|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Northern Ireland25533 Posts
Pretty much what was said above.
A lot of Corbyn’s positions were staple positions of even the vague centre left not all that long ago.
Something like nationalising the railways isn’t some radical pipe dream that has never been tried, some countries have such systems, and we ourselves did in the UK.
I just don’t personally buy the anti-semitism charge. If anything is going to gradually turn people towards being anti-Semitic it’s being unable to criticise what Israel does without being called anti-Semitic.
From what I’ve seen from the likes of the BDS movement they are extremely diligent in drawing the divide between the state of Israel and its people, or Jews outside of its borders.
The most virulent anti-Semitism I currently encounter is elsewhere, but of course pockets of it will exist within the left as well.
|
Its an interesting topic in general. The world before the internet was also really badly informed, but the information wasn't as mixed as today where you just find some "reasonable" source that will support your default stance, you just got 2-3 newspapers (if you were lucky) and they were often strongly affiliated, if not directly controlled, by a political party.
The diffrence to today is just that everyone had to eat the same shit colored diffrently from ~3 sources instead of picking one of 100+ sources that suits the oppinion someone had all along,
The filters on Youtube/Facebook and so on just do what people did themselves back in the day, they are just much more effective at it.
|
On April 05 2019 06:43 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:34 m4ini wrote:Anyone that supports progressive taxation and reduced corporate welfare is painted as an extreme Marxist these days
That's stupid. First of all, Corbyn absolutely describes himself as socialist. He praises Marx as "great economist" (and that Britain can learn from him). He's an avid admirer of Castro and Chavez. He jumped to defend and endorse McDonnell, selfproclaimed "unapologetic marxist". Not to mention that there's quite a bit more to him than "supporting taxation and reducing corporate welfare". At the very least, there's no argument (not even by Corbyn) that he's a socialist. Not a social democrat, but socialist. If you look at the history (or current situation) of socialist run countries, you'll find that they're usually.. not really that great. Nor are they "fair" either, btw - just that usually the gap is way wider, and less people are rich and the rest shits on the streets. It's just an extremer outcome of what's happening here. This is not even getting into his past, his blatant disregard for the truth on multiple documented occasions (most notably "stupid woman" and traingate), the blatant, unapologetic antisemitism. He's not a "left wing politician", he's extreme left of the spectrum. Did i mention that he absolutely wants to pull the UK out of NATO as well? How about you point me to an extreme left position in his platform instead of writing the history of muck raking? As an aside since you brought it up for some reason, saying he is an unapologetic antisemite is not an opinion that you have reached yourself. It's manufactured hysteria that only exists because of what I've said in the previous post. You couldn't have gotten from 'he expressed solidarity with Palestine' to 'he hates jews' without a lot of help. Just like you couldn't have gotten from seeing his positions to alluding that he wants to turn the UK into a Venezuela-type economy without a lot of help. Help that is always plentiful whenever a platform that stands a single hair left of center is threatening to move a penny from the top to the plebs.
I'm sorry, did i miss something here?
Here's the one thing i like with Corbyn. He always stuck to his guns. He never changed his opinions. That's something to commend, but also something to keep in mind. To argue that it's all "muck" and "smear campaigns" when the evidence is presenting itself is "naive", lets call it, at best.
I myself expressed solidarity with Palestine. That doesn't mean jack shit. To suggest so isn't just a bad faith argument, it's deliberately twisting reality and trying to do what you, funny enough, argue newspapers did.
Corbyn was trying to change party guidelines whereas he could openly and legally claim that the foundation of Israel is racist.
Of course i'll double check my claims to cite actual indications instead of just making shit up. Funny enough, i'll get a lot of my information from my usual sources, which would be BBC and The Guardian. I'm not sure about you, but if you call these sources "right wing echo chambers" and not what they actually are (neutral to left wing) then i'm not sure how to help you.
Corbyn was a sponsor of the so called "Labour Movement campaign for Palestine", which declared its “opposition to the Zionist state as racist, exclusivist, expansionist and a direct agency of imperialism.” - he also compared contemporary policies of Israel to those of Nazi Germany occupying Poland.
And, of course, here's one that will be interesting to see you argue.
Nine Labour MPs (not newspapers, not "them", not the daily mail - members of the Labour party) left the party because it became constitutionally antisemitic. Not any newspapers, echo chambers, reddit or whatever. Actual MPs, having first hand experience, leaving.
Then there's the really funny shit, where he looked at this:
+ Show Spoiler +
And allegedly "couldn't see at first that it was anti-semitic" when he was questioning the removal of it. It's literally jews with a fucking illuminati eye above them playing monopoly on the backs of people, and his argument is "that he didn't look at it properly".
Here's the reality. If someone is "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years, you might want to check if there's something to it.
Let me get back to something though:
How about you point me to an extreme left position in his platform
"63% of labour voters voted to leave the UK". It's a non-sequitur at best, a deliberate red herring at worst. He is extreme left, and that's not open for debate since he made that clear himself. His platform doesn't mean jack shit (not to mention that he's deliberately vague about things if necessary anyway, see Brexit and people arguing that Labour/Corbyn is supposed to stop Brexit when indeed he wants it more than May).
It's also worth noting that Corbyn is kinda "ancient", your hard pressed to find an old leftist not somewhere expressing support for Castro and similar figures. You can call it delusional and willfull disbelieve of reality but it's not necessarily coming from a bad place.
And... Its not like the right wing is any better when it comes to this.
I never said that he's a "spiteful" socialist or something, i'm sure he genuinely thinks that socialism is the cure for everything. Nor do i argue that the right wing is better, as was pretty obvious in my postings. That doesn't change the fact that he is extremely to the left (which was the argument i stated in the first place).
I just don’t personally buy the anti-semitism charge. If anything is going to gradually turn people towards being anti-Semitic it’s being unable to criticise what Israel does without being called anti-Semitic.
No, that's just apologist. I myself am on record dozens of times (in US Pol) condemning the actions taken by the Knesset. There's a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism.
|
It is indeed an important difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and all your examples reads as anti-zionism to me. What am I to make of someone being "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years but all people can point to in anti-zionism?
|
On April 05 2019 17:17 Longshank wrote:
It is indeed an important difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and all your examples reads as anti-zionism to me. What am I to make of someone being "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years but all people can point to in anti-zionism?
I agree, I dont much like Corbyn at all, but yeah, that quote is not crazy or anti-semitic in my view either.
"Corbyn was a sponsor of the so called "Labour Movement campaign for Palestine", which declared its “opposition to the Zionist state as racist, exclusivist, expansionist and a direct agency of imperialism.” -
"
This is mostly true, of course it all depends on your definition of expressions like exclusivist or expansionist, but yeah, it's not an unreasonable statement.
""he also compared contemporary policies of Israel to those of Nazi Germany occupying Poland.""
Yeah, that's kinda stupid. In my book, saying that a certain part of the current Israeli leadership and political thought has disconcertingly strong resemblance to fascist ideology/ goals - i would say that is true, or the very least a defensible position.
Jumping the shark and comparing Jewish leaders to Nazis is just in bad taste, and unnecessary.
|
On April 05 2019 17:43 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 17:17 Longshank wrote:
It is indeed an important difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and all your examples reads as anti-zionism to me. What am I to make of someone being "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years but all people can point to in anti-zionism? Jumping the shark and comparing Jewish leaders to Nazis is just in bad taste, and unnecessary.
This I definitely agree on.
I also was confused about that picture posted above. Is there a link between Illuminati and jews? I thought Illuminati was sprung from the catholic church but had a general anti-religious stance.
|
On April 05 2019 18:02 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 17:43 Geo.Rion wrote:On April 05 2019 17:17 Longshank wrote:
It is indeed an important difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and all your examples reads as anti-zionism to me. What am I to make of someone being "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years but all people can point to in anti-zionism? Jumping the shark and comparing Jewish leaders to Nazis is just in bad taste, and unnecessary. This I definitely agree on. I also was confused about that picture posted above. Is there a link between Illuminati and jews? I thought Illuminati was sprung from the catholic church but had a general anti-religious stance.
In general, "the all-seeing eye" refers to not illuminati specifically. It's attributed to all of these "them" groups. Illuminati, Stonemasons, such like. The roots are in religion, true - but that doesn't really mean anything, the Swastika has its roots in religion too.
It's obviously coined by conspiracy theorists, but it context of that picture, it should be pretty clear and i don't entirely understand what the question here is.
In other news, someone bring Mogg some water.
"EU Dictatorship" - "Veto all the things".
Coherence, not the strength of Brexiters.
edit: doubly funny considering that this burn comes from a country (or the "leader" thereof) in another union that doesn't have these powers, with their MPs being usually ignored.
|
On April 05 2019 19:24 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 18:02 Longshank wrote:On April 05 2019 17:43 Geo.Rion wrote:On April 05 2019 17:17 Longshank wrote:
It is indeed an important difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism and all your examples reads as anti-zionism to me. What am I to make of someone being "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years but all people can point to in anti-zionism? Jumping the shark and comparing Jewish leaders to Nazis is just in bad taste, and unnecessary. This I definitely agree on. I also was confused about that picture posted above. Is there a link between Illuminati and jews? I thought Illuminati was sprung from the catholic church but had a general anti-religious stance. In general, "the all-seeing eye" refers to not illuminati specifically. It's attributed to all of these "them" groups. Illuminati, Stonemasons, such like. The roots are in religion, true - but that doesn't really mean anything, the Swastika has its roots in religion too. It's obviously coined by conspiracy theorists, but it context of that picture, it should be pretty clear and i don't entirely understand what the question here is. In other news, someone bring Mogg some water. https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1114094310285246464"EU Dictatorship" - "Veto all the things". Coherence, not the strength of Brexiters. edit: doubly funny considering that this burn comes from a country (or the "leader" thereof) in another union that doesn't have these powers, with their MPs being usually ignored.
I don't think any of this is particularly funny.
It isn't the EU forcing any kind of extension on the UK. It's the UK parliament unable to agree on how to Brexit. And Mogg and his ERG are part of that problem. He is part of a small minority who want a hard Brexit. And by tweeting this shit is trying to "threaten" Europe into not allowing any further extension. Basically, a small minority is trying to torpedo any further negotiation in order to get what they want.
Not that he actually has the power to make good on these threats, but that doesn't make them "funny".
|
Regardless of all the other things about Corbyn, I don't think it's so strange to not immediately realize that picture is about jews. Depending on which conspiracy theorist you ask, the illuminati are either all jewish or not jewish at all, and my first association with 'illuminati' wouldn't be 'jews' either. Aside from that, what other indication is there that that picture is about jews? I guess big noses are a stereotype, but this is not something I noticed until I start looking for jewish stereotypes.
Other than that it's just old white men playing monopoly on the backs of the decrepit, which could easily be a critique on capitalism.
The wikipedia article on the illuminati also makes no mention of jews or anti-semitism as far as I can see.
|
Northern Ireland25533 Posts
Illuminati is just a word, weirdly not often one I encounter re Jews but I’ve seen every other variant of ‘shadowy group that secretly unaccountably rules the world.’ I don’t think it matters so much the origin or history of it, it’s just a byword for that and I don’t imagine a lot of people actually know that. My first experience was playing Deus Ex in the 90s as a kid and I had little knowledge of all that until way later.
I imagine anyone of our generation would absolutely immediately recognise the Jew link there if we’ve browse the political internet, they’re similar enough to the avatars of anti-Semitic lunatics on Facebook and YouTube I regularly encounter with ‘delightful’ names such as ‘Schlomo Shekelstein.’
There are reported rises in Anti-Semitic incidents in European countries these days, there’s a lot more of it I’m seeing online, and not just in weird crevasses here and there.
Most of it appears to come from the pipeline that funnels the ‘anti-SJW skeptic’ crowd towards legitimate far right areas. They don’t like ‘cultural Marxism’ (a conspiracy theory which is resurgent), they don’t like the EU (and believe the Kalergi Plan conspiracy theory) and they bloody hate George Soros. It doesn’t take much to push some of these people towards being anti-Semitic by stressing the Jewish link between these things (while of course omitting stuff to the contrary).
This isn’t to say such sentiment doesn’t exist on the left or to downplay that either, I think it is the wrong tree to be focusing the heft of your barking at.
|
Northern Ireland25533 Posts
On April 05 2019 16:57 m4ini wrote:
That's stupid. First of all, Corbyn absolutely describes himself as socialist. He praises Marx as "great economist" (and that Britain can learn from him). He's an avid admirer of Castro and Chavez. He jumped to defend and endorse McDonnell, selfproclaimed "unapologetic marxist". Not to mention that there's quite a bit more to him than "supporting taxation and reducing corporate welfare".
At the very least, there's no argument (not even by Corbyn) that he's a socialist. Not a social democrat, but socialist. If you look at the history (or current situation) of socialist run countries, you'll find that they're usually.. not really that great. Nor are they "fair" either, btw - just that usually the gap is way wider, and less people are rich and the rest shits on the streets. It's just an extremer outcome of what's happening here.
This is not even getting into his past, his blatant disregard for the truth on multiple documented occasions (most notably "stupid woman" and traingate), the blatant, unapologetic antisemitism. He's not a "left wing politician", he's extreme left of the spectrum. Did i mention that he absolutely wants to pull the UK out of NATO as well?
Nine Labour MPs (not newspapers, not "them", not the daily mail - members of the Labour party) left the party because it became constitutionally antisemitic. Not any newspapers, echo chambers, reddit or whatever. Actual MPs, having first hand experience, leaving.
Yes but unlike other potential left leaders around the world, Corbyn doesn’t have control of his party in the same way. His platform is watered down quite considerably, with the end result that Labour’s recent policy prescriptions are actually the kind of sensible, actually left wing sometimes things that many of its membership have been crying out for for quite some time now. As left-leaning as he is, the end result is a democratic socialist-esque platform.
I missed his NATO push, I’ll have to look that up. I am personally in favour of dismantling NATO and replacing it to reflect the post Cold War age, but not to leave unilaterally if Corbyn is suggesting that.
As for Labour MPs leaving, many are skeptical as to their motives there. The fragmentation of the party is obvious, Corbyn’s faced two attempts to remove him already and some of the MPs of the centre-left ‘Blairite’ wing have no advancement prospects. Resign citing those concerns and it’s a smokescreen for their real reasons. On the other hand they may also have personally been honest about their reasons, I have no particular reason to doubt that either.
If Labour has such a problem with anti-Semitism down to the member level, why is this only being noticed now? What has changed particularly? Did it all disappear all through the Blair and Brown years only to resurface with Corbyn? Was it always there but nobody really cared?
|
Jeremy Corbyn isn't anti-semitic, that's just a bunch of BS.
The Labour party has become infected with anti-semitism and he hasn't dealt with it very well. I have a feeling that some of his advisers are very anti semitic. However, to call him anti-semitic on the back of 2-3 comments over the course of his very long career is just moronic to be honest. If he really was racist against Jewish people, don't you think that would have expressed more clearly in the last 30 years than 'he once said the word zionist' or he once retweeted a racist cartoon?
To call his criticism of Israel anti semitic...
That's just being a puppet of Ayelet Shaked.
|
On April 05 2019 16:57 m4ini wrote:
Corbyn was a sponsor of the so called "Labour Movement campaign for Palestine", which declared its “opposition to the Zionist state as racist, exclusivist, expansionist and a direct agency of imperialism.” - he also compared contemporary policies of Israel to those of Nazi Germany occupying Poland.
Here's the speech this is referring to:
+ Show Spoiler +
What he actually said. "[..] the psychological damage to a whole generation who've been imprisoned for as long as the siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad took place""
He's not a master of analogies, I'll give you that. But once again, we are not discussing the same person. I'm talking about Corbyn the individual who has plenty of flaws and I do not support, you are talking about Corbyn the press monster who is always quoted as having said something 1000 times worse than what he did.
On April 05 2019 16:57 m4ini wrote:
And, of course, here's one that will be interesting to see you argue.
Nine Labour MPs (not newspapers, not "them", not the daily mail - members of the Labour party) left the party because it became constitutionally antisemitic. Not any newspapers, echo chambers, reddit or whatever. Actual MPs, having first hand experience, leaving.
That would indeed be interesting if any part of it were true or relevant to our discussion.
First of all, at no point did you or me argue about whether antisemitism exists in the rest of the Labour party, we were discussing your claim that Corbyn himself is an unapologetic antisemite. And even that was a massive detour because one doesn't have to be extreme left to be antisemitic.
The reason those MPs gave for leaving the party was Labour's position on Brexit and that they didn't do enough to tackle the "claims of antisemitism". They went on to form a staunchly pro-EU group, to say that they only left because of antisemitism is disingenuous at best. The misquote you gave was from one MP who said the Labour party is "institutionally racist". And hell, maybe it is, but I don't have the information or the inclination to argue anything on that subject.
On April 05 2019 16:57 m4ini wrote:Then there's the really funny shit, where he looked at this: + Show Spoiler +And allegedly "couldn't see at first that it was anti-semitic" when he was questioning the removal of it. It's literally jews with a fucking illuminati eye above them playing monopoly on the backs of people, and his argument is "that he didn't look at it properly". Here's the reality. If someone is "attacked" for antisemitism over the course of 20-30 years, you might want to check if there's something to it.
I don't know anything about this particular image, but given that even you put "allegedly" in there when you didn't for the other misquotes, is there any point discussing what someone said about what Corbyn might have said? It's Chinese whispers.
On April 05 2019 16:57 m4ini wrote:Let me get back to something though: "63% of labour voters voted to leave the UK". It's a non-sequitur at best, a deliberate red herring at worst. He is extreme left, and that's not open for debate since he made that clear himself. His platform doesn't mean jack shit (not to mention that he's deliberately vague about things if necessary anyway, see Brexit and people arguing that Labour/Corbyn is supposed to stop Brexit when indeed he wants it more than May).
What does that have to do with my question you quoted above? As for the 63% if he said that it is indeed wrong, that's actually the percentage of Labour constituencies that voted leave. Which is the issue that we've been talking about here in the past with FPTP. Even if the popular opinion has shifted about Brexit there still are and will be a majority of MPs that represent leave constituencies because those have lower populations.
And with that I am done, I'm not interested in becoming the Corbyn defender around here just for pointing out two preposterous claims about him.
|
On April 05 2019 23:30 Wombat_NI wrote:
Most of it appears to come from the pipeline that funnels the ‘anti-SJW skeptic’ crowd towards legitimate far right areas. They don’t like ‘cultural Marxism’ (a conspiracy theory which is resurgent), they don’t like the EU (and believe the Kalergi Plan conspiracy theory) and they bloody hate George Soros. It doesn’t take much to push some of these people towards being anti-Semitic by stressing the Jewish link between these things (while of course omitting stuff to the contrary).
This isn’t to say such sentiment doesn’t exist on the left or to downplay that either, I think it is the wrong tree to be focusing the heft of your barking at.
When Israel is enacting laws proclaiming Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people it is fair to ask questions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
The increase in anti semitic attacks in Europe correlates with the rise in Islamic immigration.The result is some European Jews choosing to return to Israel, proclaimed home of Jewish people.Thus strengthening the nation state of Israel.
It should be noted that every attempt in the past 70 years has been to strengthen the nation state of Israel and weaken the nation state of every western nation.So it’s hardly surprising that sections of both the left and right oppose that but every effort should be made to allow opposition to zionism.Clearly we aren’t heading in that direction.
|
Here's May saying what I've been telling you folks around here, that no deal is not an option. Without a deal passing the UK would only be left with the option of not leaving at all. No doubt the point of this video is to use the possibility of not leaving to scare the hardliners into voting for her deal, however that doesn't make it any less true.
Not only because of the economic effects of a no deal, but also because it would lead to and very likely help pass indyref2. And absolutely no one will want to be responsible for wrecking the union.
|
On April 08 2019 23:44 Dan HH wrote:https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1114891046025084931Here's May saying what I've been telling you folks around here, that no deal is not an option. Without a deal passing the UK would only be left with the option of not leaving at all. No doubt the point of this video is to use the possibility of not leaving to scare the hardliners into voting for her deal, however that doesn't make it any less true. Not only because of the economic effects of a no deal, but also because it would lead to and very likely help pass indyref2. And absolutely no one will want to be responsible for wrecking the union. Sure, no deal is not an option.
After all, we are only 4 days away from it happening.
Maybe there will be another extension in 2 days and then this circus gets to go on another X days/weeks/months without any end in sight. Or maybe 1 country in the EU says no and then there you are, 2 days until a no deal brexit praying to god that the motion to withdraw art 50 gets a majority because there is no time to do anything else.
The problem with 'No deal is not an option' is that it requires an act of Parliament, and that's been a tough ask considering the events since they got involved back in February with the first vote on May's deal.
|
At the monent though, the only way if no deal is averted is if parliament votes for an agreement that the EU can agree with, such as "May's deal" or article 50 is revoked, presumably by May, and is immediately accepted.
|
No-deal hasn't been an option since early mars when Cooper's amendment made sure it didn't happen by accident.
|
Well, parliament still needs to do stuff to avoid it from happening. You can say "We don't want no deal" all you want, but parliament needs to decide on a thing that they actually want. That "We don't want no deal" has a majority is not that important as I am quite sure that "We don't want May's deal" and "We don't want to withdraw Art. 50" would also both have majorities.
The british parliament has to actually get a majority to do something (that the EU would also agree to), else no deal happens. Nothing about this has changed.
|
Pretty sure the EU could make it a reality if one or more members says enough kicking the can down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9af77cac1659cba1b7838a02925839779aba6009/0_0_5120_3072/master/5120.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=81b91af028b5c353e516cb0ae80c9d33)
