This is a really nice post. It definitely looks like the tories are being chewed up at both ends of the political spectrum now. They need a GE as quickly as possible to save what is left or it can get really really ugly for them... as obliteration ugly.
To remind that I have backed next GE as Jan 2025. The difference in degree of obliteration does not matter for Rishi as each day he is clawing his way up the table of longest serving PMs (he is around 40th now IIRC). What does he care if another 20-30 seats are lost by waiting. And also, there is a chance that events will turn his way somehow.
I suspect that events will get the better of him if he just lets it slide. There will be defections (to labour from the centrist or red seat tories). Leadership bids. MPs will simply take the first and best job offers kicking off a sea of byelections. I don't think he is free to just focus on own endurance.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
Weasel words. "and worsens". OK - AND WORSENS. THEN AND ONLY THEN will violence take place.
But what is worsen? Has or hasn't illegal immigration worsened over the past 60 years. I mean what is the flow rate it has to be above for it to be worse than previously.
Very unlike you I have to say. Living in the heart of a cosmopolitan city with a huge mix of people from all over the world now saying mark my words we'll be like the southern states of the US if this carries on.
Your premise is false and there is no shame in admitting it.
Are you actually 13 years old?
I have had a sudden epiphany. That would explain much of your commentary
I wish. What I would/wouldn't do if I had that time over, eh.
You have woken up (or had your first Mojito if you are still travelling) and thought you would make some kind of incisive comment about immigration. Fair enough, we've all thought - how can I wow PB today. You then said there would be violence if illegal immigration worsens.
But that is just hyperbolic bollocks. You say look at the southern US to see how this plays out when I would say that we are as a nation about as far from the southern US ideologically as we are physically. I mean you count the period since our last mass shooting in years, not hours, as in the US.
So you are just scaremongering and being alarmist and as I said, we have had it all before, noticeably 55 years ago in Birmingham (W Midlands, not Alabama).
It’s also worth noting that in the Southern US, where firearms outnumber people, and there is no shortage of racists who are up for lethal violence, the response to the immigration issue *hasn’t* been Meal Team 6 gunning down immigrants at the border.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
Difficult to see pocketing a kilo of Lurpak or dispensing with need for a tv licence as particularly hateful.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
Weasel words. "and worsens". OK - AND WORSENS. THEN AND ONLY THEN will violence take place.
But what is worsen? Has or hasn't illegal immigration worsened over the past 60 years. I mean what is the flow rate it has to be above for it to be worse than previously.
Very unlike you I have to say. Living in the heart of a cosmopolitan city with a huge mix of people from all over the world now saying mark my words we'll be like the southern states of the US if this carries on.
Your premise is false and there is no shame in admitting it.
Are you actually 13 years old?
I have had a sudden epiphany. That would explain much of your commentary
I wish. What I would/wouldn't do if I had that time over, eh.
You have woken up (or had your first Mojito if you are still travelling) and thought you would make some kind of incisive comment about immigration. Fair enough, we've all thought - how can I wow PB today. You then said there would be violence if illegal immigration worsens.
But that is just hyperbolic bollocks. You say look at the southern US to see how this plays out when I would say that we are as a nation about as far from the southern US ideologically as we are physically. I mean you count the period since our last mass shooting in years, not hours, as in the US.
So you are just scaremongering and being alarmist and as I said, we have had it all before, noticeably 55 years ago in Birmingham (W Midlands, not Alabama).
Get back to me in about 5 years, when you should be out of your teens. Then we can have an adult debate
Why not invite some of the new immigrants into your discussion. With all the added drama and attention you might enjoy a mass debate over it.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
Weasel words. "and worsens". OK - AND WORSENS. THEN AND ONLY THEN will violence take place.
But what is worsen? Has or hasn't illegal immigration worsened over the past 60 years. I mean what is the flow rate it has to be above for it to be worse than previously.
Very unlike you I have to say. Living in the heart of a cosmopolitan city with a huge mix of people from all over the world now saying mark my words we'll be like the southern states of the US if this carries on.
Your premise is false and there is no shame in admitting it.
Are you actually 13 years old?
I have had a sudden epiphany. That would explain much of your commentary
I wish. What I would/wouldn't do if I had that time over, eh.
You have woken up (or had your first Mojito if you are still travelling) and thought you would make some kind of incisive comment about immigration. Fair enough, we've all thought - how can I wow PB today. You then said there would be violence if illegal immigration worsens.
But that is just hyperbolic bollocks. You say look at the southern US to see how this plays out when I would say that we are as a nation about as far from the southern US ideologically as we are physically. I mean you count the period since our last mass shooting in years, not hours, as in the US.
So you are just scaremongering and being alarmist and as I said, we have had it all before, noticeably 55 years ago in Birmingham (W Midlands, not Alabama).
It’s also worth noting that in the Southern US, where firearms outnumber people, and there is no shortage of racists who are up for lethal violence, the response to the immigration issue *hasn’t* been Meal Team 6 gunning down immigrants at the border.
There are cases
"Death and Justice on the Border: A Migrant Is Killed, a Rancher Is Charged
An unarmed Mexican man was shot as he crossed an Arizona ranch. The case against the ranch owner has prompted a backlash among supporters who say he is the real victim."
About 25 migrants a year are shot by US border police in the south
"Since January 2010, 292 people have died as the result of encounters with CBP agents. Many more have been brutalized, in some cases causing life-altering injuries. These deaths are an undercount. According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, CBP does not have reliable information on deaths and has not consistently reported death-related information to Congress."
Too busy harrassing a youtube pianist who had committed no offence.
The one at Waterloo station? For some reason in the last few weeks Youtube has been feeding me dozens of videos of a piano at Waterloo, with various excellent pianists turning up seemingly at random to play it or to sing along. They all have millions of views.
Ah yes I’ve seen a lot of his videos. 2m views in two days for that one.
I find Brendan Kavanagh a bit samey. Lots of videos of boogie woogie and people being "shocked". But isn't that St Pancras? Though I suppose all stations look much the same now.
Can't say I am a big fan of his but that exchange with the WPC is bizarre. The Police should know the law.
I would agree that the Cameronite liberals were a major bloc in support of Sunak. I am one of that bloc and instinctively preferred someone who appeared an intelligent technocrat against the unpredictability and wildness of Truss.
But this group are probably the most upset by his absurd focus on Rwandan nonsense. Whilst it might bolster him somewhat with the red wallers/Brexiteers it is materially undermining him with this group (which, once upon a time might also have been called one nation Conservatives). And he needs this group even more than the Brexiteers.
I've felt for a while that the conservatives might outperform expectations in the Blue Wall at the election and the Lib Dems underperform there (not least because expectations have got a bit out of control with people expecting vast swathes of the commuter belt to turn yellow). And for the Lib Dems to outperform rather muted expectations in their old Wessex and West Country heartland. This sort of polling being the reason.
If he continues to pivot towards culture war he's not going to convince the hard core nationalists but he is going to erode a lot of that (rather unearned) quiet competence reputation among the Cameronites.
I expect the Lib Dems to be the dog that doesn't bark. They have made no impact on the polling in the last couple of years and are now regularly polling behind Reform. Then they have the Davey problem. They normally do much better when the Tories are making arses of themselves but maybe not this time.
Worth recalling that, in 1997, Lib Dem vote share dropped by one percentage point on 1992, and they gained 28 seats. Indeed, they never polled well in the early New Labour period, and had polls in single figures at times in early 1997.
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
That’s the issue. The Tories talk a lot about Rwanda, but they’re not doing the basics.
Two reasons for the reduction in deportations:
1. Illegals deliberately arriving with no documents or paperwork, meaning that it costs a lot of time and money to even work out who they are.
2. Organised groups of British individuals funding limitless appeals and legal processes, including harrasment of airlines.
Fix those two issues, the first with Rwanda or the Falklands, and the second by legislating for a single appeal before automatic deportation, and the problem gets a lot easier.
What’s your evidence for this? (Daily Mail headlines don’t count.)
To think I was accused of Hindiphobia (sic) for pointing out Sunak was a duffer back in late 2022.
His epitaph will be not as nutty as Truss or not as sleazy as Boris Johnson.
Sunak is the best they have - because the other options were removed from the party by Bozo in 2019....
As for Sunak's epitaph - I said back in 2019 it's the last Conservative Prime Minister - yes I know we've had 2 more since then because Bozo screwed up and they picked the world's worst candidate afterwards but the point is the same Brexit left them going down a dead end with no way of return..
What brilliant options were removed by Johnson ?
Gauke ? Grieve ? Hammond ? Stewart ?
Nope. I do not see it. I think there is just a lack of any strong talent in either of the main parties. Especially the Tories.
Every single one of those you name is superior to anyone in the current Cabinet, with the possible exception of Cameron. Add those to some of the junior ministers at the time who left or were kicked out and you would have leadership on a wholly different level to the current set of incompetents.
They really aren't. None of them hardly set the world alight when in office either. All much of a muchness really. If these people were in the cabinet now people would be getting nostalgic for the Cameron cabinet and waxing lyrical about its members in comparison to the current crop.
It’s the party’s own fault
As an example (n=1)
I have a friend in his early 30s.Sensible and well educated (Oxbridge I think but possibly Imperial). Solid Thatcherite right economically; articulate and intelligent. Local councillor
All that notwithstanding, he wants to be an MP (goodness knows why!)
And central office vetoed him because his uncle was an MP in the Thatcher/Major era and made some enemies at the time.
It’s just insane.
Agreed. It seems bizarre. The so-called sins of the fathers (and the Uncles) cast a shadow over the individual. Makes no sense.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
Weasel words. "and worsens". OK - AND WORSENS. THEN AND ONLY THEN will violence take place.
But what is worsen? Has or hasn't illegal immigration worsened over the past 60 years. I mean what is the flow rate it has to be above for it to be worse than previously.
Very unlike you I have to say. Living in the heart of a cosmopolitan city with a huge mix of people from all over the world now saying mark my words we'll be like the southern states of the US if this carries on.
Your premise is false and there is no shame in admitting it.
Are you actually 13 years old?
I have had a sudden epiphany. That would explain much of your commentary
I wish. What I would/wouldn't do if I had that time over, eh.
You have woken up (or had your first Mojito if you are still travelling) and thought you would make some kind of incisive comment about immigration. Fair enough, we've all thought - how can I wow PB today. You then said there would be violence if illegal immigration worsens.
But that is just hyperbolic bollocks. You say look at the southern US to see how this plays out when I would say that we are as a nation about as far from the southern US ideologically as we are physically. I mean you count the period since our last mass shooting in years, not hours, as in the US.
So you are just scaremongering and being alarmist and as I said, we have had it all before, noticeably 55 years ago in Birmingham (W Midlands, not Alabama).
It’s also worth noting that in the Southern US, where firearms outnumber people, and there is no shortage of racists who are up for lethal violence, the response to the immigration issue *hasn’t* been Meal Team 6 gunning down immigrants at the border.
There are cases
"Death and Justice on the Border: A Migrant Is Killed, a Rancher Is Charged
An unarmed Mexican man was shot as he crossed an Arizona ranch. The case against the ranch owner has prompted a backlash among supporters who say he is the real victim."
About 25 migrants a year are shot by US border police in the south
"Since January 2010, 292 people have died as the result of encounters with CBP agents. Many more have been brutalized, in some cases causing life-altering injuries. These deaths are an undercount. According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, CBP does not have reliable information on deaths and has not consistently reported death-related information to Congress."
Indeed - but given the large number of guns, racists and paranoia about drug cartels sending heavily armed groups across the border (mostly bullshit), the level of violence is (thankfully) a tiny percentage of the numbers crossing.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
Too busy harrassing a youtube pianist who had committed no offence.
The one at Waterloo station? For some reason in the last few weeks Youtube has been feeding me dozens of videos of a piano at Waterloo, with various excellent pianists turning up seemingly at random to play it or to sing along. They all have millions of views.
Ah yes I’ve seen a lot of his videos. 2m views in two days for that one.
I find Brendan Kavanagh a bit samey. Lots of videos of boogie woogie and people being "shocked". But isn't that St Pancras? Though I suppose all stations look much the same now.
Can't say I am a big fan of his but that exchange with the WPC is bizarre. The Police should know the law.
A surprising number of police officers take the view that “stop doing that because I want you to” is always enforceable.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
Weasel words. "and worsens". OK - AND WORSENS. THEN AND ONLY THEN will violence take place.
But what is worsen? Has or hasn't illegal immigration worsened over the past 60 years. I mean what is the flow rate it has to be above for it to be worse than previously.
Very unlike you I have to say. Living in the heart of a cosmopolitan city with a huge mix of people from all over the world now saying mark my words we'll be like the southern states of the US if this carries on.
Your premise is false and there is no shame in admitting it.
Are you actually 13 years old?
I have had a sudden epiphany. That would explain much of your commentary
I wish. What I would/wouldn't do if I had that time over, eh.
You have woken up (or had your first Mojito if you are still travelling) and thought you would make some kind of incisive comment about immigration. Fair enough, we've all thought - how can I wow PB today. You then said there would be violence if illegal immigration worsens.
But that is just hyperbolic bollocks. You say look at the southern US to see how this plays out when I would say that we are as a nation about as far from the southern US ideologically as we are physically. I mean you count the period since our last mass shooting in years, not hours, as in the US.
So you are just scaremongering and being alarmist and as I said, we have had it all before, noticeably 55 years ago in Birmingham (W Midlands, not Alabama).
Get back to me in about 5 years, when you should be out of your teens. Then we can have an adult debate
You mean when you've progressed beyond first grade insults ? You've been spending too much time on MAGA TwitterX.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Too busy harrassing a youtube pianist who had committed no offence.
The one at Waterloo station? For some reason in the last few weeks Youtube has been feeding me dozens of videos of a piano at Waterloo, with various excellent pianists turning up seemingly at random to play it or to sing along. They all have millions of views.
Ah yes I’ve seen a lot of his videos. 2m views in two days for that one.
I find Brendan Kavanagh a bit samey. Lots of videos of boogie woogie and people being "shocked". But isn't that St Pancras? Though I suppose all stations look much the same now.
Misread that and wondered how a Supreme Court justice found the time.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
And it is valid
Sorry @Leon I jumped in without reading the debate and just reacted to your post, which out of context seemed very incorrect.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
I heard an interesting side story to this. Theatres often used their own long-standing minor actors and actresses, with 'stars' coming in for headlines. The actors often formed troupes, and that gave them a little mutual protection because everyone knew each other. When movies came along, actors and actresses were required for short periods, often on location rather than in theatres. At this point, abuses, particularly of women, increased.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Indeed
A bunch of the early Jews in Hollywood were salesmen from the rag trade, or players in cheap vaudeville. Posh WASPS eschewed the proletarian silent films so thOse Jews seized the opportunity....
What’s been promised isn’t possible based on the money the Government is offering, the new minimum wage rules and staffing ratios.
I would have that this Government offering things they aren’t possible is the default expected end result
Even if childcare settings agree to provide funded hours, it usually results in very high fees for "wraparound" hours to maintain profitability. A bit like freemium apps (Duolingo etc).
For poverty alleviation, this can backfire. Poor people work irregular shifts and need affordable childcare all day and throughout the week, not just 9-5 Mon-Fri. Depends on the model of government provision whether this issue arises.
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
Yes
"These Jewish-American entrepreneurs succeeded because motion pictures were widely popular and gentile industrialists largely wanted nothing to do with the business. The moviegoing audience was primarily the working-class and immigrants: tickets were cheap and silent cinema had no language barrier.
"This audience made the mostly-Protestant cultural elite dismiss film as “lowbrow”, and major investors considered it a passing fad. Some Catholic institutions even mobilized against motion pictures, believing they were a corrupting influence. But Jews were unaffected by Catholic teachings and mostly unbothered by this snobbery."
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
The announcement was made before a 10% increase in national minimum wage - that’s going to throw a spanner in every plan.
And the amount the government pays is (at best) the bare minimum - nurseries then need to pull every trick possible to make money from whatever extras they can charge to actually make a living
I would agree that the Cameronite liberals were a major bloc in support of Sunak. I am one of that bloc and instinctively preferred someone who appeared an intelligent technocrat against the unpredictability and wildness of Truss.
But this group are probably the most upset by his absurd focus on Rwandan nonsense. Whilst it might bolster him somewhat with the red wallers/Brexiteers it is materially undermining him with this group (which, once upon a time might also have been called one nation Conservatives). And he needs this group even more than the Brexiteers.
I've felt for a while that the conservatives might outperform expectations in the Blue Wall at the election and the Lib Dems underperform there (not least because expectations have got a bit out of control with people expecting vast swathes of the commuter belt to turn yellow). And for the Lib Dems to outperform rather muted expectations in their old Wessex and West Country heartland. This sort of polling being the reason.
If he continues to pivot towards culture war he's not going to convince the hard core nationalists but he is going to erode a lot of that (rather unearned) quiet competence reputation among the Cameronites.
I expect the Lib Dems to be the dog that doesn't bark. They have made no impact on the polling in the last couple of years and are now regularly polling behind Reform. Then they have the Davey problem. They normally do much better when the Tories are making arses of themselves but maybe not this time.
Worth recalling that, in 1997, Lib Dem vote share dropped by one percentage point on 1992, and they gained 28 seats. Indeed, they never polled well in the early New Labour period, and had polls in single figures at times in early 1997.
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
And from memory, despite everything Swinson increased vote share by around 50% Just didn’t yield much in terms of actual seats.
"We have noted that every time there is a big storm we Stop The Boats. So we have decided to only count the days when there is a big storm in our migration numbers"
I would agree that the Cameronite liberals were a major bloc in support of Sunak. I am one of that bloc and instinctively preferred someone who appeared an intelligent technocrat against the unpredictability and wildness of Truss.
But this group are probably the most upset by his absurd focus on Rwandan nonsense. Whilst it might bolster him somewhat with the red wallers/Brexiteers it is materially undermining him with this group (which, once upon a time might also have been called one nation Conservatives). And he needs this group even more than the Brexiteers.
I've felt for a while that the conservatives might outperform expectations in the Blue Wall at the election and the Lib Dems underperform there (not least because expectations have got a bit out of control with people expecting vast swathes of the commuter belt to turn yellow). And for the Lib Dems to outperform rather muted expectations in their old Wessex and West Country heartland. This sort of polling being the reason.
If he continues to pivot towards culture war he's not going to convince the hard core nationalists but he is going to erode a lot of that (rather unearned) quiet competence reputation among the Cameronites.
I expect the Lib Dems to be the dog that doesn't bark. They have made no impact on the polling in the last couple of years and are now regularly polling behind Reform. Then they have the Davey problem. They normally do much better when the Tories are making arses of themselves but maybe not this time.
Worth recalling that, in 1997, Lib Dem vote share dropped by one percentage point on 1992, and they gained 28 seats. Indeed, they never polled well in the early New Labour period, and had polls in single figures at times in early 1997.
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
And from memory, despite everything Swinson increased vote share by around 50% Just didn’t yield much in terms of actual seats.
A reminder - Lib Dem seat numbers correlate inversely with Con vote share. Changes in LD vote share make little difference by themselves.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
What's the difference between 'continues and worsens' and just 'worsens' in this context?
Must be. Why else would they put the WhatsApp logo in the image? After all, it makes the image look crap(per even than normal) and is probably a trademark infringement if Meta have any lawyers who care enough to pursue it.
I would agree that the Cameronite liberals were a major bloc in support of Sunak. I am one of that bloc and instinctively preferred someone who appeared an intelligent technocrat against the unpredictability and wildness of Truss.
But this group are probably the most upset by his absurd focus on Rwandan nonsense. Whilst it might bolster him somewhat with the red wallers/Brexiteers it is materially undermining him with this group (which, once upon a time might also have been called one nation Conservatives). And he needs this group even more than the Brexiteers.
I've felt for a while that the conservatives might outperform expectations in the Blue Wall at the election and the Lib Dems underperform there (not least because expectations have got a bit out of control with people expecting vast swathes of the commuter belt to turn yellow). And for the Lib Dems to outperform rather muted expectations in their old Wessex and West Country heartland. This sort of polling being the reason.
If he continues to pivot towards culture war he's not going to convince the hard core nationalists but he is going to erode a lot of that (rather unearned) quiet competence reputation among the Cameronites.
I expect the Lib Dems to be the dog that doesn't bark. They have made no impact on the polling in the last couple of years and are now regularly polling behind Reform. Then they have the Davey problem. They normally do much better when the Tories are making arses of themselves but maybe not this time.
Worth recalling that, in 1997, Lib Dem vote share dropped by one percentage point on 1992, and they gained 28 seats. Indeed, they never polled well in the early New Labour period, and had polls in single figures at times in early 1997.
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
And from memory, despite everything Swinson increased vote share by around 50% Just didn’t yield much in terms of actual seats.
A reminder - Lib Dem seat numbers correlate inversely with Con vote share. Changes in LD vote share make little difference by themselves.
Must be. Why else would they put the WhatsApp logo in the image? After all, it makes the image look crap(per even than normal) and is probably a trademark infringement if Meta have any lawyers who care enough to pursue it.
Nope, we've all been invited to a UK-wide group chat that 100% won't get hacked by the Russians.
Too busy harrassing a youtube pianist who had committed no offence.
The one at Waterloo station? For some reason in the last few weeks Youtube has been feeding me dozens of videos of a piano at Waterloo, with various excellent pianists turning up seemingly at random to play it or to sing along. They all have millions of views.
Ah yes I’ve seen a lot of his videos. 2m views in two days for that one.
I find Brendan Kavanagh a bit samey. Lots of videos of boogie woogie and people being "shocked". But isn't that St Pancras? Though I suppose all stations look much the same now.
Misread that and wondered how a Supreme Court justice found the time.
I misread in the same way, but continued on to also read 'samey' as 'slimey' and was nodding along. Only when I got 'boogie woogie' did I stop and re-read!
Must be. Why else would they put the WhatsApp logo in the image? After all, it makes the image look crap(per even than normal) and is probably a trademark infringement if Meta have any lawyers who care enough to pursue it.
Nope, we've all been invited to a UK-wide group chat that 100% won't get hacked by the Russians.
Reminds me it seems like it’s been a while since we had any Putinist visitors. Has there been a well-targeted drone hit on Troll HQ?
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
Must be. Why else would they put the WhatsApp logo in the image? After all, it makes the image look crap(per even than normal) and is probably a trademark infringement if Meta have any lawyers who care enough to pursue it.
Nope, we've all been invited to a UK-wide group chat that 100% won't get hacked by the Russians.
Reminds me it seems like it’s been a while since we had any Putinist visitors. Has there been a well-targeted drone hit on Troll HQ?
Probably been conscripted, sent to the front, and a Ukrainian FPV drone has flown right up his arse and blown him to pieces.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
Yes
"These Jewish-American entrepreneurs succeeded because motion pictures were widely popular and gentile industrialists largely wanted nothing to do with the business. The moviegoing audience was primarily the working-class and immigrants: tickets were cheap and silent cinema had no language barrier.
"This audience made the mostly-Protestant cultural elite dismiss film as “lowbrow”, and major investors considered it a passing fad. Some Catholic institutions even mobilized against motion pictures, believing they were a corrupting influence. But Jews were unaffected by Catholic teachings and mostly unbothered by this snobbery."
Thomas Edison started the industry in the US - and tried to enforce a monopoly through his patents, so it's nonsense to say that "gentile industrialists wanted nothing to do with the business".
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
I stopped using BBC weather when they started confidently predicting 0% chance of rain when it was raining outside (and, e.g. 3-4 whole days of 0% chance of rain in a fairly wet week - clearly some kind of error with default value replacement). Definitely some bugs in there, presumably in putting the forecast into the app/postcode matching, but maybe the actual forecast, who knows.
Tend to use the Met Office app/website now which had not been too bad.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
All the big money and (semi) respectability was on the “proper” stage.
Early movies were regarded as very down market stuff - a somewhat dodgy fair ground novelty. Not a serious medium.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
All the big money and (semi) respectability was on the “proper” stage.
Early movies were regarded as very down market stuff - a somewhat dodgy fair ground novelty. Not a serious medium.
Must be. Why else would they put the WhatsApp logo in the image? After all, it makes the image look crap(per even than normal) and is probably a trademark infringement if Meta have any lawyers who care enough to pursue it.
Nope, we've all been invited to a UK-wide group chat that 100% won't get hacked by the Russians.
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
Weather type - the constant wind isn’t especially high (in West London) but much higher gusts are occuring.
If you use one of the weather apps that differentiates between constant wind and gusts, it stands out.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
All the big money and (semi) respectability was on the “proper” stage.
Early movies were regarded as very down market stuff - a somewhat dodgy fair ground novelty. Not a serious medium.
See above.
You’re actually arguing with an accepted fact here. Which is, perhaps, admirable in some ways
Wiki can be unreliable but this is largely correct
“At the time that Hollywood was developing, antisemitism was widespread in the United States, and due to that, it played a major role in the development of the film industry.[6]
Jews were drawn to the film industry, partly because they were accepted in it. As first and second generation Jewish immigrants attempted to assimilate into American culture, they found many avenues barred to them. The power structures of the country were closed to them, occupied by the "New England-Wall Street-Middle West money". The film industry was not one of them. Roadblocks found in other professions were not present in movies.[7]”
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
" What always happens, going back to the fall of Jerusalem, is that when things get tough, people turn on the Jews. It’s the equivalent of kicking the cat or screaming at the secretary."
Mamet praises Jews for taking unpopular jobs. His examples are lawyers and Hollywood. With that level of incisive thinking, is it any surprise the man supports Trump?
I don't thnk it is Zionist fantasy to say Jews were famously excluded from a lot of prestigious jobs or careers in Europe (and to an extent, but lesser, in the USA)
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Yes but passing over the irony that it has become an antisemitic trope that Jews run the entertainment industry, Mamet is saying working in the movies is an unpopular job. It is not. Mamet's is a fluently-written rant that does not stand up to a moment's reflection; what Hollywood types would describe as an old man yelling at clouds.
Working on movies *was* unpopular. It *was* the shitty end of the entertainment business when it started.
Was it?
All the big money and (semi) respectability was on the “proper” stage.
Early movies were regarded as very down market stuff - a somewhat dodgy fair ground novelty. Not a serious medium.
See above.
You’re actually arguing with an accepted fact here. Which is, perhaps, admirable in some ways
Wiki can be unreliable but this is largely correct
“At the time that Hollywood was developing, antisemitism was widespread in the United States, and due to that, it played a major role in the development of the film industry.[6]
Jews were drawn to the film industry, partly because they were accepted in it. As first and second generation Jewish immigrants attempted to assimilate into American culture, they found many avenues barred to them. The power structures of the country were closed to them, occupied by the "New England-Wall Street-Middle West money". The film industry was not one of them. Roadblocks found in other professions were not present in movies.[7]”
I wouldn't argue with any of that.
Film, as a new industry, hadn't developed the entrenched poser structures elsewhere (the West Coast industry especially, as it was easier to avoid Edison's legal stranglehold there).
But it wasn't particularly (if at all) 'disreputable' compared with the rest of the entertainment industry.
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
Weather type - the constant wind isn’t especially high (in West London) but much higher gusts are occuring.
If you use one of the weather apps that differentiates between constant wind and gusts, it stands out.
The BBC's weather forecasts have been weirdly shit for about 2 years. Often I have been struck by the difference between the BBC forecast and the Met Office forecast. It is very rare that the former is correct and the latter is wrong.
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
Weather type - the constant wind isn’t especially high (in West London) but much higher gusts are occuring.
If you use one of the weather apps that differentiates between constant wind and gusts, it stands out.
The BBC's weather forecasts have been weirdly shit for about 2 years. Often I have been struck by the difference between the BBC forecast and the Met Office forecast. It is very rare that the former is correct and the latter is wrong.
I would agree that the Cameronite liberals were a major bloc in support of Sunak. I am one of that bloc and instinctively preferred someone who appeared an intelligent technocrat against the unpredictability and wildness of Truss.
But this group are probably the most upset by his absurd focus on Rwandan nonsense. Whilst it might bolster him somewhat with the red wallers/Brexiteers it is materially undermining him with this group (which, once upon a time might also have been called one nation Conservatives). And he needs this group even more than the Brexiteers.
I've felt for a while that the conservatives might outperform expectations in the Blue Wall at the election and the Lib Dems underperform there (not least because expectations have got a bit out of control with people expecting vast swathes of the commuter belt to turn yellow). And for the Lib Dems to outperform rather muted expectations in their old Wessex and West Country heartland. This sort of polling being the reason.
If he continues to pivot towards culture war he's not going to convince the hard core nationalists but he is going to erode a lot of that (rather unearned) quiet competence reputation among the Cameronites.
I expect the Lib Dems to be the dog that doesn't bark. They have made no impact on the polling in the last couple of years and are now regularly polling behind Reform. Then they have the Davey problem. They normally do much better when the Tories are making arses of themselves but maybe not this time.
Worth recalling that, in 1997, Lib Dem vote share dropped by one percentage point on 1992, and they gained 28 seats. Indeed, they never polled well in the early New Labour period, and had polls in single figures at times in early 1997.
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
And from memory, despite everything Swinson increased vote share by around 50% Just didn’t yield much in terms of actual seats.
A reminder - Lib Dem seat numbers correlate inversely with Con vote share. Changes in LD vote share make little difference by themselves.
Yay for FPTP! 👍
Hardly. On 10% of the vote, the LDs are not going to get 10% of the MPs (~ 60) no matter how badly the Tories do.
Violence is, also, the inevitable endpoint if illegal migration continues and worsens, and no other alternative is found
Which is one reason we desperately need to solve this, now, and humanely
I imagine you would have said this at any point over the past 50 years. Indeed I believe it was said with a degree of rhetorical flourish some 55 years ago.
Yes, yawn, whatever, bur I'm not wrong, am I?
In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse, governments will be forced to extreme methods to deter it
We can already see it in parts of the world. It is also a particular hazard on the US Southern Border, where the local citizens are well armed, and generally not known for accepting fate with stoic pacifism
Yawn yourself. We are a huge country with plenty of room and the areas where immigration is most prevalent isn't Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. Londoners meanwhile don't mind it at all.
Saying "there will be blood" is just posturing and alarmist. And has been shown in the UK not to be the case.
At the end of the day borders need to be enforced. Just as the law needs to be enforced. You arrest, detain and deport.
I struggle to work out how, somewhere along the line, this became controversial.
It is not controversial. Saying "violence is inevitable" if illegal immigration continues is, however, idiotic.
But I did not say that
I specifically and carefully said "if illegal immigration continues and WORSENS"
That's the key word. WORSENS. Look, I said it, up there. WORSENS
Then I said, in reply to you
"In the end if illegal immigration just gets worse and worse"
There, again, my actual words - "worse and worse"
You do this quite a lot. Mischaracterise comments, or deliberately misquote, to try and 'win' some argument. It is stupid and childish. Stop it
Weasel words. "and worsens". OK - AND WORSENS. THEN AND ONLY THEN will violence take place.
But what is worsen? Has or hasn't illegal immigration worsened over the past 60 years. I mean what is the flow rate it has to be above for it to be worse than previously.
Very unlike you I have to say. Living in the heart of a cosmopolitan city with a huge mix of people from all over the world now saying mark my words we'll be like the southern states of the US if this carries on.
Your premise is false and there is no shame in admitting it.
Are you actually 13 years old?
I have had a sudden epiphany. That would explain much of your commentary
I wish. What I would/wouldn't do if I had that time over, eh.
You have woken up (or had your first Mojito if you are still travelling) and thought you would make some kind of incisive comment about immigration. Fair enough, we've all thought - how can I wow PB today. You then said there would be violence if illegal immigration worsens.
But that is just hyperbolic bollocks. You say look at the southern US to see how this plays out when I would say that we are as a nation about as far from the southern US ideologically as we are physically. I mean you count the period since our last mass shooting in years, not hours, as in the US.
So you are just scaremongering and being alarmist and as I said, we have had it all before, noticeably 55 years ago in Birmingham (W Midlands, not Alabama).
Get back to me in about 5 years, when you should be out of your teens. Then we can have an adult debate
You mean when you've progressed beyond first grade insults ? You've been spending too much time on MAGA TwitterX.
Which got me thinking - what is the right amount of time to spend on MAGA TwitterX? First instinct answer, Zero, but I guess that's a copout. You have a duty to be aware of life's darker corners. Thankfully I'm covered. I get the gist of it from PB when Leon is doing politics rather than lifestyle and travel.
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
The other problem is that they've included clips that are funny. Trump is a natural stand-up comedian, so it gives him a lot of leeway before something becomes a gaffe.
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
Weather type - the constant wind isn’t especially high (in West London) but much higher gusts are occuring.
If you use one of the weather apps that differentiates between constant wind and gusts, it stands out.
The BBC's weather forecasts have been weirdly shit for about 2 years. Often I have been struck by the difference between the BBC forecast and the Met Office forecast. It is very rare that the former is correct and the latter is wrong.
BBC dumped the Met Office, apparently under orders from HMG to use a private firm, in 2018.
Competitive tendering I assume was why they picked MeteoGroup.
The BBC's forecast of gusts round my way is all over the shop, with wind speeds doubling for the odd hour here and there, and this changing regularly. I'm starting to wonder if Fujitsu programmed their computer.
Weather type - the constant wind isn’t especially high (in West London) but much higher gusts are occuring.
If you use one of the weather apps that differentiates between constant wind and gusts, it stands out.
The BBC's weather forecasts have been weirdly shit for about 2 years. Often I have been struck by the difference between the BBC forecast and the Met Office forecast. It is very rare that the former is correct and the latter is wrong.
BBC dumped the Met Office, apparently under orders from HMG to use a private firm, in 2018.
Competitive tendering I assume was why they picked MeteoGroup.
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
lol yes. That’s quite a good attack ad until you hear the quavery voice at the end saying “I’m Joe Biden”
The other problem here is that if the Dems really do go for Trump’s mental decline (and I agree he is obviously much less sharp) then they can’t complain about the GOP attacking Biden’s senility on grounds of taste or vulgarity
Trump seems to have declined rapidly in a year or two. Tho this maybe because I happily filtered him out until he became a threat once again
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
And it is valid
Sorry @Leon I jumped in without reading the debate and just reacted to your post, which out of context seemed very incorrect.
I think the term "hate crime" sets up invidious comparisons.
There are acts which are utterly wicked and depraved which are not termed "hate crimes", but which can only have been motivated by the utmost hate.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
And it is valid
Sorry @Leon I jumped in without reading the debate and just reacted to your post, which out of context seemed very incorrect.
I think the term "hate crime" sets up invidious comparisons.
There are acts which are utterly wicked and depraved which are not termed "hate crimes", but which can only have been motivated by the utmost hate.
Exactly. Was the murder of Sarah Everard a hate crime? Officially not, but surely to do something like that must require hatred at some level (of women?)
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
lol yes. That’s quite a good attack ad until you hear the quavery voice at the end saying “I’m Joe Biden”
The other problem here is that if the Dems really do go for Trump’s mental decline (and I agree he is obviously much less sharp) then they can’t complain about the GOP attacking Biden’s senility on grounds of taste or vulgarity ..
Any such complaints would be a waste of time - which, amazingly, they've worked out this time around.
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
lol yes. That’s quite a good attack ad until you hear the quavery voice at the end saying “I’m Joe Biden”
The other problem here is that if the Dems really do go for Trump’s mental decline (and I agree he is obviously much less sharp) then they can’t complain about the GOP attacking Biden’s senility on grounds of taste or vulgarity
Trump seems to have declined rapidly in a year or two. Tho this maybe because I happily filtered him out until he became a threat once again
For Biden to put out an ad that constrasts Haley with an older candidate who gets confused suggests that he doesn't expect to be running against her. It will be Trump v Biden.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
And it is valid
Sorry @Leon I jumped in without reading the debate and just reacted to your post, which out of context seemed very incorrect.
I think the term "hate crime" sets up invidious comparisons.
There are acts which are utterly wicked and depraved which are not termed "hate crimes", but which can only have been motivated by the utmost hate.
Exactly. Was the murder of Sarah Everard a hate crime? Officially not, but surely to do something like that must require hatred at some level (of women?)
The sort of people that @DavidL prosecutes are the most vicious of men, but not, in the main, "hate criminals."
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
Biden has moments of great cogency in addition to moments of falling over his words and his shoelaces.
Trump only ever speaks incoherent gibberish and is also equally, if not more unsteady on his feet than Biden.
Both are past their prime, but the crucial difference is the reporting. Biden is confused whilst Trump is as sharp as a butcher's knife. Perhaps it is down to the contrast over the years. Twenty years ago Biden was a great orator promoting road maps to World peace, whereas now, not so much. Twenty years ago Trump spoke authoritatively on mindless misogynistic, racist nonsense using incoherent half sentences, much like today.
So I suppose it is true to suggest Biden's decline is far more marked.
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
Yes, the absolute dehumanization. People as vermin. Mass murder as pest control. That's the heart of the horror. And the numbers of course. And (imo) that it was applied to a specific race of people.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
And it is valid
Sorry @Leon I jumped in without reading the debate and just reacted to your post, which out of context seemed very incorrect.
I think the term "hate crime" sets up invidious comparisons.
There are acts which are utterly wicked and depraved which are not termed "hate crimes", but which can only have been motivated by the utmost hate.
Exactly. Was the murder of Sarah Everard a hate crime? Officially not, but surely to do something like that must require hatred at some level (of women?)
The sort of people that @DavidL prosecutes are the most vicious of men, but not, in the main, "hate criminals."
The whole concept of hate crime falls apart on any sane analysis. A murder is a murder. Genocide is genocide. That is all we need.
What’s more: Why is one “characteristic” protected but not another?
What if someone is killed for being beautiful or ugly? There is nothing they can do about their looks, it’s as innate as skin colour or sexuality, but it’s not “protected” so it’s not a hate crime
Mamet is right. The entire concept should be junked
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
lol yes. That’s quite a good attack ad until you hear the quavery voice at the end saying “I’m Joe Biden”
The other problem here is that if the Dems really do go for Trump’s mental decline (and I agree he is obviously much less sharp) then they can’t complain about the GOP attacking Biden’s senility on grounds of taste or vulgarity
Trump seems to have declined rapidly in a year or two. Tho this maybe because I happily filtered him out until he became a threat once again
For Biden to put out an ad that constrasts Haley with an older candidate who gets confused suggests that he doesn't expect to be running against her. It will be Trump v Biden.
Would be quite awkward for him if the GOP were to pick Haley. I think she would quite likely win against Biden.
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
"Debates" should also go in inverteds since that is not what they'll be. If any sentence uttered follows logically from the one before it will be pure chance.
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
Yes, the absolute dehumanization. People as vermin. Mass murder as pest control. That's the heart of the horror. And the numbers of course. And (imo) that it was applied to a specific race of people.
The weird thing is that at some level, a lot of people knew what they were doing was wrong, which is why they kept resorting to euphemisms, like "special treatment", "evacuation", "resettlement to the East." It enabled them to cope.
That contrasts with those like the Ustasha, Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger, the Kaminski Brigade, who actively revelled in rape, murder, torture, and degradation. They, I think, would have enjoyed doing those things to any section of society, if commanded to.
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
Yes, the absolute dehumanization. People as vermin. Mass murder as pest control. That's the heart of the horror. And the numbers of course. And (imo) that it was applied to a specific race of people.
All true, but it’s that basic model of exterminating humans as a job, like a customs official stamping passports.
We all could do it, and would do it if we didn’t think about the ethics of what we were involved in - and with most jobs, most people don’t. That is why it’s so terrifying.
I would agree that the Cameronite liberals were a major bloc in support of Sunak. I am one of that bloc and instinctively preferred someone who appeared an intelligent technocrat against the unpredictability and wildness of Truss.
But this group are probably the most upset by his absurd focus on Rwandan nonsense. Whilst it might bolster him somewhat with the red wallers/Brexiteers it is materially undermining him with this group (which, once upon a time might also have been called one nation Conservatives). And he needs this group even more than the Brexiteers.
I've felt for a while that the conservatives might outperform expectations in the Blue Wall at the election and the Lib Dems underperform there (not least because expectations have got a bit out of control with people expecting vast swathes of the commuter belt to turn yellow). And for the Lib Dems to outperform rather muted expectations in their old Wessex and West Country heartland. This sort of polling being the reason.
If he continues to pivot towards culture war he's not going to convince the hard core nationalists but he is going to erode a lot of that (rather unearned) quiet competence reputation among the Cameronites.
I expect the Lib Dems to be the dog that doesn't bark. They have made no impact on the polling in the last couple of years and are now regularly polling behind Reform. Then they have the Davey problem. They normally do much better when the Tories are making arses of themselves but maybe not this time.
Worth recalling that, in 1997, Lib Dem vote share dropped by one percentage point on 1992, and they gained 28 seats. Indeed, they never polled well in the early New Labour period, and had polls in single figures at times in early 1997.
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
And from memory, despite everything Swinson increased vote share by around 50% Just didn’t yield much in terms of actual seats.
A reminder - Lib Dem seat numbers correlate inversely with Con vote share. Changes in LD vote share make little difference by themselves.
Yay for FPTP! 👍
Hardly. On 10% of the vote, the LDs are not going to get 10% of the MPs (~ 60) no matter how badly the Tories do.
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
Yes, the absolute dehumanization. People as vermin. Mass murder as pest control. That's the heart of the horror. And the numbers of course. And (imo) that it was applied to a specific race of people.
It wasn't just one race of people. The Roma/Sinti were also murdered becase of their race. There were also two other groups that were systematically sent to concentration camps and eventually murdered: homosexuals and communists.
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
"Debates" should also go in inverteds since that is not what they'll be. If any sentence uttered follows logically from the one before it will be pure chance.
You make it sound as though the process of choosing an American president has turned into something akin to a roomful of monkeys trying to type Shakespeare.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
I think you are not talking about the same thing.
Painting a swastika is clearly a hate crime and should be punished appropriately (and as more than criminal damage).
But people have concerns with the idea that a racially-motivated assault is worse than a general-thuggishness* assault
Well I'm waiting for a plumber to come and fix something urgent. They're late and I'm starting to fret. Then the doorbell goes and I'm so relieved I don't do the normal checking, I just scamper there, fling it open with a big smile and a "great, you're here!". But it's not the plumber. It's the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
Yes, the absolute dehumanization. People as vermin. Mass murder as pest control. That's the heart of the horror. And the numbers of course. And (imo) that it was applied to a specific race of people.
All true, but it’s that basic model of exterminating humans as a job, like a customs official stamping passports.
We all could do it, and would do it if we didn’t think about the ethics of what we were involved in - and with most jobs, most people don’t. That is why it’s so terrifying.
The thing is, most war criminals are not people like Oskar Dirlewanger, Lavrentiy Beria, or Broneslav Kaminski, people who in normal circumstances would either be executed, or else, serving lengthy prison sentences. Men who are obviously psychopaths.
Most war criminals are people like Gottlob Berger, or Gerhard Klopfer, ordinary men who assimilate easily back into society once the war is over.
"Hate crime" has a valid meaning. It's a crime where the victim is targeted due to an aspect of their identity, eg their race, their skin colour, their gender, their sexuality. To see how it accords with how most of us feel consider the greatest hate crime of all - the holocaust.
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
It’s bureaucratic nature, ‘systemic’ as you put it, is for me the main reason:
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented terror, so many routine cries.
Yes, the absolute dehumanization. People as vermin. Mass murder as pest control. That's the heart of the horror. And the numbers of course. And (imo) that it was applied to a specific race of people.
It wasn't though, was it? Think of the Soviet prisoners of war of the Nazis - how many survived to go home? Think of the gypsies, the gays etc. The handicapped.
The fact that Biden is clearly also suffering cognitive decline slightly dents the effectiveness of the message.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
lol yes. That’s quite a good attack ad until you hear the quavery voice at the end saying “I’m Joe Biden”
The other problem here is that if the Dems really do go for Trump’s mental decline (and I agree he is obviously much less sharp) then they can’t complain about the GOP attacking Biden’s senility on grounds of taste or vulgarity
Trump seems to have declined rapidly in a year or two. Tho this maybe because I happily filtered him out until he became a threat once again
For Biden to put out an ad that constrasts Haley with an older candidate who gets confused suggests that he doesn't expect to be running against her. It will be Trump v Biden.
Would be quite awkward for him if the GOP were to pick Haley. I think she would quite likely win against Biden.
See my predictions - if Trump goes Biden has a far harder battle
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
I think you are not talking about the same thing.
Painting a swastika is clearly a hate crime and should be punished appropriately (and as more than criminal damage).
But people have concerns with the idea that a racially-motivated assault is worse than a general-thuggishness* assault
(* with all due apologies to the Thugees)
Well, there is at least one concrete reason. It adds to the psychological trauma and burden on the victim. To be beaten up because one is XXXXish is a more permanent issue than to he beaten up because one just happened to be in the wrong street at pub-emptying time.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
I think you are not talking about the same thing.
Painting a swastika is clearly a hate crime and should be punished appropriately (and as more than criminal damage).
But people have concerns with the idea that a racially-motivated assault is worse than a general-thuggishness* assault
(* with all due apologies to the Thugees)
It is worse.
General thuggishness in principle affects everyone equally. If there was no provocation, or perceived provocation based on in/actions, then anyone could be the victim of it. A hate-crime assault however, means a certain group in society is intended to feel fear and be restricted by that fear from interacting in society as a member of any other group can - and if enough such assaults take place, that will indeed produce that level of fear (or, alternatively, vigilante counter-reactions). The victimhood goes beyond the individual directly affected.
Well I'm waiting for a plumber to come and fix something urgent. They're late and I'm starting to fret. Then the doorbell goes and I'm so relieved I don't do the normal checking, I just scamper there, fling it open with a big smile and a "great, you're here!". But it's not the plumber. It's the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"The most terrible thing in the world was the idea that there were certain crimes which are hate crimes. The question is not what did the person do, but what do we think about their motives in regard to certain societal norms which we have today. There’s no such thing as a love crime. All crimes are hate crimes, right?"
No. Painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house is a hate crime. Holding up a bank isn't. One is because you hate the person or group of people the other is for financial gain. Granted you might not care too much for the people you rob.
His point is: all crime is hateful to society, that's why we call it a crime
And it is valid
Sorry @Leon I jumped in without reading the debate and just reacted to your post, which out of context seemed very incorrect.
I think the term "hate crime" sets up invidious comparisons.
There are acts which are utterly wicked and depraved which are not termed "hate crimes", but which can only have been motivated by the utmost hate.
Exactly. Was the murder of Sarah Everard a hate crime? Officially not, but surely to do something like that must require hatred at some level (of women?)
The sort of people that @DavidL prosecutes are the most vicious of men, but not, in the main, "hate criminals."
The whole concept of hate crime falls apart on any sane analysis. A murder is a murder. Genocide is genocide. That is all we need.
What’s more: Why is one “characteristic” protected but not another?
What if someone is killed for being beautiful or ugly? There is nothing they can do about their looks, it’s as innate as skin colour or sexuality, but it’s not “protected” so it’s not a hate crime
Mamet is right. The entire concept should be junked
Comments
His point about Hollywood is more that Jews CREATED Hollywood. Which they did. Virtually all the early studio moguls were Jews, hence the names we still see today - Goldwyn, Mayer, Fox
Fox was originally "Fuchs"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fox_(producer)
"Death and Justice on the Border: A Migrant Is Killed, a Rancher Is Charged
An unarmed Mexican man was shot as he crossed an Arizona ranch. The case against the ranch owner has prompted a backlash among supporters who say he is the real victim."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/us/arizona-rancher-migrant-death.html
About 25 migrants a year are shot by US border police in the south
"Since January 2010, 292 people have died as the result of encounters with CBP agents. Many more have been brutalized, in some cases causing life-altering injuries. These deaths are an undercount. According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, CBP does not have reliable information on deaths and has not consistently reported death-related information to Congress."
https://www.southernborder.org/deaths_by_border_patrol
They'd certainly hope to be polling better, but the MRP was quite positive for them, and they probably remain on course for reasonable gains.
See the War On Photographers.
You've been spending too much time on MAGA TwitterX.
And it is valid
https://twitter.com/ChrisBurn_Post/status/1749314703359119482
I would have that this Government offering things they aren’t possible is the default expected end result
Perhaps they need bigger envelopes to write on the back of.
UK Prime Minister
@10DowningStreet
Stay tuned.
A bunch of the early Jews in Hollywood were salesmen from the rag trade, or players in cheap vaudeville. Posh WASPS eschewed the proletarian silent films so thOse Jews seized the opportunity....
Good article on it
https://jewishunpacked.com/how-american-jews-built-hollywood/
I didn't realise Samuel Goldwyn's real Jewish name was "Shmuel Gelbfisz"
I think that might literally be the most Jewish name in history
SHMUEL GELBFISZ
For poverty alleviation, this can backfire. Poor people work irregular shifts and need affordable childcare all day and throughout the week, not just 9-5 Mon-Fri. Depends on the model of government provision whether this issue arises.
"These Jewish-American entrepreneurs succeeded because motion pictures were widely popular and gentile industrialists largely wanted nothing to do with the business. The moviegoing audience was primarily the working-class and immigrants: tickets were cheap and silent cinema had no language barrier.
"This audience made the mostly-Protestant cultural elite dismiss film as “lowbrow”, and major investors considered it a passing fad. Some Catholic institutions even mobilized against motion pictures, believing they were a corrupting influence. But Jews were unaffected by Catholic teachings and mostly unbothered by this snobbery."
https://jewishunpacked.com/how-american-jews-built-hollywood/
And the amount the government pays is (at best) the bare minimum - nurseries then need to pull every trick possible to make money from whatever extras they can charge to actually make a living
Rishi is gonna come round your house and snog you?
In the annals of horrors this has a special place. It's right at the top. Why is this? Is it purely and simply because of the numbers? Or is it also because of the "racially aggravating factor" - that it was a systemic attempt to erase Jewish people from the face of the earth?
Thomas Edison started the industry in the US - and tried to enforce a monopoly through his patents, so it's nonsense to say that "gentile industrialists wanted nothing to do with the business".
The first nickelodeon magnate was this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Harris
And most of the early films shown were the product of European producers
One of the earliest Hollywood feature films starred Sarah Bernhardt, which hardly argues for it being the shitty end of the entertainment business.
That Jewish immigrants tended to be greatly overrepresented as entrepreneurs in new, fast growing industries is a better explanation.
Tend to use the Met Office app/website now which had not been too bad.
Early movies were regarded as very down market stuff - a somewhat dodgy fair ground novelty. Not a serious medium.
https://twitter.com/MilOnYourMind/status/1749305463504560482
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1749385349187420454
(I think this might actually by the 'big' announcement, given it is WhatsApp relevant, at least)
Tory poll surge incoming!
If you use one of the weather apps that differentiates between constant wind and gusts, it stands out.
Wiki can be unreliable but this is largely correct
“At the time that Hollywood was developing, antisemitism was widespread in the United States, and due to that, it played a major role in the development of the film industry.[6]
Jews were drawn to the film industry, partly because they were accepted in it. As first and second generation Jewish immigrants attempted to assimilate into American culture, they found many avenues barred to them. The power structures of the country were closed to them, occupied by the "New England-Wall Street-Middle West money". The film industry was not one of them. Roadblocks found in other professions were not present in movies.[7]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_the_history_of_American_film
Just so much Zyklon and leather, patented
terror, so many routine cries.
Film, as a new industry, hadn't developed the entrenched poser structures elsewhere (the West Coast industry especially, as it was easier to avoid Edison's legal stranglehold there).
But it wasn't particularly (if at all) 'disreputable' compared with the rest of the entertainment industry.
Still: there's no doubt that Trump is massively less sharp than eight years ago. The debates could be "interesting".
Competitive tendering I assume was why they picked MeteoGroup.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/09/why-competition-doesnt-guarantee-accurate-winter-weather-forecasts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Weather#BBC_Weather_Service_switch_to_MeteoGroup
I like looking at Netweather as well as the Met Office, though.
The other problem here is that if the Dems really do go for Trump’s mental decline (and I agree he is obviously much less sharp) then they can’t complain about the GOP attacking Biden’s senility on grounds of taste or vulgarity
Trump seems to have declined rapidly in a year or two. Tho this maybe because I happily filtered him out until he became a threat once again
There are acts which are utterly wicked and depraved which are not termed "hate crimes", but which can only have been motivated by the utmost hate.
I was actually surprised by how inept Theresa May proved to be. I thought she'd be uninspiring, but very much a safe pair of hands.
WRT Sunak, I'm unclear why he even wanted the job.
Trump only ever speaks incoherent gibberish and is also equally, if not more unsteady on his feet than Biden.
Both are past their prime, but the crucial difference is the reporting. Biden is confused whilst Trump is as sharp as a butcher's knife. Perhaps it is down to the contrast over the years. Twenty years ago Biden was a great orator promoting road maps to World peace, whereas now, not so much. Twenty years ago Trump spoke authoritatively on mindless misogynistic, racist nonsense using incoherent half sentences, much like today.
So I suppose it is true to suggest Biden's decline is far more marked.
What’s more: Why is one “characteristic” protected but not another?
What if someone is killed for being beautiful or ugly? There is nothing they can do about their looks, it’s as innate as skin colour or sexuality, but it’s not “protected” so it’s not a hate crime
Mamet is right. The entire concept should be junked
I think she would quite likely win against Biden.
That contrasts with those like the Ustasha, Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger, the Kaminski Brigade, who actively revelled in rape, murder, torture, and degradation. They, I think, would have enjoyed doing those things to any section of society, if commanded to.
We all could do it, and would do it if we didn’t think about the ethics of what we were involved in - and with most jobs, most people don’t. That is why it’s so terrifying.
Painting a swastika is clearly a hate crime and should be punished appropriately (and as more than criminal damage).
But people have concerns with the idea that a racially-motivated assault is worse than a general-thuggishness* assault
(* with all due apologies to the Thugees)
Most war criminals are people like Gottlob Berger, or Gerhard Klopfer, ordinary men who assimilate easily back into society once the war is over.
General thuggishness in principle affects everyone equally. If there was no provocation, or perceived provocation based on in/actions, then anyone could be the victim of it. A hate-crime assault however, means a certain group in society is intended to feel fear and be restricted by that fear from interacting in society as a member of any other group can - and if enough such assaults take place, that will indeed produce that level of fear (or, alternatively, vigilante counter-reactions). The victimhood goes beyond the individual directly affected.
Glengarry Glencross was shite anyway.