Digby wrote:It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made
What hypocrisy/contrast?
Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.
Digby wrote:It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made
What hypocrisy/contrast?
Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.
Corbyn has always supported minorities over majorities, he is a big advocate of Palestinian rights and therefore a big anti-Zionist. He has allowed his strong views to obscure actual racism and his imprecise language and inability to see the political problems in rejecting the Anti-Semitic chatter have led to these racism accusations.
He comes across as a far from perfect human being. He is stubborn and doesn’t come across particularly bright. But compare him to actual racists like those in and around the Tory party or even those in Labour, and he is a saint.
Digby wrote:
Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.
As far as I can tell, those criticisms are around:
A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)
B] Him being an ineffectual leader who hasn't stamped downnhard enough on anti-Semitism by others in his party (so not personally racist, and conveniently ignoring the anti-Semitism, islamoohobia and racism in other parties).
Hypocrisy would be photoshopping a picture of Corbyn protesting against apartheid ~35 years ago, in order to claim that his more recent statements against apartheid make him racist.
Which Tyler wrote:
A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)
This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit
Which Tyler wrote:
A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)
This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit
OK - so you're saying that him supporting the oppressed minority makes him racist?
Or is it that Israelis are the oppressed minority in Israel?
Maybe that you think I'm claiming that, because Corbyn is black, he can't be racist?
Help me out here...
I know you think that it's bad purely because Corbyn did it - but you're also asking for more nuance to be seen - so...
Corbyn supporting the Palestinians isn’t an issue. Supporting terrorist groups is. He has a habit of doing that. There are moderate Palestinian leaders he could choose to spend time with. Instead he chooses terrorists.
That’s before we talk about him playing nicely with an activist who has just abused a Jewish Labour MP. Now why is that anti-Semitic label so hard to shift?
Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.
Corbyn has always supported minorities over majorities, he is a big advocate of Palestinian rights and therefore a big anti-Zionist. He has allowed his strong views to obscure actual racism and his imprecise language and inability to see the political problems in rejecting the Anti-Semitic chatter have led to these racism accusations.
He comes across as a far from perfect human being. He is stubborn and doesn’t come across particularly bright. But compare him to actual racists like those in and around the Tory party or even those in Labour, and he is a saint.
And obscure terrorism.
Potentially Corbyn sees more Muslim votes than Jewish ones so just doesn’t care. Is Milne as unintelligent as Corbyn since he seems to pull many of the strings?
I agree that many on the right of the Tory party probably hold similar views. But since they generally don’t make those views public and then double down on them, it leaves Corbyn as a very legitimate target for anyone who despises racism.
Which Tyler wrote:
A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)
This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit
OK - so you're saying that him supporting the oppressed minority makes him racist?
Or is it that Israelis are the oppressed minority in Israel?
Maybe that you think I'm claiming that, because Corbyn is black, he can't be racist?
Help me out here...
I know you think that it's bad purely because Corbyn did it - but you're also asking for more nuance to be seen - so...
I'm saying racism makes him racist, and that he isn't racist in all instances and indeed in some instances actively protests/acts against racism isn't sufficient defence for those instances where he is racist (or at least allows himself to be grouped with and receive the support of racists)
Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.
Corbyn has always supported minorities over majorities, he is a big advocate of Palestinian rights and therefore a big anti-Zionist. He has allowed his strong views to obscure actual racism and his imprecise language and inability to see the political problems in rejecting the Anti-Semitic chatter have led to these racism accusations.
He comes across as a far from perfect human being. He is stubborn and doesn’t come across particularly bright. But compare him to actual racists like those in and around the Tory party or even those in Labour, and he is a saint.
And obscure terrorism.
Potentially Corbyn sees more Muslim votes than Jewish ones so just doesn’t care. Is Milne as unintelligent as Corbyn since he seems to pull many of the strings?
I agree that many on the right of the Tory party probably hold similar views. But since they generally don’t make those views public and then double down on them, it leaves Corbyn as a very legitimate target for anyone who despises racism.
You mean like the leader of the Tory party and the Prime Minister?
Digby wrote:
This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit
OK - so you're saying that him supporting the oppressed minority makes him racist?
Or is it that Israelis are the oppressed minority in Israel?
Maybe that you think I'm claiming that, because Corbyn is black, he can't be racist?
Help me out here...
I know you think that it's bad purely because Corbyn did it - but you're also asking for more nuance to be seen - so...
I'm saying racism makes him racist, and that he isn't racist in all instances and indeed in some instances actively protests/acts against racism isn't sufficient defence for those instances where he is racist (or at least allows himself to be grouped with and receive the support of racists)
What racism?
Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.
Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.
I suspect its going to be another, like the bullying, where he "just knows", to the point where all evidence to the contrary can be ignored, and no evidence of the accusation need be provided.
Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.
I suspect its going to be another, like the bullying, where he "just knows", to the point where all evidence to the contrary can be ignored, and no evidence of the accusation need be provided.
Actually this one I'd lean more towards anyone claiming it's not a thing is being just weirdly obtuse.
Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.
I suspect its going to be another, like the bullying, where he "just knows", to the point where all evidence to the contrary can be ignored, and no evidence of the accusation need be provided.
Actually this one I'd lean more towards anyone claiming it's not a thing is being just weirdly obtuse.
This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?
No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......
I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum
Digby wrote:I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum
What right do you have to label someone a racist because of a personal dislike?
Digby wrote:I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum
Where you live no one is likely to unseat the Tories. And Labour and LibDems may well be evenly split (assuming the LibDems do better than last time - which is what the opinion polls say). So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over your decision. What does Remain United say for your area?
I was talking to a friend recently, wondering what she was going to do in the election. Her MP is one of the deputy speakers. The speaker and deputy speakers do not vote in parliament (unless a casting vote is needed from the chair, in the case of a tie). So she's completely disenfranchised.
And I thought I was unhappy with the first past the post system.
IHRA definition below. If he is a racist which one applies?
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Digby wrote:I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum
What right do you have to label someone a racist because of a personal dislike?
?
There are lots of people I don't like, indeed I start from a position of not liking people, they're annoying, and they talk. But I don't consider them racists just because I don't like them
Son of Mathonwy wrote:This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?
No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......
The issue is more that Corbyn allows racism around him, not that I’m aware of him making a racist comment himself. We have the incident involving Ruth Smeeths abuser for one. We have the complete inability to grip anti demotion in his party when demnonstrated on multiple occasions (maybe an example of poor leadership but that’s hardly impressing people to vote for him to be PM). We have known support for terrorist groups, and it’s not promoting the little guy, he is strangely quiet when it’s regimes he likes doing the oppression.
And we have the row over that mural which my 3 year old could probably identify as anti Semitic but oddly Corbyn cannot. So either he is anti Semitic but has enough sense to not make bold statements or he is too thick to realise that it’s an issue amongst his close circle. Frankly, neither makes him a suitable candidate for PM. And it would appear that many voters also question his ability given his own personal polling. He is holding Labour back.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?
No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......
The issue is more that Corbyn allows racism around him, not that I’m aware of him making a racist comment himself. We have the incident involving Ruth Smeeths abuser for one. We have the complete inability to grip anti demotion in his party when demnonstrated on multiple occasions (maybe an example of poor leadership but that’s hardly impressing people to vote for him to be PM). We have known support for terrorist groups, and it’s not promoting the little guy, he is strangely quiet when it’s regimes he likes doing the oppression.
And we have the row over that mural which my 3 year old could probably identify as anti Semitic but oddly Corbyn cannot. So either he is anti Semitic but has enough sense to not make bold statements or he is too thick to realise that it’s an issue amongst his close circle. Frankly, neither makes him a suitable candidate for PM. And it would appear that many voters also question his ability given his own personal polling. He is holding Labour back.
...ok, I'm not going to go into the detail of that, but my point is, isn't he nonetheless better than the proven racist (and misogynist, homophobe, compulsive lier and narcissist) Boris Johnson?
Son of Mathonwy wrote:This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?
No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......
The issue is more that Corbyn allows racism around him, not that I’m aware of him making a racist comment himself. We have the incident involving Ruth Smeeths abuser for one. We have the complete inability to grip anti demotion in his party when demnonstrated on multiple occasions (maybe an example of poor leadership but that’s hardly impressing people to vote for him to be PM). We have known support for terrorist groups, and it’s not promoting the little guy, he is strangely quiet when it’s regimes he likes doing the oppression.
And we have the row over that mural which my 3 year old could probably identify as anti Semitic but oddly Corbyn cannot. So either he is anti Semitic but has enough sense to not make bold statements or he is too thick to realise that it’s an issue amongst his close circle. Frankly, neither makes him a suitable candidate for PM. And it would appear that many voters also question his ability given his own personal polling. He is holding Labour back.
...ok, I'm not going to go into the detail of that, but my point is, isn't he nonetheless better than the proven racist (and misogynist, homophobe, compulsive lier and narcissist) Boris Johnson?
Because that is the choice facing us.
I'm not remotely sold he's better than Boris, it's a depressingly low bar that a Labour leader cannot clear for far too many people who might vote Labour. Annoying too that they turned away from the likes of Yvetter Cooper who right now would be romping home by 150 seats or so
Son of Mathonwy wrote:...ok, I'm not going to go into the detail of that, but my point is, isn't he nonetheless better than the proven racist (and misogynist, homophobe, compulsive lier and narcissist) Boris Johnson?
Because that is the choice facing us.
I'm not remotely sold he's better than Boris, it's a depressingly low bar that a Labour leader cannot clear for far too many people who might vote Labour. Annoying too that they turned away from the likes of Yvetter Cooper who right now would be romping home by 150 seats or so
Yes, we can all imagine better candidates but "if only" doesn't really help us now: there are only two possible Prime Ministers at the end of all this.
If - after all the information we have on them - you're not remotely sold that Corbyn's at least better than Boris, there's nothing more I can say.
