| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) 13:07 - Oct 29 with 25855 views | Ewan_Oozami |
According to my highly dodgy Twitter feed... [Post edited 29 Oct 2020 13:10]
|  |
| |  |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:07 - Oct 30 with 686 views | Ryorry |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 14:57 - Oct 30 by NewcyBlue |
I just run around with my arse on fire doing anything and everything that MrsN wants!
An incredible woman. |
In addition to all her other considerable jobs, sounds like she's also been cooking & feeding you fartichokes! #DontPlayWithMatches |  |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:13 - Oct 30 with 675 views | Darth_Koont |
Seeing that Starmer was on BBC Breakfast this morning and linked Corbyn’s comments to people saying antisemitism wasn’t a problem, it was “just” exaggerated and “just” factional ...
Only problem, Kier, he didn’t say that. Corbyn said that antisemitism was a problem. “But the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”
Keir’s misrepresentation isn’t splitting hairs. They’re fundamentally different statements: one false and the other true.
Forensic, my @rse. The more I see of Starmer’s New Leadership the less I like it and certainly the less I trust it. What a state our politics is in. |  |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:18 - Oct 30 with 652 views | itfcjoe |
This is a good read by Ian Dunt
They're out there now, acting about as badly as you might expect. Jeremy Corbyn kicked it off yesterday when he insisted that the mountain of well-documented anti-semitism in the Labour party under his leadership was "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents". His loyalists are currently churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey is agitating for a fight, demanding that Keir Starmer put 'party unity' - by which he means inaction - over the principle of anti-racism.
All that was required of these figures was an apology. Anyone still questioning the existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party is purposefully blind to it. There is no other explanation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report yesterday showed that it was rife in the party, that the leadership failed to provide the funding or training for it to be tackled effectively and that it repeatedly interfered with investigations, particularly when they were media sensitive.
All they had to do was say sorry. Or failing that, say nothing. Let the party deal with the mess they had created. It was a small ask, after everything. Instead we get this rank denialism. They had learned nothing. They had not bothered thinking about it at all. They had shown not the slightest flicker of moral introspection. When the moment came, they regurgitated the same clapped-out, hands-over-your-ears self-entitlement which had created the situation in the first place.
There's no surprise there. These qualities were in the project from the very beginning. We had no idea how bad they would get, the depths to which they would sink, but the basic outlines were there. And there is a great deal we can learn from that.
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda. This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought. It is a project to overthrow capitalism, so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that. It follows that the media and various powerful economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it.
So from the very beginning, Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment. And in many cases, of course, that's true. The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader, or even a centre-left one. But actually Britain's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message. With control over the opposition party, the impartiality requirements kicked in, and they were duly given their time to speak. Even the really rather wacky Corbyn outriders - the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere - were securing positions in prominent TV slots.
But of course coverage means scrutiny. That's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account. And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power. It was instead a conspiracy. This prevented Corbynism's adherents from hearing criticism or evaluating it. And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap. They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him, any critical questioning, was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him. That which was supportive was genuine. That which was not was discredited. There could, under this model, be no credible interrogation of the leader.
This epistemological approach shares many qualities with certain key anti-semitic tropes - namely that all suggestions of anti-semitism come from the 'Israel lobby'. It provides a set of intellectual assumptions which are similar to the ones which operate in anti-semitic circles, and thereby encouraged its spread through the party.
But more importantly than that, it meant that those in the party who were not anti-semitic lost the moral capacity to deal with anti-semitism when it raised its head. After all, the complains of anti-semitism were criticisms of the leadership. They made Corbyn's life harder. So they must by definition be coming from those who wanted to undermine him - Blairites, Conservatives, the press, capitalist forces in general. A great insurmountable mental obstacle was erected which prevented them from seeing the legitimacy of what was being raised.
Those who have done the most work to uncover and address anti-semitism in the Labour party have repeatedly raised this point. The Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday called it 'the Livingstone formulation': "Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance, the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question." Starmer recognised it as a core element of addressing the problem, when he said that those who insisted it was "all exaggerated, or a factional attack... are part of the problem". The fact that it is so plainly visible in the response to yesterday's report is further evidence of how pervasive it is in the Corbyn movement.
It is an intellectual failing, yes. But more than that it is a moral failing. It means that you allow people with power to do whatever they want, without ever having to face any questioning, installed as they are with a supporter-built protective shield to block criticism.
The roots in this case lie in a centuries-old form of Marxist reasoning, which deployed a generalised conceptual form of conspiracy theory to explain the failure of its historic predictions. But this is not restricted to Marxism. It can be seen everywhere. Certainly you see similar psychological processes on the pro-Brexit right, whereby information is judged by the usefulness to the tribe rather than its veracity.
The truth is, we're all susceptible to it. We're all tempted to cover our eyes when we see evidence emerge against a leader we admire. We all want to tell ourselves fairy stories about conspiracies instead of grappling with uncomfortable truths. It is up to all of us to police our political alliances, to check for racism or discrimination within them, to ensure that there are clear systems of accountability so that the temptations of solidarity do not overrule the demands of equality.
That's one of the key things we can learn from the terrible muck being flung around today. Watch the people who are doing it closely. Note the way they cannot bear to engage with the evidence, they way that loyalty to the leader becomes so all-encompassing that there is no moral limit to what they will justify. As grim as it is, it is instructive. We can make sure that we never, ever allow the same thing to happen to us. |  |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:18 - Oct 30 with 640 views | monytowbray |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 14:38 - Oct 30 by Ryorry |
I've concluded that he's a human bot soldiering for the Tories/Trumpists/other RW groups, using the well-known tactic of hamstringing the opposition by simply draining the time & energy that they'd otherwise have available for positively supporting decent political parties.
It's a diversionary tactic, and actually quite an effective one - look at the time you, monytowbray & everyone else on this thread has wasted on him, while he just continues stringing us along - constantly tickling everyone with thorns in their sides, whilst remaining careful enough himself to ensure he's never so abusive that he's banned! |
To be fair I’ve barely replied and in minimal long form (if any) |  |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:23 - Oct 30 with 629 views | lowhouseblue |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:18 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
This is a good read by Ian Dunt
They're out there now, acting about as badly as you might expect. Jeremy Corbyn kicked it off yesterday when he insisted that the mountain of well-documented anti-semitism in the Labour party under his leadership was "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents". His loyalists are currently churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey is agitating for a fight, demanding that Keir Starmer put 'party unity' - by which he means inaction - over the principle of anti-racism.
All that was required of these figures was an apology. Anyone still questioning the existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party is purposefully blind to it. There is no other explanation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report yesterday showed that it was rife in the party, that the leadership failed to provide the funding or training for it to be tackled effectively and that it repeatedly interfered with investigations, particularly when they were media sensitive.
All they had to do was say sorry. Or failing that, say nothing. Let the party deal with the mess they had created. It was a small ask, after everything. Instead we get this rank denialism. They had learned nothing. They had not bothered thinking about it at all. They had shown not the slightest flicker of moral introspection. When the moment came, they regurgitated the same clapped-out, hands-over-your-ears self-entitlement which had created the situation in the first place.
There's no surprise there. These qualities were in the project from the very beginning. We had no idea how bad they would get, the depths to which they would sink, but the basic outlines were there. And there is a great deal we can learn from that.
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda. This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought. It is a project to overthrow capitalism, so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that. It follows that the media and various powerful economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it.
So from the very beginning, Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment. And in many cases, of course, that's true. The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader, or even a centre-left one. But actually Britain's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message. With control over the opposition party, the impartiality requirements kicked in, and they were duly given their time to speak. Even the really rather wacky Corbyn outriders - the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere - were securing positions in prominent TV slots.
But of course coverage means scrutiny. That's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account. And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power. It was instead a conspiracy. This prevented Corbynism's adherents from hearing criticism or evaluating it. And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap. They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him, any critical questioning, was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him. That which was supportive was genuine. That which was not was discredited. There could, under this model, be no credible interrogation of the leader.
This epistemological approach shares many qualities with certain key anti-semitic tropes - namely that all suggestions of anti-semitism come from the 'Israel lobby'. It provides a set of intellectual assumptions which are similar to the ones which operate in anti-semitic circles, and thereby encouraged its spread through the party.
But more importantly than that, it meant that those in the party who were not anti-semitic lost the moral capacity to deal with anti-semitism when it raised its head. After all, the complains of anti-semitism were criticisms of the leadership. They made Corbyn's life harder. So they must by definition be coming from those who wanted to undermine him - Blairites, Conservatives, the press, capitalist forces in general. A great insurmountable mental obstacle was erected which prevented them from seeing the legitimacy of what was being raised.
Those who have done the most work to uncover and address anti-semitism in the Labour party have repeatedly raised this point. The Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday called it 'the Livingstone formulation': "Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance, the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question." Starmer recognised it as a core element of addressing the problem, when he said that those who insisted it was "all exaggerated, or a factional attack... are part of the problem". The fact that it is so plainly visible in the response to yesterday's report is further evidence of how pervasive it is in the Corbyn movement.
It is an intellectual failing, yes. But more than that it is a moral failing. It means that you allow people with power to do whatever they want, without ever having to face any questioning, installed as they are with a supporter-built protective shield to block criticism.
The roots in this case lie in a centuries-old form of Marxist reasoning, which deployed a generalised conceptual form of conspiracy theory to explain the failure of its historic predictions. But this is not restricted to Marxism. It can be seen everywhere. Certainly you see similar psychological processes on the pro-Brexit right, whereby information is judged by the usefulness to the tribe rather than its veracity.
The truth is, we're all susceptible to it. We're all tempted to cover our eyes when we see evidence emerge against a leader we admire. We all want to tell ourselves fairy stories about conspiracies instead of grappling with uncomfortable truths. It is up to all of us to police our political alliances, to check for racism or discrimination within them, to ensure that there are clear systems of accountability so that the temptations of solidarity do not overrule the demands of equality.
That's one of the key things we can learn from the terrible muck being flung around today. Watch the people who are doing it closely. Note the way they cannot bear to engage with the evidence, they way that loyalty to the leader becomes so all-encompassing that there is no moral limit to what they will justify. As grim as it is, it is instructive. We can make sure that we never, ever allow the same thing to happen to us. |
excellent that.
"churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers." surely not. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:23 - Oct 30 with 623 views | BloomBlue |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:13 - Oct 30 by Darth_Koont |
Seeing that Starmer was on BBC Breakfast this morning and linked Corbyn’s comments to people saying antisemitism wasn’t a problem, it was “just” exaggerated and “just” factional ...
Only problem, Kier, he didn’t say that. Corbyn said that antisemitism was a problem. “But the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”
Keir’s misrepresentation isn’t splitting hairs. They’re fundamentally different statements: one false and the other true.
Forensic, my @rse. The more I see of Starmer’s New Leadership the less I like it and certainly the less I trust it. What a state our politics is in. |
It's going to get messy, JC's response while totally wrong from all accounts he didn't break any Labour rules, which in itselfs is a different situation, but who knows where that will lead |  | | |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:24 - Oct 30 with 634 views | BlueBadger |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:19 - Oct 29 by 26_Paz |
Fair play to Starmer. Strong response. Good leadership. Chalk and cheese to the cowardly, racist, weasel he’s replaced. |
Yeah, you tell 'em.
Imagine being the sort of brainwashed coward who'd blindly support an openly bigoted party leader in the face of your apparent declared commitment to opposing bigotry with absolutely no sense of self-awareness or irony. |  |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:28 - Oct 30 with 604 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:18 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
This is a good read by Ian Dunt
They're out there now, acting about as badly as you might expect. Jeremy Corbyn kicked it off yesterday when he insisted that the mountain of well-documented anti-semitism in the Labour party under his leadership was "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents". His loyalists are currently churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey is agitating for a fight, demanding that Keir Starmer put 'party unity' - by which he means inaction - over the principle of anti-racism.
All that was required of these figures was an apology. Anyone still questioning the existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party is purposefully blind to it. There is no other explanation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report yesterday showed that it was rife in the party, that the leadership failed to provide the funding or training for it to be tackled effectively and that it repeatedly interfered with investigations, particularly when they were media sensitive.
All they had to do was say sorry. Or failing that, say nothing. Let the party deal with the mess they had created. It was a small ask, after everything. Instead we get this rank denialism. They had learned nothing. They had not bothered thinking about it at all. They had shown not the slightest flicker of moral introspection. When the moment came, they regurgitated the same clapped-out, hands-over-your-ears self-entitlement which had created the situation in the first place.
There's no surprise there. These qualities were in the project from the very beginning. We had no idea how bad they would get, the depths to which they would sink, but the basic outlines were there. And there is a great deal we can learn from that.
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda. This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought. It is a project to overthrow capitalism, so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that. It follows that the media and various powerful economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it.
So from the very beginning, Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment. And in many cases, of course, that's true. The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader, or even a centre-left one. But actually Britain's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message. With control over the opposition party, the impartiality requirements kicked in, and they were duly given their time to speak. Even the really rather wacky Corbyn outriders - the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere - were securing positions in prominent TV slots.
But of course coverage means scrutiny. That's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account. And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power. It was instead a conspiracy. This prevented Corbynism's adherents from hearing criticism or evaluating it. And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap. They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him, any critical questioning, was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him. That which was supportive was genuine. That which was not was discredited. There could, under this model, be no credible interrogation of the leader.
This epistemological approach shares many qualities with certain key anti-semitic tropes - namely that all suggestions of anti-semitism come from the 'Israel lobby'. It provides a set of intellectual assumptions which are similar to the ones which operate in anti-semitic circles, and thereby encouraged its spread through the party.
But more importantly than that, it meant that those in the party who were not anti-semitic lost the moral capacity to deal with anti-semitism when it raised its head. After all, the complains of anti-semitism were criticisms of the leadership. They made Corbyn's life harder. So they must by definition be coming from those who wanted to undermine him - Blairites, Conservatives, the press, capitalist forces in general. A great insurmountable mental obstacle was erected which prevented them from seeing the legitimacy of what was being raised.
Those who have done the most work to uncover and address anti-semitism in the Labour party have repeatedly raised this point. The Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday called it 'the Livingstone formulation': "Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance, the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question." Starmer recognised it as a core element of addressing the problem, when he said that those who insisted it was "all exaggerated, or a factional attack... are part of the problem". The fact that it is so plainly visible in the response to yesterday's report is further evidence of how pervasive it is in the Corbyn movement.
It is an intellectual failing, yes. But more than that it is a moral failing. It means that you allow people with power to do whatever they want, without ever having to face any questioning, installed as they are with a supporter-built protective shield to block criticism.
The roots in this case lie in a centuries-old form of Marxist reasoning, which deployed a generalised conceptual form of conspiracy theory to explain the failure of its historic predictions. But this is not restricted to Marxism. It can be seen everywhere. Certainly you see similar psychological processes on the pro-Brexit right, whereby information is judged by the usefulness to the tribe rather than its veracity.
The truth is, we're all susceptible to it. We're all tempted to cover our eyes when we see evidence emerge against a leader we admire. We all want to tell ourselves fairy stories about conspiracies instead of grappling with uncomfortable truths. It is up to all of us to police our political alliances, to check for racism or discrimination within them, to ensure that there are clear systems of accountability so that the temptations of solidarity do not overrule the demands of equality.
That's one of the key things we can learn from the terrible muck being flung around today. Watch the people who are doing it closely. Note the way they cannot bear to engage with the evidence, they way that loyalty to the leader becomes so all-encompassing that there is no moral limit to what they will justify. As grim as it is, it is instructive. We can make sure that we never, ever allow the same thing to happen to us. |
Dunt FFS. He’s not a journalist who uses facts but a hack who weaves his opinions into a narrative.
And he knows full well he’d have waded in whatever Corbyn said or didn’t say.
He can’t handle the fact that Corbyn didn’t just roll over but defended himself from the attacks that were inevitably incoming. But I think what gets Dunt most is that Corbyn’s statement was 100% factually correct. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:33 - Oct 30 with 583 views | StokieBlue |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:28 - Oct 30 by Darth_Koont |
Dunt FFS. He’s not a journalist who uses facts but a hack who weaves his opinions into a narrative.
And he knows full well he’d have waded in whatever Corbyn said or didn’t say.
He can’t handle the fact that Corbyn didn’t just roll over but defended himself from the attacks that were inevitably incoming. But I think what gets Dunt most is that Corbyn’s statement was 100% factually correct. |
I don't know Dunt but haven't you just proven his point?
Rather than address the article you've attacked and then dismissed it due to the source.
SB [Post edited 30 Oct 2020 15:33]
|  |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:34 - Oct 30 with 568 views | itfcjoe |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:28 - Oct 30 by Darth_Koont |
Dunt FFS. He’s not a journalist who uses facts but a hack who weaves his opinions into a narrative.
And he knows full well he’d have waded in whatever Corbyn said or didn’t say.
He can’t handle the fact that Corbyn didn’t just roll over but defended himself from the attacks that were inevitably incoming. But I think what gets Dunt most is that Corbyn’s statement was 100% factually correct. |
Lost cause. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:37 - Oct 30 with 554 views | BlueBadger |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:18 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
This is a good read by Ian Dunt
They're out there now, acting about as badly as you might expect. Jeremy Corbyn kicked it off yesterday when he insisted that the mountain of well-documented anti-semitism in the Labour party under his leadership was "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents". His loyalists are currently churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey is agitating for a fight, demanding that Keir Starmer put 'party unity' - by which he means inaction - over the principle of anti-racism.
All that was required of these figures was an apology. Anyone still questioning the existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party is purposefully blind to it. There is no other explanation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report yesterday showed that it was rife in the party, that the leadership failed to provide the funding or training for it to be tackled effectively and that it repeatedly interfered with investigations, particularly when they were media sensitive.
All they had to do was say sorry. Or failing that, say nothing. Let the party deal with the mess they had created. It was a small ask, after everything. Instead we get this rank denialism. They had learned nothing. They had not bothered thinking about it at all. They had shown not the slightest flicker of moral introspection. When the moment came, they regurgitated the same clapped-out, hands-over-your-ears self-entitlement which had created the situation in the first place.
There's no surprise there. These qualities were in the project from the very beginning. We had no idea how bad they would get, the depths to which they would sink, but the basic outlines were there. And there is a great deal we can learn from that.
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda. This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought. It is a project to overthrow capitalism, so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that. It follows that the media and various powerful economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it.
So from the very beginning, Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment. And in many cases, of course, that's true. The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader, or even a centre-left one. But actually Britain's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message. With control over the opposition party, the impartiality requirements kicked in, and they were duly given their time to speak. Even the really rather wacky Corbyn outriders - the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere - were securing positions in prominent TV slots.
But of course coverage means scrutiny. That's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account. And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power. It was instead a conspiracy. This prevented Corbynism's adherents from hearing criticism or evaluating it. And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap. They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him, any critical questioning, was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him. That which was supportive was genuine. That which was not was discredited. There could, under this model, be no credible interrogation of the leader.
This epistemological approach shares many qualities with certain key anti-semitic tropes - namely that all suggestions of anti-semitism come from the 'Israel lobby'. It provides a set of intellectual assumptions which are similar to the ones which operate in anti-semitic circles, and thereby encouraged its spread through the party.
But more importantly than that, it meant that those in the party who were not anti-semitic lost the moral capacity to deal with anti-semitism when it raised its head. After all, the complains of anti-semitism were criticisms of the leadership. They made Corbyn's life harder. So they must by definition be coming from those who wanted to undermine him - Blairites, Conservatives, the press, capitalist forces in general. A great insurmountable mental obstacle was erected which prevented them from seeing the legitimacy of what was being raised.
Those who have done the most work to uncover and address anti-semitism in the Labour party have repeatedly raised this point. The Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday called it 'the Livingstone formulation': "Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance, the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question." Starmer recognised it as a core element of addressing the problem, when he said that those who insisted it was "all exaggerated, or a factional attack... are part of the problem". The fact that it is so plainly visible in the response to yesterday's report is further evidence of how pervasive it is in the Corbyn movement.
It is an intellectual failing, yes. But more than that it is a moral failing. It means that you allow people with power to do whatever they want, without ever having to face any questioning, installed as they are with a supporter-built protective shield to block criticism.
The roots in this case lie in a centuries-old form of Marxist reasoning, which deployed a generalised conceptual form of conspiracy theory to explain the failure of its historic predictions. But this is not restricted to Marxism. It can be seen everywhere. Certainly you see similar psychological processes on the pro-Brexit right, whereby information is judged by the usefulness to the tribe rather than its veracity.
The truth is, we're all susceptible to it. We're all tempted to cover our eyes when we see evidence emerge against a leader we admire. We all want to tell ourselves fairy stories about conspiracies instead of grappling with uncomfortable truths. It is up to all of us to police our political alliances, to check for racism or discrimination within them, to ensure that there are clear systems of accountability so that the temptations of solidarity do not overrule the demands of equality.
That's one of the key things we can learn from the terrible muck being flung around today. Watch the people who are doing it closely. Note the way they cannot bear to engage with the evidence, they way that loyalty to the leader becomes so all-encompassing that there is no moral limit to what they will justify. As grim as it is, it is instructive. We can make sure that we never, ever allow the same thing to happen to us. |
That's basically saying what I think on the whole thing, only coherently, intelligently and spell checked. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:38 - Oct 30 with 548 views | BlueBadger |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:23 - Oct 30 by lowhouseblue |
excellent that.
"churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers." surely not. |
Or, to put it bluntly 'behaving like the sort of people they claim are conspiring against them'. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:41 - Oct 30 with 535 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:23 - Oct 30 by BloomBlue |
It's going to get messy, JC's response while totally wrong from all accounts he didn't break any Labour rules, which in itselfs is a different situation, but who knows where that will lead |
It wasn’t “totally wrong” unless you’re talking about the timing which I can accept as an opinion. Just as I can accept the opinion that he was going to be hung out to dry by Starmer anyway as Starmer wanted to stop the talk of exaggeration and factionalism that is absolutely central to understanding this crisis and Corbyn’s tenure as a whole.
Starmer wants to move on and sweep everything into the bin of history with a nice narrative that he and the ghouls of the Labour right can use to justify a stranglehold on the party. For the sake of having a Labour Party worthy of the name he shouldn’t be allowed to. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:43 - Oct 30 with 528 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:37 - Oct 30 by BlueBadger |
That's basically saying what I think on the whole thing, only coherently, intelligently and spell checked. |
There’s a surprise. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:48 - Oct 30 with 515 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:34 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
Lost cause. |
To be honest, your opinion on the matter is fairly worthless.
You’re as bad as a Brexiteer for stuffing yourself on the rhetoric and not leaving any room for facts.
If you want to engage on the details and the evidence, I’m here. But odds-on you’ll just stick to nodding along to the opinion pieces you like. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:51 - Oct 30 with 524 views | BlueBadger |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 13:15 - Oct 29 by BloomBlue |
And to think people supported Corbyn...
Starmer isn't exempt he was part of the Leadership when all this was happening. |
In all fairness, large chunks of this board whilst condemning him, remain more than happy to support an openly racist prime minister, idolise Nigel Farage and openly hate anything a bit 'BLM'(loosely defined here as 'suggesting that perhaps people try being less racist sometime')whilst also clutching their pearls over this. [Post edited 30 Oct 2020 15:54]
| |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:51 - Oct 30 with 509 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:33 - Oct 30 by StokieBlue |
I don't know Dunt but haven't you just proven his point?
Rather than address the article you've attacked and then dismissed it due to the source.
SB [Post edited 30 Oct 2020 15:33]
|
I am addressing the article. Dunt doesn’t do evidence. That’s why I dismiss him. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:57 - Oct 30 with 492 views | blueislander |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:51 - Oct 30 by BlueBadger |
In all fairness, large chunks of this board whilst condemning him, remain more than happy to support an openly racist prime minister, idolise Nigel Farage and openly hate anything a bit 'BLM'(loosely defined here as 'suggesting that perhaps people try being less racist sometime')whilst also clutching their pearls over this. [Post edited 30 Oct 2020 15:54]
|
Is that really so? The vast majority of posters on here are very much anti-Boris, even less idolise Farage, and I can't recall anyone openly hating anything BLM. You could argue that just one that fits into those categories is one too many, but don't lose perspective. |  | | |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:11 - Oct 30 with 461 views | itfcjoe |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:48 - Oct 30 by Darth_Koont |
To be honest, your opinion on the matter is fairly worthless.
You’re as bad as a Brexiteer for stuffing yourself on the rhetoric and not leaving any room for facts.
If you want to engage on the details and the evidence, I’m here. But odds-on you’ll just stick to nodding along to the opinion pieces you like. |
Yes, the one of us who is going against the independent report And has consistently done so is is the one who is Brexiteer like and rejecting the evidence...... | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:13 - Oct 30 with 455 views | itfcjoe |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 15:41 - Oct 30 by Darth_Koont |
It wasn’t “totally wrong” unless you’re talking about the timing which I can accept as an opinion. Just as I can accept the opinion that he was going to be hung out to dry by Starmer anyway as Starmer wanted to stop the talk of exaggeration and factionalism that is absolutely central to understanding this crisis and Corbyn’s tenure as a whole.
Starmer wants to move on and sweep everything into the bin of history with a nice narrative that he and the ghouls of the Labour right can use to justify a stranglehold on the party. For the sake of having a Labour Party worthy of the name he shouldn’t be allowed to. |
Starmer says those who claim it is exaggerated are a part of the problem, Corbyn says it was exaggerated - it’s fairly clear how it would end | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:19 - Oct 30 with 440 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:11 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
Yes, the one of us who is going against the independent report And has consistently done so is is the one who is Brexiteer like and rejecting the evidence...... |
Where have I “gone against the report”?
I agree with the report’s findings and recommendations.
What you presumably mean is that I haven’t gone Dunt on the whole thing and taken this as vindication of the prevailing narrative against Corbyn. The report doesn’t make that case either. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:21 - Oct 30 with 432 views | Darth_Koont |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:13 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
Starmer says those who claim it is exaggerated are a part of the problem, Corbyn says it was exaggerated - it’s fairly clear how it would end |
Then Starmer has no respect for the truth. Nor for public debate.
The narrative suits him and his political ambitions. I don’t see how that suits us as a country in trying to move away from performative and dishonest charlatans in government. | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:27 - Oct 30 with 417 views | BlueBadger |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 18:02 - Oct 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
So what do you expect me, as a Labour voter, to do about it? |
Not keep defending him, write to to your local party for starters? | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:30 - Oct 30 with 397 views | itfcjoe |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:19 - Oct 30 by Darth_Koont |
Where have I “gone against the report”?
I agree with the report’s findings and recommendations.
What you presumably mean is that I haven’t gone Dunt on the whole thing and taken this as vindication of the prevailing narrative against Corbyn. The report doesn’t make that case either. |
The report was never going to go after individuals, but it talks of a failure of leadership and that it had committed unlawful acts.
And whilst we've got a pandemic to try and deal with, it all has to be about Corbyn and Labour infighting for him, like it was when he couldn't just accept the definition of antisemitism and chose trying to amend one of the clauses as his hill to die on.
What can Starmer do other than implement the recommendations and stress the seriousness of the report and the fact it must never happen again - when Corbyn and his cranks and outriders like Mendoza, Bastani, Williamson are all over the press again yesterday they don't realise how bad a look it is to 99% of people | |
| |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:32 - Oct 30 with 381 views | solomon |
| Corbyn suspended... (n/t) on 16:13 - Oct 30 by itfcjoe |
Starmer says those who claim it is exaggerated are a part of the problem, Corbyn says it was exaggerated - it’s fairly clear how it would end |
Unfortunately there’s no way some on here will ever accept there was a problem, even if JC had come out and completely and fessed up yesterday they’d still be arguing it’s all a conspiracy, they can’t be helped or reasoned with on this, their pride won’t allow it. Time to let them be alone with their thoughts and grievances, most of us can take comfort this whole sordid affair looks like it’s being finally addressed (and other institutions and political parties are equally reprimanded if such allegations are found to be true) |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
