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

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

Yes I read what you said the first time, I just have no idea what you're going on about or why anyone would care about the source of the term or the "connotations".

Without any question Corbyn is the most vilified, smeared, and attacked politician we have seen.. His treatment from the press echoes, but massively amplifies, the treatment given to Tony Benn (when he similiarly threatened to gain a position of Authority).  Anyone who cant see that is, simply, blind.

I can understand anybody disliking the guys politics, criticising his methods, attacking mistakes and so on, but an inability to see the huge media campaign that has been waged, both overtly and covertly (the use of language being one of these ) against him says more about the person who cant see it.

Most of the attacks are pretty straight out there, but the more insidous, and more damaging (as any Orwell reader knows only to well) are the subversions of language and the subliminal effect they have on peoples perceptions.

As one simple example."hard left"........(not even an accurate description of where he is on the political spectrum as meant in this context),  by definition it presupposes that there is a "soft" left (thereby implying cuddlier and nicer), a "centre" (implying moderation), and so on.  There isnt.  It entirely depends on the position of the beholder. To a socialist the current Government may be considered "extreme right wing", but to a Tory they could appear too "centreist" or even "liberal". The continued use of the term in relation to Corbyn is defining him as that (deliberately) in the publics eyes, regardless of whether he actually "is". This is deliberate, and sinister, and those who think it is non-existent or unharmful are, incredibly, often those who shout loudest about personal freedoms and individual choice.  If you want individuals to be able to act as such, you must surely want them to get the most unbiased, clear, unprejudicial, factual, reporting as humanly possible ? So describe facts, policies, positions, as exactly that, without the arbitary and subjective use of perjoative terms.

 

And thats just one example.

Edited November 26, 2015 by terrytini

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Mantis said:

You clearly recognise the differences between China under Mao and China now so what exactly was your point?

I don't know, but then again I didn't think McDonnell would be stupid enough to quote Mao either.

Of course the point was "mainstream" but there was no need to quote from one of history's biggest mass murderers - it totally ruined what was actually a very good point.

Is the point really that hard to discern? The point is: 'it's ridiculous that one week Tories are clapping their hands and barking like seals at the strategic brilliance of Osborne sucking up to the CCP, and then the next week pretending to be outraged at a politician reading from the Little Red Book, as a joke.' If you're truly incapable of experiencing any cognitive dissonance between those two ideas, then there's not a lot else to say. 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

...why anyone would care about the source of the term or the "connotations".

In a discussion where you've already spoken about a group of people being perceived as something to wonder why anyone would care about the connotations of terminology used seems rather perverse.

 

[Jon]

15 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Honestly this McConnell bloke is a total idiot

Christian?

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is the point really that hard to discern? The point is: 'it's ridiculous that one week Tories are clapping their hands and barking like seals at the strategic brilliance of Osborne sucking up to the CCP, and then the next week pretending to be outraged at a politician reading from the Little Red Book, as a joke.' If you're truly incapable of experiencing any cognitive dissonance between those two ideas, then there's not a lot else to say. 

without really wanting to join in this particular argument whilst  you can argue the China is still a state that oppresses it's people disregards human rights etc  there is a huge difference between the current Chinese regime and the murdering Mao responsible for estimates of around 65 million deaths

 I think anyone reading from Mao as a " joke " seriously needs their head examined ..he wouldn't read from Mein Kampf as a joke and perhaps given a DeLorean he wouldn't make the same blunder again

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

without really wanting to join in this particular argument whilst  you can argue the China is still a state that oppresses it's people disregards human rights etc  there is a huge difference between the current Chinese regime and the murdering Mao responsible for estimates of around 65 million deaths

 I think anyone reading from Mao as a " joke " seriously needs their head examined ..he wouldn't read from Mein Kampf as a joke and perhaps given a DeLorean he wouldn't make the same blunder again

I'm very well aware of that, thanks. 

For the avoidance of future doubt, I've spent two years of my adult life living and working in China. If you're working from an assumption that I have no idea of anything about the country, kindly reconsider it. 

[Mantis]

28 minutes ago, snowychap said:

In a discussion where you've already spoken about a group of people being perceived as something to wonder why anyone would care about the connotations of terminology used seems rather perverse.

There are no connotations - it's the same as saying Blairite, Brownite, Thatcherite etc.

37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is the point really that hard to discern? The point is: 'it's ridiculous that one week Tories are clapping their hands and barking like seals at the strategic brilliance of Osborne sucking up to the CCP, and then the next week pretending to be outraged at a politician reading from the Little Red Book, as a joke.' If you're truly incapable of experiencing any cognitive dissonance between those two ideas, then there's not a lot else to say. 

Tony pretty much hit the nail on the head. If you yourself can't see the difference between the brutality of the Chinese government under Mao and its much less extreme version today then there's not a lot else to say. If the Chinese government were still anywhere near as bad as they were under Mao then you'd actually have a point.

You clearly do recognise that there's a big difference though so I'm confused as to why you keep on trying to push this failed point.

39 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Without any question Corbyn is the most vilified, smeared, and attacked politician we have seen.. His treatment from the press echoes, but massively amplifies, the treatment given to Tony Benn (when he similiarly threatened to gain a position of Authority).  Anyone who cant see that is, simply, blind.

I can understand anybody disliking the guys politics, criticising his methods, attacking mistakes and so on, but an inability to see the huge media campaign that has been waged, both overtly and covertly (the use of language being one of these ) against him says more about the person who cant see it.

Most of the attacks are pretty straight out there, but the more insidous, and more damaging (as any Orwell reader knows only to well) are the subversions of language and the subliminal effect they have on peoples perceptions.

As one simple example."hard left"........(not even an accurate description of where he is on the political spectrum as meant in this context),  by definition it presupposes that there is a "soft" left (thereby implying cuddlier and nicer), a "centre" (implying moderation), and so on.  There isnt.  It entirely depends on the position of the beholder. To a socialist the current Government may be considered "extreme right wing", but to a Tory they could appear too "centreist" or even "liberal". The continued use of the term in relation to Corbyn is defining him as that (deliberately) in the publics eyes, regardless of whether he actually "is". This is deliberate, and sinister, and those who think it is non-existent or unharmful are, incredibly, often those who shout loudest about personal freedoms and individual choice.  If you want individuals to be able to act as such, you must surely want them to get the most unbiased, clear, unprejudicial, factual, reporting as humanly possible ? So describe facts, policies, positions, as exactly that, without the arbitary and subjective use of perjoative terms.

 

And thats just one example.

To be fair, most of the "smears" against Corbyn are merely his own quotes. The reason why there are so many "attacks" on him is because he's said so much stupid shit in the past (and present). While I accept that certain newspapers and the like have been attacking him quite heavily I don't think there's anything unusual about it - most major party leaders get a similar treatment. The only reason why Corbyn's getting it a bit worse is because of all the crazy stuff he's said and done. If someone like Philip Davies became Tory leader he'd be getting similar treatment although in fairness to Davies I don't think he's got the same kind of history with terrorists as Corbyn has.

Nope I'm sorry but I don't buy this conspiracy nonsense at all. Of course the political spectrum shifts depending on who you talk to but as far as British politics is concerned there is a left, right and centre and whether you like it or not Corbyn and his allies (as in McDonnell, Abbott, Seumas Milne etc) are indeed quite a way from the British centre much in the same way that Farage and the most extreme Tories are.

Of course you could argue that we should do away with the labels altogether but I doubt that'd make Corbyn anymore attractive to the electorate.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Mantis

[gordoncharles]

46 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Without any question Corbyn is the most vilified, smeared, and attacked politician we have seen..

If you mean by members of his own party, then yes, he is - though smeared? Please.  How do propose to differentiate between various shades of political opinion, should we stop using any labels?  -Will that apply to those Corbyn supporters who seem to have no problem calling opponents in their own party "red tories". 

None of the Labour supporting newspapers supported his candidacy either, the only newspaper that welcomed his appointment was the non-Labour Morning Star..

Anyway thanks for your analysis. I thought that I was capable of making my own mind up just like yourself, but now that I know I have been subverted over these many years by a malign press I can now be re-educated.

Edited November 26, 2015 by gordoncharles

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Mantis said:

To be fair, most of the "smears" against Corbyn are merely his own quotes. ...The only reason why Corbyn's getting it a bit worse is because of all the crazy stuff he's said and done. If someone like Philip Davies became Tory leader he'd be getting similar treatment although in fairness to Davies I don't think he's got the same kind of history with terrorists as Corbyn has.

...Of course the political spectrum shifts depending on who you talk to but as far as British politics is concerned there is a left, right and centre and whether you like it or not Corbyn and his allies (as in McDonnell, Abbott, Seumas Milne etc) are indeed quite a way from the British centre much in the same way that Farage and the most extreme Tories are.

I don't think that's right, really Mantis. It's not completely wrong, but...

The "smears" against Corbyn are not mostly from his own quotes - I can hardly think of any, frankly - and the ones I can are mostly stuff taken wildly out of context. There was the one where he said (about terrorism)  something like  the solution should be law, not war and that as far as Bin Laden's death goes, There was no attempt to arrest him or put him on trial,just to assassinate him, which was a tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy, because 9/11 was a tragedy, Afghanistan was a tragedy, Iraq was a tragedy and many people have died.." and this was portrayed as him being a Bin Laden sympathiser.

There was another one where he is supposed to have called Hezbollah or whoever it was "friends", again the context was completely changed. No one mentions all the dictators and human rights abusers and such like that have been invited by the Tories (and Labour previously) to see the Queen and makes anything like the same front page headlines about whoever was PM at the time being unfit for Govermnemt. It is hypocrisy and double standards and its done so because of proprietorial interest by the papers concerned.

Finally on the left and right and centre. Since Thatcher the whole political system has moved well to the right. Where Corbyn sits has stayed in the same place. He's left wing, yes. But he's not in much of what he proposes very left wing. it's just that everyone else has wandered further off to the right. Much of what he stands for is supported by much of the population (Some of what he stands for certainly isn't), and the British population isn't extreme or hard left. It's pretty middle of the road on most stuff.

[blandy]

14 hours ago, gordoncharles said:

I thought that I was capable of making my own mind up just like yourself, but now that I know I have been subverted over these many years by a malign press I can now be re-educated.

That's not what's been said or implied. The point made was that the papers (mostly) vilify and smear Corbyn. It's a common ploy amongst parties and press to just endlessly repeat stuff to try and get it accepted widely as true. It works, sadly. It doesn't mean everyone believes it, it means that maybe people who take little interest in politics thinking "they're all the same" just get a message fed into their heads that might, come ballot time, be like a little doubt in their mind "I would vote for him, but he's a grey man" "I would vote for her, but she's an insensitive, uncaring bitch" "I would vote for him, but he caused the Country to go broke" - all sides do it, but this with Corbyn is more co-ordinated, more sustained and more unbalanced than any previous stuff going back to Michael Foot and Tony Benn.

[Mantis]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think that's right, really Mantis. It's not completely wrong, but...

The "smears" against Corbyn are not mostly from his own quotes - I can hardly think of any, frankly - and the ones I can are mostly stuff taken wildly out of context. There was the one where he said (about terrorism)  something like  the solution should be law, not war and that as far as Bin Laden's death goes, There was no attempt to arrest him or put him on trial,just to assassinate him, which was a tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy, because 9/11 was a tragedy, Afghanistan was a tragedy, Iraq was a tragedy and many people have died.." and this was portrayed as him being a Bin Laden sympathiser.

There was another one where he is supposed to have called Hezbollah or whoever it was "friends", again the context was completely changed. No one mentions all the dictators and human rights abusers and such like that have been invited by the Tories (and Labour previously) to see the Queen and makes anything like the same front page headlines about whoever was PM at the time being unfit for Govermnemt. It is hypocrisy and double standards and its done so because of proprietorial interest by the papers concerned.

Finally on the left and right and centre. Since Thatcher the whole political system has moved well to the right. Where Corbyn sits has stayed in the same place. He's left wing, yes. But he's not in much of what he proposes very left wing. it's just that everyone else has wandered further off to the right. Much of what he stands for is supported by much of the population (Some of what he stands for certainly isn't), and the British population isn't extreme or hard left. It's pretty middle of the road on most stuff.

The funny thing about the Bin Laden quote is that it's arguably worse in context because he was basically saying that the death of Bin Laden was somehow a comparable tragedy to 9/11 when to most people the death of Bin Laden wasn't even a tragedy in the first place. I understand the arguments for a trial but even most of the people in favour of a trial at all costs wouldn't have called anything surrounding his death a "tragedy".

What does what this government or previous governments have done have to do with Corbyn's Hamas and Hezbollah quote? He called them friends and there's no getting around that. Of course he claims that he's all about "dialogue" and "peace" but it's always one side he talks with and never both.

Yes the centre ground has moved to the right but that was decades ago and people need to accept the reality as it is and not what it used to be or what they want it to be.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Mantis

[blandy]

14 hours ago, Mantis said:

What does what this government or previous governments have done have to do with Corbyn's Hamas and Hezbollah quote?

The point is a contrast and compare. Corbyn called some Terrorists "friends" in the context of a peace summit trying to get them to talk together to stop doing death. John Major talked to the IRA, Mo Mowlem talked to the IRA. Nicolai Ceaucescu was given a state visit to the UK. Saudi kings, Chinese Leaders - these people lop off heads at the rate of 800 a year for stuff like not believing in Islam and they lock away 100,000s of people for disagreeing with them. Bad people - they get the full state treatment as "friends". I think that's double standards in the way it's reported. I thought you'd see that too.

[Mantis]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

The point is a contrast and compare. Corbyn called some Terrorist friends in the context of a peace summit trying to get them to talk together to stop doing death. John Major talked to the IRA, Mo Mowlem talked to the IRA. Nicolai Ceaucescu was given a state visit to the UK. Saudi kings, Chinese Leaders - these people lop off heads at the rate of 800 a year for stuff like not believing in Islam and they lock away 100,000s of people for disagreeing with them. Bad people - they get the full state treatment as "friends". I think that's double standards in the way it's reported. I thought you'd see that too.

The difference between those is that with Corbyn there is absolutely no benefit to be had from associating with terrorists - at least you can argue that we have something to gain from being friendly with Saudi Arabia, China etc.

[HanoiVillan]

36 minutes ago, Mantis said:

There are no connotations - it's the same as saying Blairite, Brownite, Thatcherite etc.

Of course there are 'connotations' to the word 'Corbynista'. You, yourself, in this very quote, have provided three examples of recent British politicians who when turned into adjectives, had the suffix '-ite' added. You're not even slightly interested in why Corbyn received the suffix '-ista'? It's just random, like the weather? 

[tonyh29]

51 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm very well aware of that, thanks. 

For the avoidance of future doubt, I've spent two years of my adult life living and working in China. If you're working from an assumption that I have no idea of anything about the country, kindly reconsider it. 

no need to be so touchy  I was just joining in the debate and offering my opinion on the subject  , as we all do 

 

I don't need your C.V it's not a job interview

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Mantis said:

The difference between those is that with Corbyn there is absolutely no benefit to be had from associating with terrorists

Well why, in that case did William Hague and the EU talk to them? And the same is the case with Hamas - because the politicians to their credit want to try and stop the killing . Double standards

[terrytini]

22 minutes ago, gordoncharles said:

If you mean by members of his own party, then yes, he is - though smeared? Please.  How do propose to differentiate between various shades of political opinion, should we stop using any labels?  -Will that apply to those Corbyn supporters who seem to have no problem calling opponents in their own party "red tories". 

None of the Labour supporting newspapers supported his candidacy either, the only newspaper that welcomed his appointment was the non-Labour Morning Star..

Anyway thanks for your analysis. I thought that I was capable of making my own mind up just like yourself, but now that I know I have been subverted over these many years by a malign press I can now be re-educated.

Glad to have been of service.

You are indeed capable of making your own mind up, but if you think there is no attempt to subliminally manipulate the information you receive in order to affect the judgments you make you are, simply, wrong. And if you think you know there is and are therefore immune to it, you are, again, wrong.

As to your comments about Labour supporting newspapers, completely irrelevant to the point I was making, nothing to do with it all.  Im not talking about support, or how good or bad he is, or whether you or I agree with him.  As I said, I would think people who want freedom of individual choice would be ferverently on the lookout for any hint of unfair reporting, yet it seems you mayve missed it ?

If you like pop over to Bewdley and Ill sit with you in the Pub for two hours. I will talk non stop, and the ONLY thing I will do is show you examople after example after example.  If after that you still feel he has been treated properly and fairly, fair enough.

 

But you wont.

 

And as for Labour supporting newspapers........do you know of any other than the Mirror ?  Because thats the only one.

I wont apologise for the tone of my post. As I said in it, I have no issue with people hearing facts (full, and untainted by prejudicial wording) and then deciding for themselves.and presumably those who think his views are appalling would like this too, so that he is fully, yet fairly, exposed.

 

And Mantis, your point about the Bin Laden quote doesnt alter any of this. I am just as much against misquoting or half listening because of the point you made.....how can people form a view without unbiased and informative facts.

And I dont know what yo mean when you say the full quote in context is worse ? He was merely pointing out that it is ALL a tragedy, as in as a whole story, and that each different part of it is part of the tragedy. He is not saying Bin Ladens death is in itself tragic, but part of a tragedy. And by this he means the abondonmenyt of the rule of law, and failure to bring Bin Laden to trial, is , in his opinion, part of the tragedy because it lessens our own civility and morality and adherence to the rule of law, it may stoke further violence, and so on.

That doesnt mean he is right, it is just an opinion, and people are free to say they DONT feel it dilutes our moral authority, or it did not add to the issues, or that it was simply right to do it....all fair enough.

But there is a world of difference between that and the way it was, and still is, portrayed.

[terrytini]

28 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Yes the centre ground has moved to the right but that was decades ago and people need to accept the reality as it is and not what it used to be or what they want it to be.

Ah, well, theres those facts versus opinions again.

In the 1970 election about 11.5 million voted for Labour, and about the same Conservative.

Taking the most recent poll (with this apparently absoulte idiotic vote loser at the helm !!!) an election tomorrow would see the Tories with about a million more than that, and Labour with about 1.5 million less.

Not such a rightward shift as we would be led to beleive, well within the bounds of changes of fortune.

(Which, to depart from being objective for a momant, is PRECISELY why there is such a determined effort to undermine him...)

[snowychap]

58 minutes ago, Mantis said:

There are no connotations

That is utter tripe.

That is not to say that all of those who may use the term have the same intent when using it or that some may use it being blissfully unaware that words can have more than just the most simple and literal of meanings and some may use it lazily just 'cos so many others do.

Edited November 26, 2015 by snowychap

[terrytini]

Anyway Mantis et al, enjoyed the chat, nice to talk a bit of politics, gotta go.