Trains and Bricks.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Here you go, saves you the trouble of even reading the very first paragraph:

 

All people's are not equal. Some would like peace at their borders, while others wish to drive a nation into the sea.

History is bollocks. There is only the situation as it is today to be dealt with.

[feral chile]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

lies

I recognise she gets abuse, but I also recognise that those who tend to raise the issue of that abuse lump in fair comment as abuse.

Has Abbott been racist herself? Yep.
Has Abbott been one of the MPs to show the greatest hypocrisy? Yep.

These things get commented on an awful lot, and are fair comment and not abuse. They have also driven a dislike of her so that lots of people have a negative opinion of her.

I don't count apologist remarks or hypocrisy as racism itself.

For example, Joan Ryan.

What I am interested in is when the race is Jewish, the same type of comments are classed as vile, and there are calls to get that person suspended etc.

And when anti Corbyn mps are subjected to calls for deselecion, this is termed bullying.

I'm highly familiar with how codes of conduct can be utilised to further agendas.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

What I am interested in is when the race is Jewish, the same type of comments are classed as vile, and there are calls to get that person suspended etc.

when else do you hear people say that a country doesn't have a right to exist and a people don't have a right to self-determination?  

[feral chile]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

when else do you hear people say that a country doesn't have a right to exist and a people don't have a right to self-determination?  

Read this, it goes into great detail of the tensions and rhetoric on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the sovereignty denial of both towards the other.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/560291/

It could have been different. By the early 1990s, many Israelis were beginning to come to terms with the ruinous consequences of the occupation on their own society. The turning point occurred during the First Intifada, the five-year Palestinian uprising that began in 1987. I served then as a soldier in the Gaza refugee camps and, like many of my generation, concluded that we had to find another way. Many Israelis, including on the right, came to realize that ruling over another people was a long-term disaster for Israel. The teenagers confronting armed soldiers with rocks proved that Palestinians were no less willing to sacrifice for their sovereignty than we were.

This realization was a historic departure from the mainstream Israeli denial of the legitimacy of Palestinian national identity. “Palestine denial” was notoriously summed up by Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel, who in 1969 said that, under the British Mandate, Jews and not Arabs had been called Palestinians and that, in effect, there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. For Meir, Palestinian nationalism was merely a ruse invented by the Arab world to undermine Israel.

Palestine denial remains pervasive within the Israeli right. But there are also those Israelis who have long since come to terms with the right of the Palestinian people to self-definition—a prerequisite for achieving the right to self-determination.

The widespread Israeli awakening during the First Intifada led to the election of Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister in 1992, followed by the Oslo peace initiative, which was initially supported by a majority of Israelis. The premise of Oslo was a rejection of the old Israeli attitude conveyed by the Hebrew adage, Ein im mi l’daber—there’s no one to talk to, no partner for compromise.

But that hopeful moment vanished in 2000 with the Second Intifada, four years of suicide bombings that turned Israel into a nation of shut-ins, afraid to congregate in public places. No less traumatic than the terrorism was the fact that it followed Israeli overtures to end the occupation. We tried to make peace, many Israelis concluded, and in return suffered the worst wave of terrorism in our history. Whether or not one accepts that normative Israeli version of why Oslo failed, Israel today cannot be understood without grasping the impact of the Second Intifada. Many Israelis remain convinced that the Palestinian leadership’s rejection of peace in 2000 was an inevitable consequence of its rejection of Israel’s right to exist. The conviction that “there is no one to talk to” returned with full force.

Edited March 12, 2019 by feral chile

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Read this, it goes into great detail of the tensions and rhetoric on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the sovereignty denial of both towards the other.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/560291/

It could have been different. By the early 1990s, many Israelis were beginning to come to terms with the ruinous consequences of the occupation on their own society. The turning point occurred during the First Intifada, the five-year Palestinian uprising that began in 1987. I served then as a soldier in the Gaza refugee camps and, like many of my generation, concluded that we had to find another way. Many Israelis, including on the right, came to realize that ruling over another people was a long-term disaster for Israel. The teenagers confronting armed soldiers with rocks proved that Palestinians were no less willing to sacrifice for their sovereignty than we were.

This realization was a historic departure from the mainstream Israeli denial of the legitimacy of Palestinian national identity. “Palestine denial” was notoriously summed up by Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel, who in 1969 said that, under the British Mandate, Jews and not Arabs had been called Palestinians and that, in effect, there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. For Meir, Palestinian nationalism was merely a ruse invented by the Arab world to undermine Israel.

Palestine denial remains pervasive within the Israeli right. But there are also those Israelis who have long since come to terms with the right of the Palestinian people to self-definition—a prerequisite for achieving the right to self-determination.

The widespread Israeli awakening during the First Intifada led to the election of Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister in 1992, followed by the Oslo peace initiative, which was initially supported by a majority of Israelis. The premise of Oslo was a rejection of the old Israeli attitude conveyed by the Hebrew adage, Ein im mi l’daber—there’s no one to talk to, no partner for compromise.

But that hopeful moment vanished in 2000 with the Second Intifada, four years of suicide bombings that turned Israel into a nation of shut-ins, afraid to congregate in public places. No less traumatic than the terrorism was the fact that it followed Israeli overtures to end the occupation. We tried to make peace, many Israelis concluded, and in return suffered the worst wave of terrorism in our history. Whether or not one accepts that normative Israeli version of why Oslo failed, Israel today cannot be understood without grasping the impact of the Second Intifada. Many Israelis remain convinced that the Palestinian leadership’s rejection of peace in 2000 was an inevitable consequence of its rejection of Israel’s right to exist. The conviction that “there is no one to talk to” returned with full force.

Incidentally, I suspect this is the 'English irony' context.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

Read this, it goes into great detail of the tensions and rhetoric on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the sovereignty denial of both towards the other.

Israel (in-theory) accepts a sovereign Palestinian state. Hamas does not accept a sovereign Israeli state.

There's no getting away from that.

Until that changes there's not going to be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Cos no one is going to pressure Israel to make concessions with an organisation dedicated to its destruction.  

[feral chile]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Israel (in-theory) accepts a sovereign Palestinian state. Hamas does not accept a sovereign Israeli state.

There's no getting away from that.

Until that changes there's not going to be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Cos no one is going to pressure Israel to make concessions with an organisation dedicated to its destruction.  

In the meantime, people are being killed, careers are being ruined, and Labour is destroying itself.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

In the meantime, people are being killed, careers are being ruined, and Labour is destroying itself.

Yep. 

And Labour is destroying itself by backing a practical impossibility instead of taking note of reality.

It's that 'ideology over all sense' thing that's so loved by those leftists who love to be proclaim themselves right but hate the thought of holding power.  

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep. 

And Labour is destroying itself by backing a practical impossibility instead of taking note of reality.

It's that 'ideology over all sense' thing that's so loved by those leftists who love to be proclaim themselves right but hate the thought of holding power.  

My view is regardless of the rights and wrongs over some of these issues, now is not the time to be escalating it.

Even if some of the accusations of there being a hard left witch hunt are true, all the more reason not to provide ammo.

Get rid of clear cut AS, including ones hiding between anti Israel politics, and instruct members not to throw accusations around.

But be careful not to count all anti Israel statements as AS.

One of the problems is activists generally use emotive language, their whole point is to politicise the masses. So hyperbole all the way with them.

I haven't seen any anti Jewish abuse personally, seen plenty of anti immigrant abuse online.

I can imagine how easy it is for some people to overstep.

If you have people saying, all benefit claimants are scroungers, immigrants steal our jobs, etc., why should the hard left, who are anti austerity and often anti establishment, not attract some who tend to generalise?

And also vice versa.

'Meat is murder'

'Take back control'

'Stealing our jobs'

'Funded by Israel'

'Blair is a war criminal'

'Abbott is xyz'

'Corbyn will steal your hard earned money'

'Labour is incompetent'

'Corbynites are AS'.

'Tories are evil'

etc. etc.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

now is not the time to be escalating it.

but it's part of Jez's DNA and comes attached to him.

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

all the more reason not to provide ammo.

needs aiming at resistant-Jez, who keeps saying he'll deal with it but doesn't.

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Get rid of clear cut AS, including ones hiding between anti Israel politics,

so sack Jez, then.

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but it's part of Jez's DNA and comes attached to him.

needs aiming at resistant-Jez, who keeps saying he'll deal with it but doesn't.

so sack Jez, then.

 

Well clearly the anti Corbyn politicians feel that.

I personally don't know the subtleties or otherwise of his pro Palestine stance.

And I'm like most people in the UK, far more interested in other issues.

They do love their minority causes,which isn't necessarily bad, since giving a voice to the voiceless is a good thing when you claim to value social justice.

Both sides are now obsessed with this. I hope now that the EHRC is involved, they can get on with being the opposition.

Case in point, Abbott and the Shamima Begum's baby tragedy.

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Well clearly the anti Corbyn politicians feel that.

I personally don't know the subtleties or otherwise of his pro Palestine stance.

then htf can you have anything sensible to say on the subject...?

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

then htf can you have anything sensible to say on the subject...?

Precisely because I'm looking objectively at the particular cases in question.

And because I've never met the guy, and can't read his mind.

Those who have met him are vehemently convinced one way or the other.

So all you can do is look at each case.

And they all have that little bit of misrepresentation about them.

There was one video I saw, not from the UK, which looked very much as if he was suggesting an Israel plot and at least in that video, didn't mention evidence.

I won't defend that one.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Precisely because I'm looking objectively at the particular cases in question.

how can you be looking at it objectively when you refuse to look at part of the evidence?  

 

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And because I've never met the guy, and can't read his mind.

but you can judge his words and actions, exactly as you're judging the words and actions of others.

So why do you refuse to subject him to the same scrutiny?

 

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

So all you can do is look at each case.

Not true. The individual cases are happening within a bigger context.

11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

There was one video I saw, not from the UK, which looked very much as if he was suggesting an Israel plot and at least in that video, didn't mention evidence.

I won't defend that one.

someone accused of AS is buying into and repeating conspiracy theories about Israel? Who'd have thought it.  

(he didn't have the imagination to think Russia might be behind something dodgy tho. How odd!)

[feral chile]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

how can you be looking at it objectively when you refuse to look at part of the evidence?  

 

but you can judge his words and actions, exactly as you're judging the words and actions of others.

So why do you refuse to subject him to the same scrutiny?

 

Not true. The individual cases are happening within a bigger context.

someone accused of AS is buying into and repeating conspiracy theories about Israel? Who'd have thought it.  

(he didn't have the imagination to think Russia might be behind something dodgy tho. How odd!)

That video definitely makes me think he could be prone to seeing things in black and white.

But so do a lot of kneejerk AS accusations.

Definitely the English irony one, as that has layers and layers of ignored context - a quote from a speech, referring to a specific point in the speech. You might feel that the Palestinian was being AS, and Corbyn defending him.

I'd have more trouble with that one, because it's more of a grey area.

But the English irony one is much more complicated than you seem to realise.

Whuch is why I get triggered when you think I haven't understood the obvious kneejerk, mindless assumption based on the reference to English.

Come on, I'm Welsh and brought up on the notion that the Welsh are othered by the English! It was the informal curriculum in school in the 70s! Do you really think I wouldn't get that one?

Just as now I'm an adult I look into the whole issues around that, so am I doing the same here.

I can see both sides.

And the implications for Jewish people outside these political arguments.

Even if this started out as a moral panic, remember the media forecasts of gang warfare in seaside resorts, and the self fulfilling prophesy that occurred as a result of it?

It was like organising a rave.

[feral chile]

43 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

how can you be looking at it objectively when you refuse to look at part of the evidence?  

 

but you can judge his words and actions, exactly as you're judging the words and actions of others.

So why do you refuse to subject him to the same scrutiny?

 

Not true. The individual cases are happening within a bigger context.

someone accused of AS is buying into and repeating conspiracy theories about Israel? Who'd have thought it.  

(he didn't have the imagination to think Russia might be behind something dodgy tho. How odd!)

Yep, so try and convict him on solid evidence.

All I'm saying.

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Definitely the English irony one, as that has layers and layers of ignored context

including by you, when you refuse to see Corbyn throwing doubt onto the Englishness of English Jews, as per the common trope.

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, feral chile said:

But the English irony one is much more complicated than you seem to realise.

says the person taking the simplistic view. :lol: 

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I can see both sides.

so you can see Jez othering those Jews after all?

Cos just now you were denying it.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

including by you, when you refuse to see Corbyn throwing doubt onto the Englishness of English Jews, as per the common trope.

The simple lazy assumption.

How do you know they're English Jews?

[feral chile]

Just now, eFestivals said:

so you can see Jez othering those Jews after all?

Cos just now you were denying it.

I can see the potential for it.

But the examples that claim to show it are taken out of context, and that context is ambiguous.

Pick better examples, because people who jump to conclusions that 'English irony' others English/British people in general, are generalising from the political context.

Think about it.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The simple lazy assumption.

How do you know they're English Jews?

Even Corbyn knew they were English Jews!! (it's one of the facts that came out, he's encountered them previously).

So not a lazy assumption at all. He could have said they didn't get irony without need to throw doubt* on their place of birth. 
(* he didn't simply refer to them as English, he threw doubt onto what he knew to be the case).

Fuck's sake. Been round this before, not nothing goes in.  

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I can see the potential for it.

There's no potential.  

It's there, whether done deliberately or not.

 

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

But the examples that claim to show it are taken out of context, and that context is ambiguous.

You can disagree about what Jez was getting at. 

If you disagree with the fact that what he did was classic othering (whether meant or not), then you don't get what othering is.

He didn't just throw doubt on their ability to understand, he also threw doubt on their place of birth and so also their loyalties.

 

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Pick better examples,

it's a clear example.

If you can't see it you don't get it.

 

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

because people who jump to conclusions that 'English irony' others English/British people in general, are generalising from the political context.

Think about it.

Why not try some of your own advice??

Why did Corbyn need to question their place of birth (which he knew anyway)?

The inference of their Englishness is there by default, because it was said in England by an Englishman making a comparison with a non-Englishman. He didn't need to say anything about where they were born, let alone question it.

You're right that it was a snide comment, as it was said in defence of the Palestinian who'd just deliberately misrepresented the Israeli side of the argument "ironically", which they'd complained about.

(both sides are w*nkers, but you're trying to claim Jez is pure  )

 

 

[feral chile]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Even Corbyn knew they were English Jews!! (it's one of the facts that came out, he's encountered them previously).

So not a lazy assumption at all. He could have said they didn't get irony without need to throw doubt* on their place of birth. 
(* he didn't simply refer to them as English, he threw doubt onto what he knew to be the case).

Fuck's sake. Been round this before, not nothing goes in.  

Yeah Richard Millett

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's no potential.  

It's there, whether done deliberately or not.

 

You can disagree about what Jez was getting at. 

If you disagree with the fact that what he did was classic othering (whether meant or not), then you don't get what othering is.

He didn't just throw doubt on their ability to understand, he also threw doubt on their place of birth and so also their loyalties.

 

it's a clear example.

If you can't see it you don't get it.

 

Why not try some of your own advice??

Why did Corbyn need to question their place of birth (which he knew anyway)?

The inference of their Englishness is there by default, because it was said in England by an Englishman making a comparison with a non-Englishman. He didn't need to say anything about where they were born, let alone question it.

You're right that it was a snide comment, as it was said in defence of the Palestinian who'd just deliberately misrepresented the Israeli side of the argument "ironically", which they'd complained about.

(both sides are w*nkers, but you're trying to claim Jez is pure  )

 

 

I'm not making any claims about anything except the arrogance by some on here that they are absolutely right and it's obvious that they're infallible.

Below is a debate including the full unedited speech, and still people see what they want.