Racism Part two

[blandy]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

But at the end of the day, she’s a tv celebrity, so she should get that as a caveat on anything she says or does. 

Indeed. She's evidently a lot brighter than a lot of the people who have "waded in to an issue claiming the moral high ground ", but still...

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

It's not really a surprise she's gotten a hammering over it. People don't like that kinda thing. 

It's interesting, the reaction she gets. I looked at her twitter feed earlier. Shan't be rushing back there in a hurry.  What I find interesting is the nature of Corbynism and supporters of it. There's something fairly unique in the responses. There's the usual low rent sexism and abuse, which sadly occurs everywhere and around any subject/person. But there is this kind of uber-defensive, rally to the cause, piling on from people who appear to be devoutly following JC (clicking through to their own feeds) and are completely unaccepting of even the slightest of perceived insults.  It's very bunker mentality, very tribal. Very...intolerant, which is ironic.

It happens of course with football, and fans defending their team, but it's rarer in other areas of life. I mainly follow nature and cricket stuff and there's happily almost never any of that kind of pile on nastiness on those subjects, even though people are just as passionate about wildlife or the England Cricket team..or etc.

The Riley twitter is just a way to find a load of people to block. Perhaps people who campaign against racism and such like will always attract a lot of absolute weapons amongst those who are more reasoned in disagreeing with particular things.

[Chindie]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's interesting, the reaction she gets. I looked at her twitter feed earlier. Shan't be rushing back there in a hurry.  What I find interesting is the nature of Corbynism and supporters of it. There's something fairly unique in the responses. There's the usual low rent sexism and abuse, which sadly occurs everywhere and around any subject/person. But there is this kind of uber-defensive, rally to the cause, piling on from people who appear to be devoutly following JC (clicking through to their own feeds) and are completely unaccepting of even the slightest of perceived insults.  It's very bunker mentality, very tribal. Very...intolerant, which is ironic.

It happens of course with football, and fans defending their team, but it's rarer in other areas of life. I mainly follow nature and cricket stuff and there's happily almost never any of that kind of pile on nastiness on those subjects, even though people are just as passionate about wildlife or the England Cricket team..or etc.

The Riley twitter is just a way to find a load of people to block. Perhaps people who campaign against racism and such like will always attract a lot of absolute weapons amongst those who are more reasoned in disagreeing with particular things.

It's not interesting at all.

She became a vociferous spokesperson for the anti-Semitism smears. Unsurprisingly she also became the frontline in the response.

As for that response... It's not at all surprising that those that supported a figure who represented a sea change in the politics of the country, which then got completely unprecedented attacks from across the media spectrum on all fronts, develop a bunker mentality. And brilliantly they turn get attacked for that as well to create a nasty feedback loop.

This mentality doesn't really happen in the fields you mention because, well... There's not really all out hostility to those supportive of the England cricket team or 'nature', and neither of those really have the stakes that potentially leading a movement in change of the way politics works in this country had.

The implication beneath these comments is a bit grim as well.

[blandy]

33 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The implication beneath these comments is a bit grim as well.

what implication?  That it’s necessary to block people who are abusive and worse on Twitter? Then yes, I agree. Twitter should bin them off itself. A lot of people would then have less mental health concerns. It’s got to be horrible having loads of people just abusing you in your Twitter feed, whoever you are. Or did you mean something else?

[Chindie]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

what implication?  That it’s necessary to block people who are abusive and worse on Twitter? Then yes, I agree. Twitter should bin them off itself. A lot of people would then have less mental health concerns. It’s got to be horrible having loads of people just abusing you in your Twitter feed, whoever you are. Or did you mean something else?

Your final sentence can easily be read as you suggesting that Corbyn and his followers are uniquely placed to have 'absolute weapons' in their midst, suggesting there's an inherent 'issue' with this movement.

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Your final sentence can easily be read as you suggesting that Corbyn and his followers are uniquely placed to have 'absolute weapons' in their midst, suggesting there's an inherent 'issue' with this movement.

Ah I see. Ta. No that’s not what I was meaning. I meant RR attracts what seem like a large number of weapons replying to her anti anti-semitism stuff with abuse.

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

Ah I see. Ta. No that’s not what I was meaning. I meant RR attracts what seem like a large number of weapons replying to her anti anti-semitism stuff with abuse.

So you're saying they are anti anti-anti-semites?

Edited July 26, 2020 by ml1dch

[KenjiOgiwara]

Why do you always hear talk of Corbyn and antisemitism? Does he have a history of saying something I'm unaware of? 

[Chindie]

58 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Why do you always hear talk of Corbyn and antisemitism? Does he have a history of saying something I'm unaware of? 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Why do you always hear talk of Corbyn and antisemitism? Does he have a history of saying something I'm unaware of? 

I'll try to answer this on my phone.

He's had a history of supporting the Palestinians against Israeli rule. 

The Palestinians had the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah terrorist groups in the same way that Ireland had the IRA in retaliation to what they consider to be foreign rule.

In these Palestinian support groups you do get antisemites cropping up. Corbyn was in a Facebook group where someone posted some anti-Semitic stuff once until an admin deleted it. 

He liked a Facebook post which was a photo of a mural which contained an antisemitic trope of depicting Jewish people in a similar way to how JK Rowling does with Harry Potter.

He was being shown around a Palestinian graveyard where a plaque honouring some black September terrorists who killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics was. The bodies were actually in another country but Corbyn was photographed holding a wreath near to the plaque which also honoured 100 kids who were killed by an Israeli bombing of a bus and which he said he was there for. There was no mention of what the Tory peer Lord Sheikh was there for.

Finally, Corbyn is friends with a few Jewish people who are considered antisemites by some of the Jewish community or have been expelled from Labour such as holocaust survivors and descendants of holocaust survivors e.g. Hajo Mejer who are very critical of the Israeli government or are anti Zionists because they don't believe Jewish people have a right to claim Israel as their own and displace the Palestinian people. This for example drew heavy criticism because someone who survived the Holocaust compared Israeli to the Nazis and Corbyn was there https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-sorry-for-sharing-conference-platform-with-anti-zionist-speaker-11455926

His major crime seems to be that he mixes with left wing Jewish groups rather than right wing. He got heavily criticised for attending Seder with the Jewdas group who Andrew Neil called "nutters" which was definitely not antisemitic.

[KenjiOgiwara]

So it sounds like the classic story where being anti israel is flipped to mean antisemite. Beyond stupid. 

[darrenm]

Oh sorry I forgot the English irony cast iron proof of antisemitism.

Corbyn was hosting the Palestinian ambassador to Britain, Manuel Hassassian and they were at a meeting. A couple of people usually go to all Palestinian meetings and videotape them and cause trouble. Police have been involved a few times. When Corbyn said that the 2 guys, Hoffman and Millett, didn't understand English irony like Manuel Hassassian did, apparently it was antisemitic somehow.

As a general, very simplified answer to all of the above, there's a left and a right in Jewish groups as in anywhere else. That tends to also split into Zionist and anti-Zionist. The right voices seemingly are listened to and the left aren't.

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Why do you always hear talk of Corbyn and antisemitism? Does he have a history of saying something I'm unaware of? 

There's not really a short answer. 

Preface - I'm not Corby's biggest fan, and felt he was a bit too much of the student union politician, and didn't have the personality/guile to be successful. I didn't vote for his Labour party. But I'm also not wilfully hate blind when it comes to him.

So... Corbyn and antisemitism.

Corbyn isn't a fan of Israel. He's been a long time and vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause. This has meant that he has over the years praised, shared platforms with, etc etc, various groups and people that would be regarded as anti Israel, to being openly anti-Semitic. Which isn't a good look for a politician, although there's never been any actual suggestion that he himself is anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, but he's been damned by the people he's associated with.

In turn a lot of Corbyn's support also shares that anti-Zionist viewpoint, and unfortunately there's a fine line between critical of Israel and critical of Jewish people. And people all too often fall into the trap of being anti-Semitic because they aren't aware of the subtleties, or because they are actual anti-Semites. And all the extents in between.

But then the story gets complicated.

Corbyn wasn't a popular choice for leader by the party's powers that be. He became leader almost as a joke - he gained the nominations to get the ballot pretty much as a sop to the left of the Labour party with nobody thinking he'd win. And then he did. After that the party basically went into open civil war with right of the party, the dominant wing for a generation, actively working to undermine leadership in various ways - briefing against him, actively trying to oust him, media whispers about how shit the leadership was, to absurdities like he was Communist spy asset in the 80s and had been a coffin bearer at an IRA funeral etc etc. The media was (and is) incredibly hostile to him - he was genuinely portrayed as a traitor, a national threat, etc etc. He managed to survive all this but still faced a uniquely hostile media and still faced being undermined by various party powers. Even an unexpectedly good election campaign in 2017, where Labour had been expected to be steamrollered actually came within spitting distance of majority (I believe after the fact it was calculated they were 2000 votes in the right seats off a majority) and the Tory party lost its majority.

The only things that stuck to Corbyn it seemed were Brexit and anti-Semitism. Brexit because his views were muddled on it (in short - there's thousands of pages to read on that on this very site), and anti-Semitism for a few reasons. His past sharing of platforms etc, his support's alleged inherent issues with Jews, and a few new incidents. The first, Corbyn commented on the removal of a mural in London that portrayed some classic anti-Semitic tropes. He supported the mural, which had the old school hook-nosed bankers crushing the common man kinda stuff on it. This was undeniably stupid. Next, Corbyn supported some MPs and party figures that made comments viewed as anri-Semitic - most notably old Labour leftie and former London Mayor Jen Livingstone who made some... unwise comments which lead to a a storm over whether the party would sack him effectively. Then, stories came out that Labour had a huge anti-Semitism crisis going on within the party. This saga ran and ran - that there were so many complaints and incidents the party couldn't cope, that the leadership was interfering with the process (nudge nudge) etc etc. Ultimately this culminated in a documentary where a bunch of whistle blowers made various claims about Labour not being a safe place for Jews anymore and had claims line one of the leads in the complaints process being so worn down by the avalanche of anti-Semitism claims that they contemplated suicide. This documentary drew some criticism from some quarters and it is hard to watch it as unbiased piece. Subsequently a report leaked that suggested the figures whistleblowing were in fact at fault for the problems with the complaints process and it's been implied they knew full well this would harm the leadership, and that the leadership was in fact intervening to make the process better.

After that the damage was done.

There's a second facet to this though that isn't as clear. Firstly, the Israeli state has attempted to weaponise anti-Semitism, and has tried to conflate criticism of Israel as being the same as criticising Jewish people generally, quite successfully. Israeli politicians late last year outright labelled Corbyn a threat to the Jewish community globally. A documentary called the Lobby in YouTube has various hidden camera clips of Israeli lobbyists pushing pro-Israel motives on various aspects of political life in the UK, and various Israel affiliated groups with parliament and associated with it openly declared war on Corbyn and we delighted with every attack they managed to land. I seen to recall some reports of jubilation when they 'buried' him.

Next, you have to understand that, for a lot of Jewish people, Israel is Jewishness. An attack on Israel, of any sort, is an attack on all of Jewry. Israel, the Israel of the Torah, is the tenet of much of Judaism. It's the key feature of a Jewish prayer which most, if not all, observing Jewish people will know. As such, to these people, Corbyn's less than pro-Israel views was an existential threat to them. 

This was all stoked up into a frenzy. Jewish papers had headline after headline of attacks on Corbyn, every media opportunity was another attack on this together with all the other attack lines running at the time, it became absurd. I recall listening to a podcast, US focused, that had a section where a guest mentioned they knew Jewish people in London that genuinely feared for their lives under a Corbyn government. Which was just silly.

In all of this, it was ignored over and over again that Corbyn had supported Jewish causes far more than many MPs can claim. This was probably best summed up when it came to light to that Corbyn had supported a Jewish group that was seeking to protect a Jewish cemetery in a London constituency that was earmarked for development. The MP of that constituency, Margaret Hodge, is Jewish, and had supported the development, and was one of the most hostile in the party to Corbyn, openly calling him an anti-Semite. He's clearly not.

So, long post, and this is very much the short version, but basically Corbyn is guilty of being stupid and disliked in a world where everyone is keen to get the knives out.

[Wainy316]

3 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Why do you always hear talk of Corbyn and antisemitism? Does he have a history of saying something I'm unaware of? 

Basically, it’s something for a right whinger  to jump on and keep crowing about without having a clue what it even is.

Very similar to when they call anyone they don’t agree with a Marxist.  They usually don’t know what that is either.

[Seat68]

7 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

So it sounds like the classic story where being anti israel is flipped to mean antisemite. Beyond stupid. 

I suggest you step outside of a messageboard and seek out a number of external views and sources. Then make up your own mind, forming an opinion off one post might, rightly or wrongly, bring you to a view that that may be incorrect. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

I suggest you step outside of a messageboard and seek out a number of external views and sources. Then make up your own mind, forming an opinion off one post might, rightly or wrongly, bring you to a view that that may be incorrect. 

That's largely what it's based. Not sure what your point is here. 

Anyone that's ever been supporting the palestinian case or taken a position in the  occupational actions of Israel have met the same stupid comments from pro Israeli. i.e. they can't accept someone being critical of Israel without making it into something to do with religion. Which is as stupid as it is ridiculous. 

If you think it's odd to ask the question I did about Corbyn that puzzles me. It's an English (dominantly) messageboard, so the knowledge about English politics is bound to be high. 

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

That's largely what it's based. Not sure what your point is here. 

Anyone that's ever been supporting the palestinian case or taken a position in the  occupational actions of Israel have met the same stupid comments from pro Israeli. i.e. they can't accept someone being critical of Israel without making it into something to do with religion. Which is as stupid as it is ridiculous. 

If you think it's odd to ask the question I did about Corbyn that puzzles me. It's an English (dominantly) messageboard, so the knowledge about English politics is bound to be high. 

Because you said

Quote

Why do you always hear talk of Corbyn and antisemitism? Does he have a history of saying something I'm unaware of? 

Then off 1  response you came to
 

Quote

So it sounds like the classic story where being anti israel is flipped to mean antisemite. Beyond stupid. 

My point is I may have been the first to respond with Corbyn routinely punches jews. There is a lot of evidence for a lot of views on Labours anti semitism out there. It looked based on evidence here you came to a conclusion based on one response. 

[blandy]

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

There's not really a short answer. 

Preface - I'm not Corby's biggest fan, and felt he was a bit too much of the student union politician, and didn't have the personality/guile to be successful. I didn't vote for his Labour party. But I'm also not wilfully hate blind when it comes to him.

That’s a really good post.

The only area where I’d differ is that it makes almost no mention of there being a problem within Labour of genuine anti semitism, so it underplays the problem of anti semitism and Corbyn’s unfortunate habit of being stood next to it, or in the room with it, or sharing a platform with it when it happens.

And on the more trivial side he really didn’t help himself with stuff like when an example of AS would come to light and he’d be interviewed and asked whether he condemned AS he’d deliberately not say “yes”, instead he’d say something like “I condemn all racism”, which if you’re suspicious looks as much like “I don’t consider anti semitism to be racism”, or like a refusal to condemn the incident in question. If he had an unblemished, unimpeachable record himself, then he might have got away with that, but the AS was real. It still is. The Labour Party was found, by Corbyn’s own appointee, 4 years ago to be “occasionally toxic” with it.  He mishandled the recommendations from the report, particularly adopting the IHRA definition of AS, but an amended version of it. Foot, gun.

[ml1dch]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

And on the more trivial side he really didn’t help himself with stuff like when an example of AS would come to light and he’d be interviewed and asked whether he condemned AS he’d deliberately not say “yes”, instead he’d say something like “I condemn all racism”, which if you’re suspicious looks as much like “I don’t consider anti semitism to be racism”, or like a refusal to condemn the incident in question. 

"Actually,  I think that ALL lives matter..."

[KenjiOgiwara]

54 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Because you said

Then off 1  response you came to
 

My point is I may have been the first to respond with Corbyn routinely punches jews. There is a lot of evidence for a lot of views on Labours anti semitism out there. It looked based on evidence here you came to a conclusion based on one response. 

Already answered that. It's nothing new that 'friends' of israel portray everyone sympathetic with the palestinians cause antisemite. It's borderline cliché at this point. They genuinly can't get their head around that you can dislike Israel and still have no problem with jews. Or maybe they can and they still hold on to the victim card. Probably the latter. 

So not difficult to get there by one post. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by KenjiOgiwara

[Seat68]

16 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Already answered that. It's nothing new that 'friends' of israel portray everyone sympathetic with the palestinians cause antisemite. It's borderline cliché at this point. They genuinly can't get their head around that you can dislike Israel and still have no problem with jews. Or maybe they can and they still hold on to the victim card. Probably the latter. 

So not difficult to get there by one post. 

Yes your answer came after my reply. I was merely explaining my reply. People have views and remain resolute in them views. I do it myself. Your initial question appeared as if you didn’t have a view. Thats all.