The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

224 of the recorded 1805 attacks came from within Labour. You can give me all sort of defense speeches about the stats being rigged and whatnot, however the stats aren't recorded by Hodge or Corbyn dissidents - they are recorded by the Community Security Trust...

The CST's own pdf (available via a link on their publications page) on these statistics says the following (top of page 5):

Quote

In 224 of the 1,805 cases of antisemitism reported to CST in 2019,the offender or offenders, and the abuse they expressed, were related to the Labour Party, or the incidents occurred in the context of arguments about alleged Labour Party antisemitism.

and then on page 12:

Quote

Overall, CST recorded 224 antisemitic incidents in 2019 that were examples of, or related to, alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party or that involved professed supporters of the party, compared to 148 such incidents in 2018.

...

Finally, an incident is considered Labour Party-related for these purposes if antisemitic views are expressed in a way that appears to be motivated by arguments over alleged antisemitism in Labour: for example, if antisemitic abuse is directed at a former Labour politician after they have left the party.

They also go on to make an excellent point on page 13:

Quote

...an atmosphere of heightened public discussion of antisemitism, racism, hate crime and related issues can excite activity amongst those people who are already predisposed to carry out hate crimes, while also causing heightened concern about antisemitism amongst potential victims and witnesses of hate incidents (which can lead to higher levels of reporting).

The point is not to downplay the incidents themselves, each should be looked at on its own (de)merits and we should look aghast at all cases of anti-semetism, but to actually report what the trust themselves say rather than amend the language slightly in order to put a different bent on it.

[HanoiVillan]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

Then there’s the list of all the times he wasn’t being anti Semitic and was helpful to Jewish people.

M’lud, my client, Officer White, can’t be guilty of murdering the suspect because here’s a list of times he didn’t kill anyone and actually did his job as a Police..

Seems pretty richly ironic to complain about people considering a balanced moral accounting of this public figure's long record of 'things they've done, good and bad' on the one hand, and then also to complain about people's opinions being 'predetermined [and] locked in' on the other.

[blandy]

54 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Seems pretty richly ironic to complain about people considering a balanced moral accounting of this public figure's long record of 'things they've done, good and bad' on the one hand, and then also to complain about people's opinions being 'predetermined [and] locked in' on the other.

It might be if I was doing that - but my point was that people use a record ONLY of good things to dismiss accusations of other, bad things.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

The CST's own pdf (available via a link on their publications page) on these statistics says the following (top of page 5):

and then on page 12:

They also go on to make an excellent point on page 13:

The point is not to downplay the incidents themselves, each should be looked at on its own (de)merits and we should look aghast at all cases of anti-semetism, but to actually report what the trust themselves say rather than amend the language slightly in order to put a different bent on it.

The point, Snowy, is that a lot of people give JC a 'blank cheque' to act in a way that is so far in the grey zone that it is clear to people who aren't so supportive of him that they've gone blind. It's a sort of bunker mentality that leaves nothing but conflict, obfuscation and at time ridiculous excuses for really bad behaviour on a lot of prominent Labour left characters behalves. 

You know that by the time the EHRC comes out with their report most people who are pro Corbyn have already made their minds up about the commission not being able to produce a report that in any way shape or form can direct critisism at Labour because of Corbyn's 'brilliant' past at fighting racism and the fact that the commission is bound to be bought (preferrably by Israel), partial (one lawyer questioned it!!), or go back to their usual 'it's all made up my lord, you've never done anything wrong'.

Corbyn to this day keeps banging on about how he's been mistreated and tries to still fight this process, if he has nothing to hide or be ashamed of he should let them get on with their job. The fact that JC's supporters have set up a gofundme page and donate with nicknames like "Hitler" and so on is another example of something JC should have been quick to dismiss and distance himself from. Instead he's doing his usual silent treatment as he doesn't want to scare away his base.

 

 

[darrenm]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

It might be if I was doing that - but my point was that people use a record ONLY of good things to dismiss accusations of other, bad things.

Have you got an example of anyone doing this?

[darrenm]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The fact that JC's supporters have set up a gofundme page and donate with nicknames like "Hitler"

How are you able to tell that people using nicknames like "Hitler" on the GoFundMe are supporters of JC and not miscreants trying to cause trouble? I'm not sure you can call that a "fact"

[magnkarl]

Just now, darrenm said:

How are you able to tell that people using nicknames like "Hitler" on the GoFundMe are supporters of JC and not miscreants trying to cause trouble? I'm not sure you can call that a "fact"

That isn't the point. The point is that JC should have distanced himself from this as soon as this was reported. He hasn't, and he won't. It's not his style. 

[blandy]

And further to the above, your comment kind of outlines something (maybe) important. If the measure of judgement uses a list of things, and that list contains  mostly, or nearly all good things, but with one or two bad things, then it might be reasonable to deduce that the person being judged is "good", but occasionally flawed. On the other hand, the greater the number of "bad" things, then the judgement might reasonably turn towards a more negative appraisal of the character, or at least one aspect of the character of the individual. And that really is where my personal view is at. I think the list of "bad" things for Corbyn in regard of AS is more than sufficient to flag up a character flaw of blindness to some anti-semitism.

But it's not one dimensional (for me, at least). It seems like he is someone who holds a particular (to me outdated) worldview whereby in essence there are immutable "enemies" and then there are the opponents of these enemies. So he kind of takes sides on the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle. His enemies seem to be the USA, Israel, maybe the UK (or aspects of the UK). A kind of perceived (and it may well be real) Capitalist, imperialist machine. And the opponents of that machine are or have been Russia, Iran, Palestine and so on.

So that leads to a tendency to overlook, discount or lend support to those "friends" which is uncritical on occasions when it really shouldn't be. And that is what leads him to his blind spot about (in this case) AS. It's kind of a perception of a greater interest. If it's a higher interest that Palestine gets justice, then some Hezbollah numpty being anti-Semitic gets overlooked because of more importance is the oppression of the Palestinians. It's this kind of thing that leads to him having made so many genuine mistakes around AS. Not "nasty, underhand and wrong" accusations, but genuine examples. And maybe it's why people feel they're "not real" - because there's a "more important" issue involved - the Palestinian's right to have decent, safe lives.

And when you look at it in that way, of course Palestinian children not being shot by Israeli troops genuinely is way more "important" than a numpty being Anti-semitic. But..

But you can hold that neither the oppression of Palestinians, nor the spreading of antisemitism is acceptable. And  if you do hold that view, then calling out genuine "mistakes" or flaws, or a pattern of them ought not to be dismissed as "nasty, underhand and wrong" to use the phrase from Chindie's post..

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

It's not his style. 

I think that's correct. It's always seemed to be his style that he doesn't justify things he considers nonsense or has disdain for with a response.

With anything anonymous online, you have to be very careful not to amplify things. If I was in a situation where my supporters had raised £300k for a potential legal defence, I wouldn't be going out of my way to make a big thing about a few idiots using stupid monikers lest it 1. give other idiots ideas, or 2. serve the purpose the idiots intended.

That would seem to be a fairly standard approach to these kind of situations. Obviously if you were asked, you'd call out the idiots. But to my knowledge he hasn't been asked because most people recognise the above.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

I think that's correct. It's always seemed to be his style that he doesn't justify things he considers nonsense or has disdain for with a response.

With anything anonymous online, you have to be very careful not to amplify things. If I was in a situation where my supporters had raised £300k for a potential legal defence, I wouldn't be going out of my way to make a big thing about a few idiots using stupid monikers lest it 1. give other idiots ideas, or 2. serve the purpose the idiots intended.

That would seem to be a fairly standard approach to these kind of situations. Obviously if you were asked, you'd call out the idiots. But to my knowledge he hasn't been asked because most people recognise the above.

You mean like this?

[HanoiVillan]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

It might be if I was doing that - but my point was that people use a record ONLY of good things to dismiss accusations of other, bad things.

In other words, people are balancing the bad with the good. Which is what I was saying.

Look, everyone is entitled to their own moral conclusions. If you have looked at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that he is an antisemite, that is your decision and you're entitled to it. What you can't do is come to a firm conclusion and then complain that other people's opinions are 'predetermined [and] locked in'. If your retort to this is that you *haven't* come to a firm conclusion, then I don't understand why you wrote a paragraph in the middle of your post comparing people giving instances of Corbyn's support of Jewish communities with someone defending a murderer for times they weren't murdering someone. Comparing Corbyn to a murderer (and racism is obviously not the same as murder, not that I should need to point this out) is not the language of somebody who has not reached a firm moral conclusion one way or the other. If the question 'is he an antisemite' is undecided for you, then it makes no sense to complain about being provided with extra evidence to help form your opinion.

[darrenm]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think the list of "bad" things for Corbyn in regard of AS is more than sufficient to flag up a character flaw of blindness to some anti-semitism

Like what? Actual specifics please, not rhetoric.

(unsurprisingly) I've read a lot about all of this and in my view is he's been directly antisemitic once. Part of coming to that conclusion is speaking to a good many Jewish people online and being involved in Labour groups attempting to get other Labour members to recognise antisemitism and to recognise it and call it out.

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The fact that JC's supporters have set up a gofundme page and donate with nicknames like "Hitler" and so on is another example of something JC should have been quick to dismiss and distance himself from. Instead he's doing his usual silent treatment as he doesn't want to scare away his base.

This is incredibly weaksauce.

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You mean like this?

No, not like that. That was a big mistake. There are no real excuses for not directly apologising (again) there.

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The point, Snowy, is...

No. The point, magnkarl, of my post was nothing to do with 'JC' but to do with inaccurate referencing.

I'm not at all surprised that your response has ignored the point I made and the actual referencing I made in my post to the CST's own work and has pivoted to make another 'point'.

Edited August 26, 2020 by snowychap

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Have you got an example of anyone doing this?

Er, yes. You linked to one yesterday.

Quote

Thread: Here is a comprehensive fact pack on the 50 occasions over the last 42 years that Jeremy Corbyn pro-actively took a lead to defeat Antisemitism. Help the truth be heard.

 

[magnkarl]

9 minutes ago, darrenm said:

No, not like that. That was a big mistake. There are no real excuses for not directly apologising (again) there.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that JC has had ample opportunity - even in the last period with this donation thing - to distance himself from idiotic views. Instead he's silent. Whoever does JC's PR is an absolute idiot for not telling him to take every opportunity to crush out some of the critisism of his inaction. Instead of being active against his accusations he's doing his usual nothing when there's great chances of showing that he's actively fighting AS rather than regurgitating that his mother was on cable street.

Edited August 26, 2020 by magnkarl

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Er, yes. You linked to one yesterday.

 

No, you said

"ONLY of good things to dismiss accusations of other, bad things."

During the same discussion yesterday I said this:

"In 2012, Corbyn said a terrorist attack had 'the hand of Israel' involved. That was antisemitic."

 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I think that's correct. It's always seemed to be his style that he doesn't justify things he considers nonsense or has disdain for with a response.

Definitely. It's a good way to avoid an issue. If you take another politician as a hypothetical example

"Boris Johnson - you won't say how many children you have fathered or take responsibility for your actions, so why should we trust you to deal with Ministers and advisors who break the rules"?

"I'm not going to dignify that personal attack with a response"

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

No, you said

"ONLY of good things to dismiss accusations of other, bad things."

During the same discussion yesterday I said this:

"In 2012, Corbyn said a terrorist attack had 'the hand of Israel' involved. That was antisemitic."

Yes you did. It was the list you posted from Tory Fibs - as I said - you linked to an example. I'm not saying you wrote it or did it. It is a list ONLY of good things written by Tory fibs. There are loads of similar ones out there, all with the same argument