez Perce fled to the sea
while the Shoshone biffed the Cheyenne and Crow
meanwhile the Pawnee smote the Arapaho
and the Apache assailed the Comanche
who themselves were under attack from the Choctaw
The Creek and the Cherokee were restive in the Appalachians
and the Powhaton laid into the Shawnee
The Sioux under Sitting Bull kept themselves to themselves.
It was also written decades ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/07/joe-biden-cabinet-picks-possible-choices-433431
Worth bearing in mind that the runoffs in Georgia will have a considerable bearing on how easy Biden finds it to get posts approved.
A trade deal would never be negotiated in 100 days. These are multi-year endeavours
https://www.philosophyfootball.com/philosophers/-jean-paul-sartre.html
- Boris in The Daily Telegraph, 10 January 2002
But the Nightingale hospitals in general are going to be of very limited use if they can't be staffed.
I sometimes wonder what would have to happen to make some people face the facts.
And I doubt Melania is looking for revenge - if she wanted revenge at any cost, she's missed the optimal window. She probably just wants the exit and an embarrassingly large cheque, thanks very much, and won't be talking.
But its looking pretty unlikely that Wales has 'broken the circuit'.