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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
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.
If you move the law making to the courts, the politics will follow.
The only way to move the politics back out of the courts is for the legislators to do some legislating.
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.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
Do you mean below 1? If it was below zero that would mean people with Covid were being cured by human contact.
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...
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.
If they need to be used at anything like capacity, the staff for the Nightingale Hospitals will be....
- anyone with medical or nursing license who isn't working in a regular hospital - student nurses - student doctors - retired nurses - retired doctors - etc etc
Last time round there was a suggestion that veterinarians might be called in....
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
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.
If they need to be used at anything like capacity, the staff for the Nightingale Hospitals will be....
- anyone with medical or nursing license who isn't working in a regular hospital - student nurses - student doctors - retired nurses - retired doctors - etc etc
Last time round there was a suggestion that veterinarians might be called in....
All non COVID health care is closing in Manchester at the moment according to local media reports.
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.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
R number can't be below zero.
Hahaha, below one, rookie error from me there
I wish you had been right. That would have solved all our problems.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
Do you mean below 1? If it was below zero that would mean people with Covid were being cured by human contact.
That would be a fine thing, and I'm sure we both agree that such an outcome is beyond Drakeford's capabilities. I did indeed mean one.
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.
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.
What is the rune for OGH?
There must be one. Not called OGHam for nothing...
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
How can anyone read that and not twig that it was satire? Seriously?
A trade deal would never be negotiated in 100 days. These are multi-year endeavours
Everyone (at least everyone involved with trade deals) knows that.
When Truss said "“It is the government’s ambition to secure free trade agreements with countries covering 80 per cent of UK trade by 2022” she must have known it takes at least another two years from then before an agreement translates into a set of rules that officials at border posts are enforcing.
Perfectly possible Johnson knew but lied: equally possible that Truss is just too thick to know. And the fact that the Telegraph thinks the story's news implies that opinionators never knew. But when those of us who depend on global trade started reminding people about this we got the usual Leaver Trumpery.
"Trumpery": a technical term among us hard-core Remainers to describe an complete denial of reality wrapped up in obnoxious (and derangedly unfounded) smearing of the person describing the facts. ALWAYS ends in the collapse of the Trumperer.
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.
Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos Torres read Mao, was inspired by his throwing fresh light on societal problems and their solutions. And then formulated policy on that basis.
Something for which the Maoists won't be forgiving him, I reckon.
Be careful with that philosophy stuff. Got some sharp edges, there.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
For how long?
If R goes to 0.9 for a fortnight then straight back to 1.3 then you've not done anything.
You need to find a way of getting R below 1 and keeping it there. If R goes back above 1 on Monday then 2 weeks won't have made a meaningful reduction in case numbers.
TBF, with a few exceptions the Dems have shown a lot of class in the last few days.
They seem fully aware of the responsibility that comes with this victory and desire to really reach out. Biden himself setting the tone most impressively.
Whether that will translate to concrete action, however...we will have to wait and see.
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.
If they need to be used at anything like capacity, the staff for the Nightingale Hospitals will be....
- anyone with medical or nursing license who isn't working in a regular hospital - student nurses - student doctors - retired nurses - retired doctors - etc etc
Last time round there was a suggestion that veterinarians might be called in....
All non COVID health care is closing in Manchester at the moment according to local media reports.
I believe that would part of the Level 4 NHS alert that Foxy mentioned the other day..?
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.
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...
Given what we know about how the disease is spread it is not even clear that the guidance for "safe" school operation is correct. Suggestions that children staying in one single classroom all day being a bad idea, for example.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
Below zero?! That implies that infected people are curing others...
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
How can anyone read that and not twig that it was satire? Seriously?
As someone who has been slowly making their way through a compilation of Marx's writings my two main takeaways are:
1. Most of it is tedious in the extreme; hundreds of pages to say that workers add more value than they get paid - well isn't that amazing. 2. He offers no solutions. Throw over the oppressors, then what? Get back to work, do what you're told and we are in charge now.
How this can form the basis of an ideology, or a means to motivate the masses baffles me. You can see right through it.
As the great man said: What's the point in saying destroy? I want a new life for everywhere.
I guess that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist, rather than a raving Commie.
I don't think you're quite doing justice to Marx here - there really is quite a lot more than this to his writings (yes, I have studied him). On politics, history, economics, and philosophy he covers a broad sweep of stuff. And, agree with him or not, he has had a huge influence on both intellectual thought and real-life politics (some will say wholly negative) over the last 150 years. Much more than any right-wing thinker or philosopher, I'd venture.
His thinking changed many people in the twentieth century. It changed a lot of people from being live people to dead people under Stalin,Mao and Pol pot etc
Given that Marx died in 1883, I'm not sure you can blame him for the atrocities you cite. But it is common to do so from those who don't understand (or have never read) Marx yet somehow deduce what he would have thought about various movements that used his name in vain.
He attempted to reduce political/economic theory to a solved problem.
The slight flaw with that, is the humans and their constructs are fundamentally non-linear.
So Marx's disciples were faced with an ocean of proles not doing what they were supposed to do, according to The New Testament.
So, with solemn fervour, they set about fixing the problem. By applying the logic of Procrustes to the real world.
Have you ever read the 18e Brumaire of Louis Napoleon?
It’s the one serious attempt Marx made to fit his theories to actual events.
And it’s absolutely hilarious how they keep not matching.
No - I haven't. Interesting.
Reality - wrong since Plato....
Ah,Plato. Bless her, reality was not her long suit towards the end. It is perhaps as well she did not live to see this, as it would have caused her much trauma and confusion.
Plato was a bit of a tragid case. People from here met her in real life and at the time was a perfectly reasonable individual. But in later years, i think her marriage breakdown, lot her comfortable existance and became lonely and isolated and became caught up in all thr crazy stuff that has now morphed into the QAnon conspiracy loons.
It was due to more than her marital breakdown sadly, she got hit by a lot of shit in succession one after the other. While she went a little odd towards the end I am not surprised.
It was a rapid decline from being poster of the year to ban hammer from the internet.
Antifrank was cruising to victory in the POTY stakes when tim had a go at Plato, provoking a late surge of compassionate voting that put her in front by a nose. Poor Antifrank was never quite the same, and eventually changed his name and moved to Essex.
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.
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
How can anyone read that and not twig that it was satire? Seriously?
Because it is so similar to the sort of language he normally uses. Edit: I mean, the tone, the style, the almost irresistible impulse never, ever to be serious about anything, the compulsion to throwe a half-baked and slightly bad taste joke. I really cannot tell the differendce between that and his normal lucubrations.
A trade deal would never be negotiated in 100 days. These are multi-year endeavours
I think the point is that they're not going to give Boris the chance of trumpeting even the vague preliminaries of a trade talk for some time yet. This is back-of-the-queue stuff.
A trade deal would never be negotiated in 100 days. These are multi-year endeavours
I think the point is that they're not going to give Boris the chance of trumpeting even the vague preliminaries of a trade talk for some time yet. This is back-of-the-queue stuff.
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.
Yes. He put them in place, but they're there for life and can't be stupid enough to overturn a valid US election just to please their now powerless benefactor.
I had never even heard the term critical race theory until I read it here, I guarantee it is not what the MSM mean and others mean when they call things "woke".
This is just yet more conflation.
You're right. Some good posts from you today on this topic. Most people who rail against Woke have no clue about CRT. "Woke" has become a generalized term of insult against progressives. Progressives generally, I mean, not just those on the Identity Politics extreme. By no means all of those who do this are racist sexist dinosaurs who seek a return to an age when such was the norm (maybe only 80% of them are) but one thing's for sure - a world run by progressives is far preferable to one run by those who rail endlessly against them.
As for CRT, CBT, not a massive interest of mine, but here is my thumbnail take on it -
As an explainer of everything in human affairs it fails abjectly. But so does every other theory. Marxism. Monetarism. Chaos. Existentialism. The lot. So that is not the test. The test is does it (like those mentioned) provide valuable insights? Does it add to the stock of understanding? I think it does. In particular the central conceit of white privilege is a twist that works - both intellectually and as a spur for inquiry. It encourages you to look at the insidious and persistent bane of racism in a fresh way. It discourages you doing what is much the easiest thing to do when it comes to this issue – which is to decide that the absence these days of white sheets and hanging trees means it’s no longer a big deal, and in any case you’re not racist (you’re not!) so it’s sweet f/a to do with you. You need do nothing. Forget it and get on with your life. That’s very tempting - and I’m not saying it’s wrong – but I just point out that it IS very tempting (if you get my drift). The notion that you have white privilege and that you wear it – literally – as a skin from cradle to grave is a more challenging proposition. Reject it, fine, but imo many of those that do reject it do so not because they have thought it through and decided it’s wrong, it’s because they suspect it’s right and they dislike the implications.
I think it's better to talk about black disadvantage rather than white privilege, and to illustrate the former with real-life examples.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
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
How can anyone read that and not twig that it was satire? Seriously?
Because it is so similar to the sort of language he normally uses.
Precisely he uses (or used, past tense) colourful language about everyone. Which is precisely why it wasn't meaningful.
Corbyn used anti-Semitic language against Jews repeatedly. Only Jews. Always Jews.
Although he is cherrypicking the pollster (NYT/Siena) to compare Trafalgar to.
If he'd gone for (for example) Inside Advantage, he'd have had very different results.
If you look at the RCP polling averages, you'd say that the pollsters got it broadly right in Pennsylvania (RCP average Biden +1%), Georgia (Trump +1%) and North Carolina (Trump +0.2%). In Michigan they thought it would be Biden by 4%, and it was actually Biden +3%, so I'd count that as pretty accurate too. In Arizona, they were pretty close too, reckoning on it being Biden by 0.9%.
In two states, they got it very wrong: in Wisconsin, they thought it would be Biden by 7% and it ended up as under 1% in his favour. And in Florida, the pollsters thought it would be Biden +1%, and it turned out to be Trump +3%.
A trade deal would never be negotiated in 100 days. These are multi-year endeavours
I think the point is that they're not going to give Boris the chance of trumpeting even the vague preliminaries of a trade talk for some time yet. This is back-of-the-queue stuff.
Preliminaries won't be dealt with by Biden directly anyway.
My letter to CIWF is in draft. Palmer has hours to show some contrition for his glib ignorance of the misery to which his ideology condemned millions of lives during the previous century.
Blimey, what have I missed here?
I have just emailed CIWF reaffirming my support for their commitment to relieving animal suffering but making it quite clear that I won’t support their charity while they employ someone who is so glib about the death, torture and misery that their ideology inflicted upon so many during the last century.
I’ll be writing to them in the morning terminating my annual donation and explaining precisely why, in the absence of some grown up contrition from our home grown “unapologetic” communist on this site.
Olympic-level overreaction.
Calm down Ian, have a stiff drink and take a few deep breaths, sounds a bit over the top. I am sure capitalism is not totally innocent , so you could well end up with writers cramp.
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...
Given what we know about how the disease is spread it is not even clear that the guidance for "safe" school operation is correct. Suggestions that children staying in one single classroom all day being a bad idea, for example.
That certainly shouldn’t have happened unless there was clear, incontrovertible evidence that it was the only way to suppress the disease and having movement would lead to an immediate uncontrolled outbreak.
It’s been a total disaster educationally, physically and emotionally and is one reason why things are so tough in schools.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
Worth bearing in mind that the runoffs in Georgia will have a considerable bearing on how easy Biden finds it to get posts approved.
I personally don't think the Senate will cause a major problem with Biden's cabinet appointments.
Firstly, Biden will go for moderate appointments because he is a moderate and has shown no sign of reaching out too far to the left. Indeed, I'd not be surprised to see one or two moderate Republican former senators and governors get posts.
Secondly, there are several moderate Republicans who either temperamentally don't want to play that game, or feel under pressure by representing a blue or purple state.
Thirdly, I don't think McConnell sees it as good politics unless they've got a really good bit of dirt on someone where they can make a virtue of it. The game for McConnell is to play the game of appearing reasonable and bipartisan, whilst watering down or blocking major reforms. Blocking cabinet appointments can appear petty and obstructive, and I think he'd rather save his petty obstructiveness quota for better things. Remember, he wants to get some policy "wins" and position himself for 2022 when he's defending 20 seats and Democrats just 12. Just being "computer says no" isn't the most effective tactic.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
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
The numbers show that you're probably wrong. R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
Sorry how can you have a negative R number
Everyone with the virus cures more people on average than they infect ;-)
A trade deal would never be negotiated in 100 days. These are multi-year endeavours
I think the point is that they're not going to give Boris the chance of trumpeting even the vague preliminaries of a trade talk for some time yet. This is back-of-the-queue stuff.
Preliminaries won't be dealt with by Biden directly anyway.
Yes, that's probably right. But in normal circumstances the new administration would have made some token gestures to allow Boris to proclaim that things were up and running. That they are pointedly doing the opposite speaks volumes. In retrospect, Boris's stuff about the Churchill bust and the GFA in particular were crass and misjudged. The thing is that Dave and Barack had a good relationship, so the Biden team must think Boris is a prize twerp.
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.
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?
"Bullying" remarks, you mean racist remarks. You have a blindspot it seems.
The reference was to the "bully pulpit".
But please apologise and withdraw the implication that I am a racist.
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.
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
How can anyone read that and not twig that it was satire? Seriously?
Because it is so similar to the sort of language he normally uses.
Precisely he uses (or used, past tense) colourful language about everyone. Which is precisely why it wasn't meaningful.
Corbyn used anti-Semitic language against Jews repeatedly. Only Jews. Always Jews.
You deleted my points about Mr J always trying to make jokes and often ending up with offcolour or worse results.
Consider his quoting Kipling in Myanmar. And he was Foreign Sec at the time, not some DT hack.
Although he is cherrypicking the pollster (NYT/Siena) to compare Trafalgar to.
If he'd gone for (for example) Inside Advantage, he'd have had very different results.
If you look at the RCP polling averages, you'd say that the pollsters got it broadly right in Pennsylvania (RCP average Biden +1%), Georgia (Trump +1%) and North Carolina (Trump +0.2%). In Michigan they thought it would be Biden by 4%, and it was actually Biden +3%, so I'd count that as pretty accurate too. In Arizona, they were pretty close too, reckoning on it being Biden by 0.9%.
In two states, they got it very wrong: in Wisconsin, they thought it would be Biden by 7% and it ended up as under 1% in his favour. And in Florida, the pollsters thought it would be Biden +1%, and it turned out to be Trump +3%.
Just to show the polarisation of the United States, I applied a further 10% swing to Biden on top of the current polling which brings it to almost exactly the 1972 Nixon-McGovern result (60.7-37.8).
On that occasion, Nixon won 521 EC Votes and McGovern held just DC and Massachusetts for 17.
Based on the figures now, on the same percentages, Biden would have on 464 EC votes but the Republicans would still have 74 in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Idaho and Wyoming (among a few others).
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
I suspect I still find the language used offensive because of an underdeveloped sense of humour and intellect. Or it could be that I am right and Johnson's carefully crafted racially stereotypical prose was just a clever dog whistle.
@HYUFD himself has now made the point repeatedly that Trafalgar had a pretty rotten election in terms of picking the winner. They rightly called Wisconsin for Biden and Florida for Trump, but were wrong pretty much everywhere else - in MI, PA, GA (?) and AZ (probably),
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
Regular readers will know that I'm not exactly the greatest fan of Boris, but there is nothing racist in any of those examples:
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
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.
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.)
Although he is cherrypicking the pollster (NYT/Siena) to compare Trafalgar to.
If he'd gone for (for example) Inside Advantage, he'd have had very different results.
If you look at the RCP polling averages, you'd say that the pollsters got it broadly right in Pennsylvania (RCP average Biden +1%), Georgia (Trump +1%) and North Carolina (Trump +0.2%). In Michigan they thought it would be Biden by 4%, and it was actually Biden +3%, so I'd count that as pretty accurate too. In Arizona, they were pretty close too, reckoning on it being Biden by 0.9%.
In two states, they got it very wrong: in Wisconsin, they thought it would be Biden by 7% and it ended up as under 1% in his favour. And in Florida, the pollsters thought it would be Biden +1%, and it turned out to be Trump +3%.
It was the national that surprised me. The 8 was 4. That's quite a big miss.
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
How can anyone read that and not twig that it was satire? Seriously?
Because it is so similar to the sort of language he normally uses.
Precisely he uses (or used, past tense) colourful language about everyone. Which is precisely why it wasn't meaningful.
Corbyn used anti-Semitic language against Jews repeatedly. Only Jews. Always Jews.
No he did not. Corbyn did not use AS epithets against Jews (not even as an Arsenal supporter did he use the Y-word for Spurs).
Since at least 1992. Can’t remember further back than that.
Ironically, this is an election the media haven’t really called, because it’s been so close in so many vital states.
Yes i clearly recall back in 2016, Clinton conceding the election post the media calls (despite very narrow margins in several states) and Trump saying "thanks, but i prefer to wait a couple of weeks until everything has been certified".
Worth bearing in mind that the runoffs in Georgia will have a considerable bearing on how easy Biden finds it to get posts approved.
I personally don't think the Senate will cause a major problem with Biden's cabinet appointments.
Firstly, Biden will go for moderate appointments because he is a moderate and has shown no sign of reaching out too far to the left. Indeed, I'd not be surprised to see one or two moderate Republican former senators and governors get posts.
Secondly, there are several moderate Republicans who either temperamentally don't want to play that game, or feel under pressure by representing a blue or purple state.
Thirdly, I don't think McConnell sees it as good politics unless they've got a really good bit of dirt on someone where they can make a virtue of it. The game for McConnell is to play the game of appearing reasonable and bipartisan, whilst watering down or blocking major reforms. Blocking cabinet appointments can appear petty and obstructive, and I think he'd rather save his petty obstructiveness quota for better things. Remember, he wants to get some policy "wins" and position himself for 2022 when he's defending 20 seats and Democrats just 12. Just being "computer says no" isn't the most effective tactic.
Past history suggest the game for McConnell is deny, deny, deny
He will block all appointments and all legislation by a Democrat President for as long as he can.
Although he is cherrypicking the pollster (NYT/Siena) to compare Trafalgar to.
If he'd gone for (for example) Inside Advantage, he'd have had very different results.
If you look at the RCP polling averages, you'd say that the pollsters got it broadly right in Pennsylvania (RCP average Biden +1%), Georgia (Trump +1%) and North Carolina (Trump +0.2%). In Michigan they thought it would be Biden by 4%, and it was actually Biden +3%, so I'd count that as pretty accurate too. In Arizona, they were pretty close too, reckoning on it being Biden by 0.9%.
In two states, they got it very wrong: in Wisconsin, they thought it would be Biden by 7% and it ended up as under 1% in his favour. And in Florida, the pollsters thought it would be Biden +1%, and it turned out to be Trump +3%.
It was the national that surprised me. The 8 was 4. That's quite a big miss.
Is it not possible it will still reach as much as 6?
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Worth bearing in mind that the runoffs in Georgia will have a considerable bearing on how easy Biden finds it to get posts approved.
I personally don't think the Senate will cause a major problem with Biden's cabinet appointments.
Firstly, Biden will go for moderate appointments because he is a moderate and has shown no sign of reaching out too far to the left. Indeed, I'd not be surprised to see one or two moderate Republican former senators and governors get posts.
Secondly, there are several moderate Republicans who either temperamentally don't want to play that game, or feel under pressure by representing a blue or purple state.
Thirdly, I don't think McConnell sees it as good politics unless they've got a really good bit of dirt on someone where they can make a virtue of it. The game for McConnell is to play the game of appearing reasonable and bipartisan, whilst watering down or blocking major reforms. Blocking cabinet appointments can appear petty and obstructive, and I think he'd rather save his petty obstructiveness quota for better things. Remember, he wants to get some policy "wins" and position himself for 2022 when he's defending 20 seats and Democrats just 12. Just being "computer says no" isn't the most effective tactic.
Past history suggest the game for McConnell is deny, deny, deny
He will block all appointments and all legislation by a Democrat President for as long as he can.
Latest price matched on the handicap -48.5 EC market is 1.3. Madness.
And I just had £2.5k matched at 1.28. This feels too good to be true, given Biden is 1.1 to win Georgia. I'm going to triple check these are definitely the same risk. Seems like a big arb.
EDIT: I really am confused by this. If Biden loses AZ but wins GA (and loses NC) then he wins 295 to 243, a 52 EC gap. So he wins the -48.5 handicap market. Right?
Worth checking NHL’s the handicap works. Deducted from one side only. Or moved from one party to the other?
Although he is cherrypicking the pollster (NYT/Siena) to compare Trafalgar to.
If he'd gone for (for example) Inside Advantage, he'd have had very different results.
If you look at the RCP polling averages, you'd say that the pollsters got it broadly right in Pennsylvania (RCP average Biden +1%), Georgia (Trump +1%) and North Carolina (Trump +0.2%). In Michigan they thought it would be Biden by 4%, and it was actually Biden +3%, so I'd count that as pretty accurate too. In Arizona, they were pretty close too, reckoning on it being Biden by 0.9%.
In two states, they got it very wrong: in Wisconsin, they thought it would be Biden by 7% and it ended up as under 1% in his favour. And in Florida, the pollsters thought it would be Biden +1%, and it turned out to be Trump +3%.
It was the national that surprised me. The 8 was 4. That's quite a big miss.
Agreed. That was a big miss - equal with the biggest of the last half Century (1980).
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
There seems to be a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that Trump's insistence on continuing legal cases is actually a cover for raising money for campaign debts.
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those who bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
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?
Marxist 'dialectical materialism' is a bogus development of a bogus Hegelian idea. I suspect they have both contributed their little bit to the legendary hostility the English have to any sort of theory about how reality works. Hegel took off a bit more in Scotland, where they have less sense of humour, are less able to spot the absurd and have a slightly less sure touch when confronted with long words and solemn faced theory.
It also goes some way to explaining why Corbyn supporters, like Marxists generally, are humourless, dull, impractical, wrong and talk wordy rubbish all the time.
Don't drag Schleiermacher into this. He is genuinely interesting and nice.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
While I have sympathy with the first of those two factors, the same rationale is used both in orthodox Judaism for their clothing choices, and in a number of Catholic orders regarding nuns' garments. Are you planning on banning those too?
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those whom bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Those WHO bully others
And who gave you the job of "calling out" anyone over anything? Please stop trying to make the site all about you, or all about any other contributor to it. It's tiresome.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those whom bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Stick to just "who". You don't know when to use "whom", and it makes you look dafter than you would with the odd incorrect "who".
There seems to be a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that Trump's insistence on continuing legal cases is actually a cover for raising money for campaign debts.
If you think Corbyn is/was a racist, then I think that's very reasonable and I think I am now of the same view.
The difference is that I accept that, I have tried to learn about anti-Semitism since and I have apologised for any offence I have caused. I regret it deeply.
But those supporting Johnson have not attempted to do the same. Which makes me conclude that their "anti-racist" credentials are purely for political point scoring.
If you oppose racism, you cannot support Boris Johnson, that's it in my mind. I note the Islamaphobia inquiry he promised is still MIA and I posted examples of Islamaphobia last year that PB Tories simply explained away like they do everything else.
We've dragged this discussion up dozens of times and my view remains unchanged, you simply do not care about actual racism beyond using it to score points.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
If you opposed Labour because of anti-Semitism - a noble thing to do - you cannot support Johnson as he is also a racist.
To attempt to modify his remarks from racist/sexist to something else is utterly insulting.
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn and let's see the difference in reaction.
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
It is interesting to see that those brave defenders of the burqa ignore the innate sexisim in wearing the garment. First you have those women who are coerced into it. Secondly the act of wearing the garment whose express purpose is "So you dont inflame the desires of men" labels all men as people unable to control their desires. If a woman walked down the street screaming rapist at every man we would call her misandrist. The burqa explicitily does that without the need for her to scream it
Or, as was the case in Yemen when I first arrived there, young educated women at the University of Sana'a started wearing it instead of either traditional Yemeni dress or Western attire as a fashion statement, and to assist in flirtation.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
That I suspect however is an aberration. I live in a large muslim town and I have only had it be explained to me as I described it. Mostly of pakistani origin not yemen. If I walked through town with a t shirt proclaiming scientology is a cult I would be arrested as others have. Walking through town with a garment that brands all men rapists should be the same.
I don't know yemenis so cant comment and no doubt some wear it for different reasons. However I know when I see a woman in a burqa thats the rebuke I feel. Let us not forget as well its labour that passed the law saying its a hate crime if the victim feels it is. I am the victim here being labelled
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those whom bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Stick to just "who". You don't know when to use "whom", and it makes you look dafter than you would with the odd incorrect "who".
Woke is just a term used to be racist or sexist, or generally horrible that is still acceptable.
No, it really isn't although that's what its defenders (almost always) say in its defence.
Woke is a warped Marxist theory that's transmuted from academia into the real world and views everyone through a complex hierarchical and intersectional power dynamic where we are all classified by race, gender and sexuality and bracketed (and treated) as relative oppressors or victims accordingly. It uses this as a starting point to undercut some of the established values and historical foundations of our society in the hope that by breaking it down something better (Marxist utopia) that they believe will take its place. It cleverly condemns its opponents as racists and sexists to enforce its dogma and silence dissent. It's a big reason why they say "don't expect minorities to educate you on racism" - because they fear they wouldn't be on message; just look at how they attack those who are not - and instead say, please read my favoured best-selling culturally marxist book and 'educate yourself'.
Example: an unWoke person would be concerned that some Black people still experience some racial discrimination in the UK and would want to talk to them about it to understand it and change it. They wouldn't take a knee, tear down statues, or talk about White Privilege. They would emphasis the common-bonds they have of shared Britishness, they would demonstrate empathy they would talk about fairness, and they would talk about opening up opportunities for them and increasing role models. They would try harder to think about things from their point of view in future and bring everyone of all backgrounds, races and politics along with them. They wouldn't plaster what they're doing all over social media out of insecurity narcissism.
A Woke person would say either you buy into the whole lot, or you're suspect.. or worse.
Great post CR.
I don't think it's a particularly great post to be honest and seems to contradict a lot of what he says when he just mindlessly calls others woke.
I don't think anyone here fits into that view of "wokeness" - and I am about 99% sure if you asked the average person what woke means, they would not say that.
For me what being woke is used for is just today's politically correct, it's saying something you know is offensive but you feel like this gives you cover to say it without being challenged. You have an opinion, air it and we will debate it. End of story.
Who's defending saying anything offensive?
I would challenge anyone who said something racist, but I won't go down on one knee, or label myself and others as having White Privilege.
That might get some initial attention, or make sense in an academic thesis, but, when translated into the real world, divides far more people than it unites.
It's been said before that challenging the disgraceful comments Johnson has made about Islam, or Obama, makes you "woke" and "PC". I am not saying that's you, I am saying your definition is not shared by most/many, especially and including the MSM at large who people look to for their definition.
I think that the problem is that Johnson is was journalist with a live of colourful phrases.
The comment about Muslim women in full burkas looting like “letterboxes” was in an article defending their right to do so.
But people have chosen to focus on his perceived insult to Muslim people rather than his defence of their rights.
And yet they idolise Macron who had banned the things.
Funny old world isn’t it when what people say matters more than what they do
"Colourful phrases", I wonder if you'd use the same defence about a Labour MP, I bet not.
Yes I would. You see I believe in freedom of speech
He says racist things, I'll call them out.
Of course we could go over the other racist things he's said, like attacking Obama's heritage but it doesn't matter as the Democrats haven't forgotten.
Still not a defence of your position just an attack on someone else. This is very revealing
I believe calling out racist things that people have said is often said to be "woke" when in years gone by this would have "PC crowd gone mad".
Johnson can say what he wants but calling him out for racism is not "woke" or "PC", it's doing IMHO the right thing.
We clearly have different views of what racism is, you seem to think being racist is "using colourful phrases" whereas I think it's quite simply being racist, or saying racist things, of which Johnson has undoubtedly done.
Of course you're pretending to be somehow impartial when we know full well you're just as partisan as me.
You are taking a single line in an article that was intended (although failing) to be humorous.
And ignoring the content of the article that was standing up for the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa.
(I am actually much more troubled by the burqa than Johnson seems to be, because I suspect that - in many cases - women are forced to wear it, or conditioned to believe that it is somehow right that men can do what they want while women must be modest in order to avoid inflaming men's passions.)
No that was only one example of Johnson's racism and history of bigotry, the fact you focus on only that shows you either know and you don't care, or you have a blindspot for racism which seems to be evident.
When I called Trump's remarks racist you changed them to being bullying, you either think Trump was a racist or you don't. And if you do, you can only conclude Johnson is too as he has said similar things. So which is it?
You may not have noticed, but the comment about "bullying remarks" was a response to @kinabalu NOT you.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those whom bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Those WHO bully others
And who gave you the job of "calling out" anyone over anything? Please stop trying to make the site all about you, or all about any other contributor to it. It's tiresome.
Feel free to just ignore my comments then, you don't need to reply to them.
I've previously apologised for any behaviour in which I was rude to people, beyond those whom bully others who I have called out repeatedly. They were deserving of such action.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Stick to just "who". You don't know when to use "whom", and it makes you look dafter than you would with the odd incorrect "who".
What a sad life you must lead.
It'd be even sadder if I asked people "whom are you?"
Comments
R number is down below zero in every Welsh district bar two.
The only way to move the politics back out of the courts is for the legislators to do some legislating.
https://environment.princeton.edu/news/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-to-date-finds-children-key-to-spread-evidence-of-superspreaders/
- anyone with medical or nursing license who isn't working in a regular hospital
- student nurses
- student doctors
- retired nurses
- retired doctors
- etc etc
Last time round there was a suggestion that veterinarians might be called in....
When Truss said "“It is the government’s ambition to secure free trade agreements with countries covering 80 per cent of UK trade by 2022” she must have known it takes at least another two years from then before an agreement translates into a set of rules that officials at border posts are enforcing.
Perfectly possible Johnson knew but lied: equally possible that Truss is just too thick to know. And the fact that the Telegraph thinks the story's news implies that opinionators never knew. But when those of us who depend on global trade started reminding people about this we got the usual Leaver Trumpery.
"Trumpery": a technical term among us hard-core Remainers to describe an complete denial of reality wrapped up in obnoxious (and derangedly unfounded) smearing of the person describing the facts. ALWAYS ends in the collapse of the Trumperer.
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1325506992056770560?s=20
Something for which the Maoists won't be forgiving him, I reckon.
Be careful with that philosophy stuff. Got some sharp edges, there.
If R goes to 0.9 for a fortnight then straight back to 1.3 then you've not done anything.
You need to find a way of getting R below 1 and keeping it there. If R goes back above 1 on Monday then 2 weeks won't have made a meaningful reduction in case numbers.
They seem fully aware of the responsibility that comes with this victory and desire to really reach out. Biden himself setting the tone most impressively.
Whether that will translate to concrete action, however...we will have to wait and see.
If he'd gone for (for example) Inside Advantage, he'd have had very different results.
He put them in place, but they're there for life and can't be stupid enough to overturn a valid US election just to please their now powerless benefactor.
The former focuses invites non-black people to put themselves in their shoes whereas the latter suggests they have special privileges (rather than it being simply the neutral default) and puts them on the defensive. I think it's an obstacle to understanding rather than an enabler.
As always, to get the best results you need to think very carefully about the language you use.
Corbyn used anti-Semitic language against Jews repeatedly. Only Jews. Always Jews.
In two states, they got it very wrong: in Wisconsin, they thought it would be Biden by 7% and it ended up as under 1% in his favour. And in Florida, the pollsters thought it would be Biden +1%, and it turned out to be Trump +3%.
It’s been a total disaster educationally, physically and emotionally and is one reason why things are so tough in schools.
And it has clearly failed.
Firstly, Biden will go for moderate appointments because he is a moderate and has shown no sign of reaching out too far to the left. Indeed, I'd not be surprised to see one or two moderate Republican former senators and governors get posts.
Secondly, there are several moderate Republicans who either temperamentally don't want to play that game, or feel under pressure by representing a blue or purple state.
Thirdly, I don't think McConnell sees it as good politics unless they've got a really good bit of dirt on someone where they can make a virtue of it. The game for McConnell is to play the game of appearing reasonable and bipartisan, whilst watering down or blocking major reforms. Blocking cabinet appointments can appear petty and obstructive, and I think he'd rather save his petty obstructiveness quota for better things. Remember, he wants to get some policy "wins" and position himself for 2022 when he's defending 20 seats and Democrats just 12. Just being "computer says no" isn't the most effective tactic.
But please apologise and withdraw the implication that I am a racist.
'Jean-Paul's tightness at the back was notoriously successful at securing the being and nothingness of a 0-0 draw.'
The famous philospher no doubt was the inspiration for Arsene Wenger and his 'boring, boring Arsenal'.
Ironically, this is an election the media haven’t really called, because it’s been so close in so many vital states.
Consider his quoting Kipling in Myanmar. And he was Foreign Sec at the time, not some DT hack.
On that occasion, Nixon won 521 EC Votes and McGovern held just DC and Massachusetts for 17.
Based on the figures now, on the same percentages, Biden would have on 464 EC votes but the Republicans would still have 74 in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Idaho and Wyoming (among a few others).
A priest who was shot twice outside his Greek Orthodox Church in Lyon was the victim of an angry husband whose
wife he was sleeping with.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8926605/Christian-priest-shot-twice-outside-Lyon-church-husband-wife-sleeping-with.html
Whoever can he mean?
https://twitter.com/chrishaydon99/status/1325508676099182594?s=20
1. "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" This was quite clearly a lampoon. He deliberately used a very obsolete phrase to emphasise and give colour to his point that Blair and Cherie were like late nineteenth century or early twentieth century colonialists, condescending and patronising, and expecting the local people to be grateful.
2. The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more. It's a fairly silly point, but no-one is seriously going to argue that there is good governance throughout British ex-colonies in Africa. So what's racist about it?
3. Comparing Muslim women who wear burqas to "letter boxes" and bank robbers.. Well, that's fair enough, it's an opinion that those particular clothes look pretty silly, as a Guardian article had said a few months earlier using exactly the same phrase. Are we not allowed to comment on dress without being accused of racism, for heaven's sake? Especially as, as has been pointed out zillions of times, Boris was arguing against a ban on burqas. If you're looking for racists on the basis of attitude to burqas, perhaps you should turn your attention to France, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have actually banned them.
4. "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke... Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers." Nothing racist in that, it's an opinion about a religion which (it may surprise you to hear) has been responsible for many violent acts this century.
But enough of this conversation.
You are a self-righteous individual who likes to call other people unpleasant names when they disagree with you.
https://twitter.com/philmcraig/status/1325471257891049473?s=20
He will block all appointments and all legislation by a Democrat President for as long as he can.
We really don't advance understanding if we insist on seeing complex social issues as either or.
I never said you were a racist, I said it seems you have a blindspot for it, it seemed to me that you redefined Trump's remarks as bullying as opposed to racist. If that was not the case then that's fine, I apologise for misunderstanding.
It's really a simple question though, do you think Trump was racist, I note you didn't answer. And I wonder if that's because if you say yes, you'll have to agree Johnson has said similarly racist things.
I'm not sure why you needed to attack me personally anyway, I get the sense you've lost the argument and you're making it personal. I recall Mrs Thatcher used to consider that victory for herself in such a case.
We can consider our conversation closed as you wish to end it, no worries - all the best.
Almost nothing appears to have been reported so far today (albeit it is only just gone midday there)?
I suspect they have both contributed their little bit to the legendary hostility the English have to any sort of theory about how reality works. Hegel took off a bit more in Scotland, where they have less sense of humour, are less able to spot the absurd and have a slightly less sure touch when confronted with long words and solemn faced theory.
It also goes some way to explaining why Corbyn supporters, like Marxists generally, are humourless, dull, impractical, wrong and talk wordy rubbish all the time.
Don't drag Schleiermacher into this. He is genuinely interesting and nice.
And who gave you the job of "calling out" anyone over anything? Please stop trying to make the site all about you, or all about any other contributor to it. It's tiresome.
The difference is that I accept that, I have tried to learn about anti-Semitism since and I have apologised for any offence I have caused. I regret it deeply.
But those supporting Johnson have not attempted to do the same. Which makes me conclude that their "anti-racist" credentials are purely for political point scoring.
If you oppose racism, you cannot support Boris Johnson, that's it in my mind. I note the Islamaphobia inquiry he promised is still MIA and I posted examples of Islamaphobia last year that PB Tories simply explained away like they do everything else.
We've dragged this discussion up dozens of times and my view remains unchanged, you simply do not care about actual racism beyond using it to score points.
I don't know yemenis so cant comment and no doubt some wear it for different reasons. However I know when I see a woman in a burqa thats the rebuke I feel. Let us not forget as well its labour that passed the law saying its a hate crime if the victim feels it is. I am the victim here being labelled
It's just that Biden got even more,
Ignoring what Trump achieved (while acknowledging he is a stupendous buffoon who deserved to be thumped) is an exercise in myopia.
Trump got 70 MILLION votes. Despite everything. He also got large majorities of white men, white women, and so on.
These people are so angry at the Left or the world or everything, they still voted for Trump, despite knowing he's a moron.