Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:48:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Labour Party Desolation v3: Abstainence Makes the Farce Grow Stronger

Started by BlodwynPig, October 07, 2020, 06:42:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Paul Calf

I mean she's clearly very crusty and stuck in the 20th Century (fucking Girl Power?) but she's hardly on the far right of the party with these statements.

pigamus

"A successful digital entrepreneur"

Now whose cunt alarm would a sent a-ringin' by that, nobody's that's whose

TrenterPercenter

#2492
There are several reasons why this "single issue anti-racist" tact has a lot going for it.

1) It is additive to the current accusations and it is not necessary to disavow accusations of AS in it's appeal.  Previously the "all forms of racism" has not carried because it can be placed as ignoring a particular type of racism, however this way that accusation in itself is flipped on it's head (so who is ignoring racism).  It moves a moral impetus on to people saying there are concerned with racism.

2) It speaks directly to Jewish exceptionalism in regards to racism (I hasten to add not the falt of Jewish people that have either suffered AS abuse or not), this is about exceptionalism cast on Jewish people.  If AS is racism and racism is bad as the proponents of AS say then it appears logical that their feelings would be the same for other forms of racism.  More importantly a failure to do so legitmately points to being "a single issue racist"

3) Its catchy, emotive and applies the rules of low cognitive load, i.e. it understandable and quick and easy to process.  It can be referred back to as a self-contained assertion, whilst broader evidence and discussion can take place.

4) It would naturally bring about natural discussion of what are the standards of accusations that legitimises interest.  This is where the actual rascists come in and highlight that Islamaphobia for example is different because....as Clive Lewis said zero tolerance is an impossible goals - racism evolves in an arms race with anti-racism.  What is important is what is acceptable level of doubt that can be applied to an action (it's crazy i'm having to say this as this is basis of our entire legal system).

5) It's main weakness, though points about cover this, is that people will take a line about whataboutry, however this is where you say ok let me know when you are willing to discuss other forms of racism.  This is where you start the clock.


Paul Calf

Quote from: pigamus on November 22, 2020, 11:08:56 AM
"A successful digital entrepreneur"

Now whose cunt alarm would a sent a-ringin' by that, nobody's that's whose

The compulsion to add 'successful' is the tell.

Buelligan


Zetetic

Quote from: Paul Calf on November 22, 2020, 11:01:35 AM
Taken as a standalone statement, I don't actually see what's controversial about this.

Nothing, I suppose, given the extent to which discussions about dignity and equality have been successfully reduced to an individual's right to sell their labour, externalities be damned.

Buelligan

Heheh.  I love you[nb]In an entirely appropriate way.[/nb].

Zetetic

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on November 22, 2020, 11:10:07 AM
There are several reasons why this "single issue racist" tact has a lot going for it.

What are you hoping it will achieve?

Buelligan

I'm hoping people, in general, pay attention to the difference between tact and tack.

I say this without tact because this is not the first occasion where my sensibilities have been affronted in this precise manner.  I hope it will be the last.

pigamus

What does it mean? The whole thing's incomprehensible, but he calls you a CABLAD arsehole if you say that.

Buelligan

Who are you asking?  Zetetic or me?  Both mocked in the past for similar crimes[nb]Arguably for different reasons, but still[/nb] if memory serves, which it very much fucking does.

Paul Calf

Quote from: Buelligan on November 22, 2020, 11:41:01 AM
I'm hoping people, in general, pay attention to the difference between tact and tack.

I say this without tact because this is not the first occasion where my sensibilities have been affronted in this precise manner.  I hope it will be the last.

I blocked that out. It was too much for my delicate consitution to bear.


pigamus

Quote from: Buelligan on November 22, 2020, 11:45:33 AM
Who are you asking?  Zetetic or me?  Both mocked in the past for similar crimes[nb]Arguably for different reasons, but still[/nb] if memory serves, which it very much fucking does.

The thing is, I've got nothing against him, nothing at all, I just get frustrated when I can't understand what he's saying.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Zetetic on November 22, 2020, 11:36:21 AM
What are you hoping it will achieve?

Personally I think handling the AS debate is important in a wider context.  It sets precedents and goes against notions of rationality and proportionality which are key to functioning democracies, societies and their ability to respond to problems like racism.

For others it is something that Starmer can be attacked with, destabilised and/or (hopefully and) to steer him away from making decisions largely influenced by those interested in destroying the leftwing of the party.

Zetetic

I believe that Trenter thinks that drawing attention to:
-  racism against brown/black people (often tied up with their perception as Muslim) in the Labour party and
- the party's derisory and incompetent response to this racism,
will achieve some things around:
- Perception of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism.
- Attitudes towards KS and the leadership.
- Attitudes towards JC and the former leadership.

I'm not quite sure what exactly the hoped for outcomes are (e.g. Whose attitudes? With what changes in behaviour?). That's what I was asking for more clarity on.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: pigamus on November 22, 2020, 11:42:48 AM
What does it mean? The whole thing's incomprehensible, but he calls you a CABLAD arsehole if you say that.

What are you talking about? Let's sort this out.  I've also never called anyone CABLAD for pointing out something is incomprehensible, in fact the last time you did this I said i'm happy to explain.

And i'll say it again, let me know what you think is incomprehensible? The fact a dyslexic man used the term "tact" instead of "tack"? Show me what the problems are and i'll try and see if I can better communicate things for you.

pigamus

Well I don't know what the first sentence is about, and then there are five numbered points all beginning with "it", so I don't know what they're about either.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Zetetic on November 22, 2020, 11:57:17 AM
I believe that Trenter thinks that drawing attention to:
-  racism against brown/black people (often tied up with their perception as Muslim) in the Labour party and
- the party's derisory and incompetent response to this racism,
will achieve some things around:
- Perception of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism.
- Attitudes towards KS and the leadership
- Attitudes towards JC and the former leadership.

Kindof and i'm glad to see that most of what I was saying is actually comprehensible.  I taking an approach (as I have done for most of my time in these threads) to look at things in a pragmatic way (that me what can practically be done).  I see the attack around AS as not just a factional dispute but strategic move to attack the left, my emphasis is on the strategic aspect of this.  That is hard to probably get unless you acutally bother considering these things as not just "things occuring" but managed elements of PR (which is what they are) and then if accepting of that not then going don't to a basic interpretation of it (that means people going "yeah we all know if is stitch up" which does nothing to examine or understand how to get out of the "stitch up").

So...when i say it is "additive" i'm talking about the emotive PR hook used in the AS attacks. Emotions are key drivers of behaviour.  Once highly emotive it is difficult to suddenly stop a person cascading (going with and adding more) further into that emotion, so you "add" not "suppress" that emotion so you can direct it.  Yes this is all complicated psychology[nb]which i assure I could write something much more incomprehensible if I was going to go down to the actual neuropsychology of why this is[/nb] and PR (which massively based in psychology anyway) but it isn't beyond anyones understanding.

Quote
I'm not quite sure what exactly the hoped for outcomes are (e.g. Whose attitudes? With what changes in behaviour?). That's what I was asking for more clarity on.

I think I may have explained this in my other post but if you what me to say more I can.

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on November 22, 2020, 11:53:09 AM
Personally I think handling the AS debate is important in a wider context.  It sets precedents and goes against notions of rationality and proportionality which are key to functioning democracies, societies and their ability to respond to problems like racism.

For others it is something that Starmer can be attacked with, destabilised and/or (hopefully and) to steer him away from making decisions largely influenced by those interested in destroying the leftwing of the party.

Why is it not 'single issue anti-racist'?

Also, how do you distinguish it from 'all lives matter'?

Paul Calf

Quote from: Zetetic on November 22, 2020, 11:33:06 AM
Nothing, I suppose, given the extent to which discussions about dignity and equality have been successfully reduced to an individual's right to sell their labour, externalities be damned.

The possibility of an alternative to starvation within the system that we currently inhabit, or an alternative to it, has to come before you kick the existing support away.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: pigamus on November 22, 2020, 12:07:33 PM
Well I don't know what the first sentence is about, and then there are five numbered points all beginning with "it", so I don't know what they're about either.

QuoteThere are several reasons why this "single issue anti-racist" tack has a lot going for it.

1) It is additive to the current accusations and it is not necessary to disavow accusations of AS in it's appeal.

single issue anti-racist was a term someone came up with on Novara to explain Starmers actions over AS compared to other forms of racism.  Clive Lewis was also highlighted on Politics Today the fact that people (and he is referring to people in his own party) have been suggesting racism didn't exist in the Labour Party pre-Corbyn.  This implies that the racism that existed before is being ignored.

Now to understand what "single issue anti-racist" means then the first sentence refers to that as a tactic and that "it" (that tactic) has a lot going for "it".

every point then starts with "it" because that is what is being referred too (which is pretty standard when listing things).

point 1, is a little confusing sure because I am mentioning it being "additive".  That means that this counter argument or strategy (the idea that jsut focusing on AS is a single-issue approach to racism) is an extension of the AS attack strategy in that it extending its focus to other types of racism.

NoSleep

I wonder when she's going to stand up for those falsely smeared with antisemitism if she wants to go further with her "nuanced" approach?

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: pigamus on November 22, 2020, 11:08:56 AM
"A successful digital entrepreneur"

Now whose cunt alarm would a sent a-ringin' by that, nobody's that's whose

'Resilience' is the real cunt alarm trigger.

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on November 22, 2020, 11:10:07 AM
There are several reasons why this "single issue racist" tact has a lot going for it.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on November 22, 2020, 12:27:00 PM
single issue anti-racist

Ffs, Trents. Make your mind up whether it's 'single issue racist' or 'single issue anti-racist'. No wonder people are confused.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Johnny Yesno on November 22, 2020, 12:20:09 PM
Why is it not 'single issue anti-racist'?

Also, how do you distinguish it from 'all lives matter'?

It is single issue anti-racist this is the problem with word blindness it is sometimes hard to see words that are missing - you'll notice sometimes I will repeat filler words also, it's because sometimes i can't "see"[nb]it's more complicated than this but I don't want to derail the thread[/nb] the word has already been written (or rather it hasn't been registered).


Yes the all lives matter comparison has already be used as a counter move against this (though this is a misinterpretation of the problem with all lives matter).  This where you use a clock to count the days other forms of racism are not being given such prominence.  If all lives matter then all forms of racism should be considered (the all lives matter is actually about white people and about "lives" mattering not other forms of racism againt non-white people).

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on November 22, 2020, 12:33:53 PM
It is single issue anti-racist this is the problem with word blindnes if is sometimes hard to see words that are missing - you'll notice sometimes I will repeat filler words also it's because sometimes i can "see"[nb]it's more complicated than this but I don't want to derail the thread[/nb] the word has already been written (or rather it hasn't been registered).

Ok. I don't know what the solution is but that shit's important, unlike the 'tact' error.

QuoteYes the all lives matter comparison has already be used as a counter move against this (though this is a misinterpretation of the problem with all lives matter).  This where you use a clock to count the days other forms of racism are not being given such prominence.  If all lives matter then all forms of racism should be considered (the all lives matter is actually about white people and about "lives" mattering not other forms of racism againt non-white people).

I know the difference but that's not really a snappy enough answer for modern media.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Paul Calf on November 22, 2020, 11:01:35 AM
Taken as a standalone statement, I don't actually see what's controversial about this.

EDIT: Or this one

Show us your tits calves Paul

pigamus

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on November 22, 2020, 12:27:00 PM
single issue anti-racist was a term someone came up with on Novara to explain Starmers actions over AS compared to other forms of racism.  Clive Lewis was also highlighted on Politics Today the fact that people (and he is referring to people in his own party) have been suggesting racism didn't exist in the Labour Party pre-Corbyn.  This implies that the racism that existed before is being ignored.

Right - so the idea is basically that the only racism they're interested in is antisemitism, because it can be used as a stick to beat Corbyn with, and any other racism that might exist in the Labour party, Islamophobia etc., is either dialled down or ignored?

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: jobotic on November 21, 2020, 11:06:08 PM
Yeah, cheers. We're not actually all cunts in the purple zone you know.

Aye, they missed out the enclave on the south coast for one thing.