Jump to content

Things That are Racist

Turkish

By Turkish,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
51 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Any idea who that poster is? He's clearly am old poster with a new account as I've never seen him before. MLG? 

Well he joined as shortly after Chapel Ends last visit to this forum, August last year. He immediately started following me and few others around and has a very similar posting style, but i'm sure it's all just a coincidence.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Diane Abbott

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978

Suggesting that only Black people can be the victims of racism :mcinnes:

Disgraceful comments and very hypocritical. She hasn’t got a clue about anti-semitism. That’s her finished in mainstream politics, an unforced error and a gift for Starmer. That sad little boy Owen Jones who follows her and Corbyn around will hopefully exit stage far left as sick of him as well. Dreaded it every time she got up to speak in the HoC same as I do with Braverman. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, saint1977 said:

Disgraceful comments and very hypocritical. She hasn’t got a clue about anti-semitism. That’s her finished in mainstream politics, an unforced error and a gift for Starmer. That sad little boy Owen Jones who follows her and Corbyn around will hopefully exit stage far left as sick of him as well. Dreaded it every time she got up to speak in the HoC same as I do with Braverman. 

Whilst I don’t think her comments were anti Semitic, I do think that they were clumsy and ill thought out. Prejudice, racism, all of this stuff comes from the same place and it is not helpful to try and make the case that one is worse than another depending on who it is aimed at.

The Labour Party have dealt with the issue quickly and properly and she has rightly apologised (something that you don’t get from the other side of the House under this Government) but she has left the Tories with something to attack in another week when they on the ropes for poor behaviour and governance. This is all we will be hearing about from the right wing attack dogs for the next few days and Starmer will not be happy about her poorly judged comments. I hope you are right about her career in politics. Fair play to her for making it as the first black female MP but she has all too often given the far right an easy target to aim at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Whilst I don’t think her comments were anti Semitic, I do think that they were clumsy and ill thought out. Prejudice, racism, all of this stuff comes from the same place and it is not helpful to try and make the case that one is worse than another depending on who it is aimed at.

The Labour Party have dealt with the issue quickly and properly and she has rightly apologised (something that you don’t get from the other side of the House under this Government) but she has left the Tories with something to attack in another week when they on the ropes for poor behaviour and governance. This is all we will be hearing about from the right wing attack dogs for the next few days and Starmer will not be happy about her poorly judged comments. I hope you are right about her career in politics. Fair play to her for making it as the first black female MP but she has all too often given the far right an easy target to aim at.

I call House

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Whilst I don’t think her comments were anti Semitic, I do think that they were clumsy and ill thought out. Prejudice, racism, all of this stuff comes from the same place and it is not helpful to try and make the case that one is worse than another depending on who it is aimed at.

The Labour Party have dealt with the issue quickly and properly and she has rightly apologised (something that you don’t get from the other side of the House under this Government) but she has left the Tories with something to attack in another week when they on the ropes for poor behaviour and governance. This is all we will be hearing about from the right wing attack dogs for the next few days and Starmer will not be happy about her poorly judged comments. I hope you are right about her career in politics. Fair play to her for making it as the first black female MP but she has all too often given the far right an easy target to aim at.

I don't think that it will do Labour too much harm. Abbott has been suspended from the party and like Corbyn she has now the Labour whip. The fast, firm reaction from Starmer (as you say, in complete contrast to what happens with the Tories) gets rid of another potential  embarrassment (of whom will Batman now make fun ? ) and anything that separates Starmer's party even further from his predecessor will be an electoral asset to Labour. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I call House

I call yet another pointless, crass post from our resident xenophobe and far right agitator.

But I will bite. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what she said that is anti-Semitic and why?

For a change perhaps you can try and respond in a more intelligent and thoughtful way rather than deploying your usual default Kevin & Perry petulant kid routine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I call yet another pointless, crass post from our resident xenophobe and far right agitator.

But I will bite. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what she said that is anti-Semitic and why?

For a change perhaps you can try and respond in a more intelligent and thoughtful way rather than deploying your usual default Kevin & Perry petulant kid routine.

She minimised racism against Jews (and travellers and Irish people). I'm not sure that makes her words anti semitic personally, but it seems the bar is set low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

Abbott always been a racist, from her comments about black mums being somehow better, her whitey loves playing divide and rule, and of course her support for an anti semitic old goat, now this. She should have been chucked out years ago, she’s a racist and always has been. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I call yet another pointless, crass post from our resident xenophobe and far right agitator.

But I will bite. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what she said that is anti-Semitic and why?

For a change perhaps you can try and respond in a more intelligent and thoughtful way rather than deploying your usual default Kevin & Perry petulant kid routine.

All over the place. One minute saluting the Labour party for dealing with it quickly and properly, the next arguing she's done nuffing wrong guv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

I don't think that it will do Labour too much harm. Abbott has been suspended from the party and like Corbyn she has now the Labour whip. The fast, firm reaction from Starmer (as you say, in complete contrast to what happens with the Tories) gets rid of another potential  embarrassment (of whom will Batman now make fun ? ) and anything that separates Starmer's party even further from his predecessor will be an electoral asset to Labour. 

Helps them. Nullifies your working man type ‘it’s that crazy Diane Abbott who I can’t stand’ comment and gives Labour more credibility that they aren’t mad despite the Mail etc desperate attempts to portray otherwise

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, egg said:

She minimised racism against Jews (and travellers and Irish people). I'm not sure that makes her words anti semitic personally, but it seems the bar is set low. 

She didn't just minimise it, she denied it even existed and continued to espouse views from that other racist Whoopi Goldberg that you can only be racist against black people. Even if you thought that, I'm not sure why you'd ever want to articulate it out loud. Makes her sound even more insane than she usually does. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looking at the front pages today oboth the Murdoch Times and the Telegraph managed to make this a “Labour row” when it is nothing of the sort. It is about Diane Abbott, not the Labour Party and most papers who have put it on the front pages recognise that.

Compare how quickly Starmer has dealt with this issue to the way the government prevaricate in the hope that these types of issues will go away. Even when they do finally act, it is like pulling teeth. In Braverman’s case, when she was rightly removed from office, she was back in a senior job within the wink of an eye! People like Raab, Patel, Braverman and Williamson should have been swiftly dealt with in the same manner within their own party. Raab should be facing reselection now and at the very least, should have been stood down while the enquiry was underway.

We desperately need a new government and a Starmer is presently our best hope. Statements like the one made recently by Abbott are not the least bit helpful, not least to her own cause, and if she doesn’t understand that there is no place for a loose canon at this time, she has no place in political party doing it’s level best to overturn the status quo.

I have just read that Keir Starmer has stated that he thinks that her remarks are anti-Semitic. Looking at the definition of anti-semitism in the dictionary it mentioned displaying hate or hostility towards the Jewish people. I can’t see any of that in her text, just a whole load of ignorance and an effort to make out that one group has faced more prejudice and discrimination than others (which is quite clearly bollocks). Her future in politics isn’t looking very secure.

Edited by sadoldgit
Added text
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Looking at the front pages today oboth the Murdoch Times and the Telegraph managed to make this a “Labour row” when it is nothing of the sort. It is about Diane Abbott, not the Labour Party and most papers who have put it on the front pages recognise that.

Compare how quickly Starmer has dealt with this issue to the way the government prevaricate in the hope that these types of issues will go away. Even when they do finally act, it is like pulling teeth. In Braverman’s case, when she was rightly removed from office, she was back in a senior job within the wink of an eye! People like Raab, Patel, Braverman and Williamson should have been swiftly dealt with in the same manner within their own party. Raab should be facing reselection now and at the very least, should have been stood down while the enquiry was underway.

We desperately need a new government and a Starmer is presently our best hope. Statements like the one made recently by Abbott are not the least bit helpful, not least to her own cause, and if she doesn’t understand that there is no place for a loose canon at this time, she has no place in political party doing it’s level best to overturn the status quo.

Bingo!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
42 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Looking at the front pages today oboth the Murdoch Times and the Telegraph managed to make this a “Labour row” when it is nothing of the sort. It is about Diane Abbott, not the Labour Party and most papers who have put it on the front pages recognise that.

Compare how quickly Starmer has dealt with this issue to the way the government prevaricate in the hope that these types of issues will go away. Even when they do finally act, it is like pulling teeth. In Braverman’s case, when she was rightly removed from office, she was back in a senior job within the wink of an eye! People like Raab, Patel, Braverman and Williamson should have been swiftly dealt with in the same manner within their own party. Raab should be facing reselection now and at the very least, should have been stood down while the enquiry was underway.

We desperately need a new government and a Starmer is presently our best hope. Statements like the one made recently by Abbott are not the least bit helpful, not least to her own cause, and if she doesn’t understand that there is no place for a loose canon at this time, she has no place in political party doing it’s level best to overturn the status quo.

You are beyond parody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 23/04/2023 at 13:41, sadoldgit said:

Whilst I don’t think her comments were anti Semitic, I do think that they were clumsy and ill thought out. Prejudice, racism, all of this stuff comes from the same place and it is not helpful to try and make the case that one is worse than another depending on who it is aimed at.

The Labour Party have dealt with the issue quickly and properly and she has rightly apologised (something that you don’t get from the other side of the House under this Government) but she has left the Tories with something to attack in another week when they on the ropes for poor behaviour and governance. This is all we will be hearing about from the right wing attack dogs for the next few days and Starmer will not be happy about her poorly judged comments. I hope you are right about her career in politics. Fair play to her for making it as the first black female MP but she has all too often given the far right an easy target to aim at.

Keir Starmer disagrees with you. Well done to Starmer for acting quickly. Too bad that SOG, who prides himself on calling our racism, is defending it.

Sir Keir Starmer 'utterly condemns' Diane Abbott's 'antisemitic' comments | Politics News | Sky News

 

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

The Labour party sure dealt with Dianne Abbot's views quickly, decisively ensuring that someone with such racist views perhaps, as SOG said, has no place in a political party.

Oh wait, this is her apology for racism from 2012...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/05/diane-abbott-accused-racism-twitter.

Starmer wasn’t the party leader at that point and we all know the problems Labour had with claims of anti-Semitism under Corbyn and before. You could argue that a previous Tory Prme Minister got away with racist and Islamophobic language Scot free so why single out an opposition MP for harsher treatment 😉

I wonder if she has deliberately lobbed a hand grenade at Starmer before the council elections. There are rumours that she wasn’t planning to stand at the next election and she must have know that her words would cause an uproar and problems for Labour at a time where they had been working hard to restore their relations with the Jewish community. The speed of her apology also seems to be staged. The argument that it was just a draft doesn’t wash either. Why would you write such contentious stuff in the first place?

Anyway, the main point is that it has played right into Starmer’s hands. He has shown, as with Corbyn, that he will act swiftly to deal with these issues whereas our current PM shows time and again that he bottles it when having to deal with his own in party problems.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

t 😉

I wonder if she has deliberately lobbed a hand grenade at Starmer before the council elections. There are rumours that she wasn’t planning to stand at the next election and she must have know that her words would cause an uproar and problems for Labour at a time where they had been working hard to restore their relations with the Jewish community.

Such an oddball.

Earlier today you were telling us all how the issue was only about her and thankfully not being reported as a Labour party issue. Now you've changed your mind.

All over the place with this one :mcinnes:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer wasn’t the party leader at that point and we all know the problems Labour had with claims of anti-Semitism under Corbyn and before. You could argue that a previous Tory Prme Minister got away with racist and Islamophobic language Scot free so why single out an opposition MP for harsher treatment 😉

I wonder if she has deliberately lobbed a hand grenade at Starmer before the council elections. There are rumours that she wasn’t planning to stand at the next election and she must have know that her words would cause an uproar and problems for Labour at a time where they had been working hard to restore their relations with the Jewish community. The speed of her apology also seems to be staged. The argument that it was just a draft doesn’t wash either. Why would you write such contentious stuff in the first place?

Anyway, the main point is that it has played right into Starmer’s hands. He has shown, as with Corbyn, that he will act swiftly to deal with these issues whereas our current PM shows time and again that he bottles it when having to deal with his own in party problems.

Oh SOG.

You're now saying that Abbott's letter is now part of an elaborate masterplan to destabalise the party she's remained an MP of since the late '80s at council elections. That she's remained part of, even through the ousting and barring of Corbyn.

A masterplan from an MP with a history of utter car crash statements, such as retaining police officers for £30 each, and a long record of abhorant extremist loving commentary. "Indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent" as she said herself about people she was criticising, before doing as exactly as they did.

Really? I do hope you take a moment and think how far down the rabbit hole you've gone here.

"Why would you write such contentious stuff in the first place?"
Because that's what she thinks. A quick look online shows a long history of broad, racist comments. This latest one isn't terribly far removed from previous utterances that her party was all too eager to put up with. So much for quick action.

"She must have know that her words would cause an uproar."
I doubt it, because she was telling everyone exactly what she really thought, as she had done on a number of previous occassions.

Starmer has acted swiftly, because his party have had to relentlessly weed out the anti semitism that pervades it. Despite you not recognising the meaning of Abbott's comments, the Labour party (and everyone else here and in what I've seen in the press) certainly did. Starmer could not have let this pass, and retained whatever credibility he and his party have.

He does get the added bonus of getting shot of an utter liability, politically, within his party. He will have been only too pleased to get shot of another Corbynite. That's another reason for his to act swiftly. He couldn't believe his luck.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted

Starmer will be delighted to get rid of her, he’s probably been waiting for her to fuck up so that he can bin her off and lose the old Corbyn / Abbott associations. Not surprised it happened quickly, they’ll have had a plan in place to do just that when dopey Diane misspeaks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Oh SOG.

You're now saying that Abbott's letter is now part of an elaborate masterplan to destabalise the party she's remained an MP of since the late '80s at council elections. That she's remained part of, even through the ousting and barring of Corbyn.

A masterplan from an MP with a history of utter car crash statements, such as retaining police officers for £30 each, and a long record of abhorant extremist loving commentary. "Indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent" as she said herself about people she was criticising, before doing as exactly as they did.

Really? I do hope you take a moment and think how far down the rabbit hole you've gone here.

"Why would you write such contentious stuff in the first place?"
Because that's what she thinks. A quick look online shows a long history of broad, racist comments. This latest one isn't terribly far removed from previous utterances that her party was all too eager to put up with. So much for quick action.

"She must have know that her words would cause an uproar."
I doubt it, because she was telling everyone exactly what she really thought, as she had done on a number of previous occassions.

Starmer has acted swiftly, because his party have had to relentlessly weed out the anti semitism that pervades it. Despite you not recognising the meaning of Abbott's comments, the Labour party (and everyone else here and in what I've seen in the press) certainly did. Starmer could not have let this pass, and retained whatever credibility he and his party have.

He does get the added bonus of getting shot of an utter liability, politically, within his party. He will have been only too pleased to get shot of another Corbynite. That's another reason for his to act swiftly. He couldn't believe his luck.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly didn’t say that this was an “elaborate master plan.” I was merely putting another angle out there for discussion. The words “I wonder” were the clue.

Yes she has previous for car crash interviews. On this occasion she wasn’t tripped up by having to think on her feet. She had plenty of time to select what she wanted to say and how she was going to say it. Apparently she sent the same draft twice three hours apart. She sent it a week before it was published so had plenty of time to phone up The Observer, explain it was a mistake, ask for it to be withdrawn and send another, less problematic response.

My other point about “why now” is pertinent. She knows full well now that Labour under Starmer deal with perceived anti-Semitism quickly and seriously (not least because her previous partner has been thrown out of the party for the same issue). She will have known exactly what was going to happen to her and what an uproar it would cause, despite the very swift apology.

You say I don’t understand the meaning of her comments? Can you show me where her response displays hate or hostility towards Jewish people? Can you show me where she denied the Holocaust? No, because she didn’t do any of that. To me anyway, her issue in the response was all about semantics. She was not denying that the Jewish people had not faced discrimination and prejudice. Her point was that black people face a different type of discrimination and prejudice. She was trying to claim the word “racism” for black people whilst not denying that others have faced and do face discrimination and prejudice for who they are. Is that really anti-Sematism? If it is, then ok.

I listened to four different phone-in shows yesterday and, as you would expect, she was heavily critiqued for her comments. Most people though took issue with her badly put and worded argument rather than calling it outright anti-Semitic rhetoric.

There were a few callers from the Black community who agreed with her about the perceived difference. This was on the basis that black (and brown people for that matter) are immediately identifiable through skin colour and this causes a different type of (and immediate) prejudice trigger. White Jewish people, travellers etc are not always immediately recognisable. Before you pick me up on this, this is other people from ethnic minorities saying it, not me.

I don’t know how many times she has said anything like this on Starmer’s watch. What I do know is that within a very short time of the media picking up on this story, she had the whip removed.

What her motivation to post such a provocative response a couple of weeks before local elections,when she knew full well that it would cause problems for Starmer and the Labour Party and take the flak away from Sunak and the Tories, only she will know. What I can say with a level of certainty is that I know a few people who are aligned to the far Left of the Labour Party who, from their online posts, seem more intent in derailing Starmer than getting the Tories out. Again, just so that we are clear, I am not saying that this was her motive, but it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility is it?

There is another angle. Maybe she is fed up with the focus from the Labour Party on dealing with anti-Semitism and feels that discrimination towards black people had been thrown into its shade. This might have been her attempt to put the black issue higher up the agenda? To that end it certainly made the issue of discrimination between different factions a talking point, even if it backfired very badly.

This point was made on a phone-in yesterday but rebutted with the answer that the Labour Party has a great deal of work to do in getting over the anti-Semitism issues. They don’t have an “institutionalised” issue with discrimination against the black community, therefore the main focus is naturally dealing with putting the anti-Semitic stuff to bed.

 

Sorry for yet another long ramble Badger. I promise I am working on the brevity thing.

 

  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Her point was that black people face a different type of discrimination and prejudice. She was trying to claim the word “racism” for black people 

 

“I came into politics to fight racism and I have never resiled from that position. For me, it has always been the case that racism includes antisemitism. 
 


Abbott 2018…

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“I came into politics to fight racism and I have never resiled from that position. For me, it has always been the case that racism includes antisemitism. 
 


Abbott 2018…

 

 

 

As with many politicians, she fails to hold a consistent view - her letter to the Guardian does not tally with that quote. Perhaps she should take longer to consider her replies before firing off indignant responses.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted

One of the arguments I heard in defence of Abbott’s comments yesterday was that the Jews are not a race per se, Judaism is a religion, therefore they cannot face racism. The argument against that was if you are born of a Jewish mother, you are Jewish even if you do not embrace the religion. I have looked up defined human “races” and Jewish does not feature as an actual race. This article claims that it is not a “race” as we understand it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/
 

I am not making an argument either way, but, in this instance, I do think that she was getting herself tied up in semantics and was not deliberately denigrating  Jews, travellers, red haired people etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

One of the arguments I heard in defence of Abbott’s comments yesterday was that the Jews are not a race per se, Judaism is a religion, therefore they cannot face racism. The argument against that was if you are born of a Jewish mother, you are Jewish even if you do not embrace the religion. I have looked up defined human “races” and Jewish does not feature as an actual race. This article claims that it is not a “race” as we understand it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/
 

I am not making an argument either way, but, in this instance, I do think that she was getting herself tied up in semantics and was not deliberately denigrating  Jews, travellers, red haired people etc.

of course, had a Tory said the exact same thing........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

One of the arguments I heard in defence of Abbott’s comments yesterday was that the Jews are not a race per se, Judaism is a religion, therefore they cannot face racism. The argument against that was if you are born of a Jewish mother, you are Jewish even if you do not embrace the religion. I have looked up defined human “races” and Jewish does not feature as an actual race. This article claims that it is not a “race” as we understand it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/
 

I am not making an argument either way, but, in this instance, I do think that she was getting herself tied up in semantics and was not deliberately denigrating  Jews, travellers, red haired people etc.

By Law, being Jewish is a "protected characteristic" under equalities and discrimination legislation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

One of the arguments I heard in defence of Abbott’s comments yesterday was that the Jews are not a race per se, Judaism is a religion, therefore they cannot face racism. The argument against that was if you are born of a Jewish mother, you are Jewish even if you do not embrace the religion. I have looked up defined human “races” and Jewish does not feature as an actual race. This article claims that it is not a “race” as we understand it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/
 

I am not making an argument either way, but, in this instance, I do think that she was getting herself tied up in semantics and was not deliberately denigrating  Jews, travellers, red haired people etc.

You should listen to a bit of what David Baddiel has to say on subject. Do you just listen to radio phones ins all day? Personally wouldn’t be able to stand 10 mins of that guff

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Quite a lot of things I've quoted bits from below...

 

‘I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly didn’t say that this was an “elaborate master plan.”’

Perhaps I had misinterpreted “deliberately lobbed a hand grenade at Starmer before the council elections” or “she must have know that her words would cause an uproar and problems for Labour” or “The speed of her apology also seems to be staged” as in some way you suggesting Abbott had done this deliberately?

Handily, you’ve followed this up with “She will have known exactly what was going to happen to her” and “she knew full well that it would cause problems for Starmer and the Labour Party” and “I know a few people who … seem more intent in derailing Starmer than getting the Tories out.” And that’s not including your points about all the time she seemed to have before it went live.

So, no I’ve not misinterpreted you at all. I’ve pointed out that Abbott has a long history of making comments not too dissimilar from this one. Abbott has to apologise for racism in the past, again for comments not too dissimilar to this.

Trying to make your case and then hide behind “I wonder” and “is it beyond the realms of possibility” is weak, when you’ve repeatedly tried to reinforce the point.

You even try to give her credit with “To that end it certainly made the issue of discrimination between different factions a talking point” before trying to hide that with “even if it backfired very badly.”

But despite showing you her comment as part of an ongoing history, and highlighting that her track record of dreadful responses, planned or in interviews, you just don’t want to listen.

Your previous point was “Why would you write such contentious stuff in the first place?” rather than “Why Now?” You seem to be linking Abbott’s masterstroke as related to local elections. The answer is the same to both. Abbott posted it, because those are her views. The timing was entirely due to her being triggered by the article, and nothing to do with local elections. Her previous apologies and statements have often been triggered in just the same way.

 

On the rest of your post…

“You say I don’t understand the meaning of her comments?”
Looking at the responses, and some of your later comments, I think that’s exactly what we’re saying.

“Is that really anti-Sematism? If it is, then ok.”
Yes, it really was. I’m glad your “ok” accepts this.

Her comments set out a hierarchy of racism, automatically excluding many minorities from legitimacy, a voice, equality and justice.

The article she was responding to, dealt specifically with a number of groups that she has considered to be inequal. One of which was Jewish people. Just in case extra clarity was required, as you felt she had to list the groups she considered not capable of actually being racially discriminated against, in order for it to count.

 

In a later post you say “in this instance, I do think that she was getting herself tied up in semantics and was not deliberately denigrating  Jews, travellers, red haired people etc.”

Now that you’ve been informed, again, that there is a history here with Abbott, and that she has had to apologise for racism before, you might reconsider if she has been accidentally misinterpreted. Again. And Again. And Again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)

An article explaining the semantics in this case.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/diane-abbott-letter

Most of my points were pure speculation but yes, I do believe that she knew that the contents of this letter would cause a stir, as you say, it isn’t as if she hasn’t been there before. My points were directed at the contents of this letter and this letter alone and has nothing to do with anything else because some have discerned this letter as anti/Semitic in itself. Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. As Starmer says, there is no hierarchy when it comes to these issues, but there clearly is given the way that her letter has now become about anti-Semitism alone. Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter?

Edited by sadoldgit
Added text
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

An article explaining the semantics in this case.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/diane-abbott-letter

Most of my points were pure speculation but yes, I do believe that she knew that the contents of this letter would cause a stir, as you say, it isn’t as if she hasn’t been there before. My points were directed at the contents of this letter and this letter alone and has nothing to do with anything else because some have discerned this letter as anti/Semitic in itself. Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. As Starmer says, there is no hierarchy when it comes to these issues, but there clearly is given the way that her letter has now become about anti-Semitism alone. Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter?

What's James O'Brien got to say on the issue? Has he told you what you should be thinking yet? You probably need to start having someone elses opinion as your own one seems to change every time you post. It's quite incredible that the self appointed forum spokesman against racism has yet again failed to condemn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice.

The sort of thing an anti-Semite would say

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, whelk said:

The sort of thing an anti-Semite would say

Seriously? I expected better from you Whelk. If you believe that there is no hierarchy when it comes to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and that Diane Abbott was wrong in trying to claim that black people have had it worse and longer than others because their issue is “racism”, why is it them an anti-Semitic thing to do to point out that this issue is the same for all of those affected?

Do you think that Jewish, Romany, Slavs, Black, communist,homosexual, disabled etc people herded into the gas chambers at Auschwitz were wondering if they were there because of racism or bigotry or discrimination?

If it it wrong it is wrong. It doesn’t make it worse if it is directed at one specific group, which is precisely where Abbott’s arguement failed so badly.

Hopefully the focus will turn towards the appalling rhetoric used by Braverman and Jenrick against migrants. It seems that they can pour bigotry, prejudice and discrimination towards this small group of people with impunity. Wrong type of victims of prejudice so therefore fair game I guess. 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

One of the arguments I heard in defence of Abbott’s comments yesterday was that the Jews are not a race per se, Judaism is a religion, therefore they cannot face racism. The argument against that was if you are born of a Jewish mother, you are Jewish even if you do not embrace the religion. I have looked up defined human “races” and Jewish does not feature as an actual race. This article claims that it is not a “race” as we understand it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/are-jews-a-race/
 

I am not making an argument either way, but, in this instance, I do think that she was getting herself tied up in semantics and was not deliberately denigrating  Jews, travellers, red haired people etc.

Of course YOU would never make that argument (heaven forbid). Meanwhile, David Baddiel explains why anyone who makes that argument is not only idiotic, but probably anti-semitic themselves: 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

An article explaining the semantics in this case.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/diane-abbott-letter

Most of my points were pure speculation but yes, I do believe that she knew that the contents of this letter would cause a stir, as you say, it isn’t as if she hasn’t been there before. My points were directed at the contents of this letter and this letter alone and has nothing to do with anything else because some have discerned this letter as anti/Semitic in itself. Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. As Starmer says, there is no hierarchy when it comes to these issues, but there clearly is given the way that her letter has now become about anti-Semitism alone. Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter?

It has been made an issue about antisemitism because of the systemic problem within the Labour party. The idea that antisemitism is afforded some special level of protection is itself an antisemitic trope. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Seriously? I expected better from you Whelk. If you believe that there is no hierarchy when it comes to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and that Diane Abbott was wrong in trying to claim that black people have had it worse and longer than others because their issue is “racism”, why is it them an anti-Semitic thing to do to point out that this issue is the same for all of those affected?

Do you think that Jewish, Romany, Slavs, Black, communist,homosexual, disabled etc people herded into the gas chambers at Auschwitz were wondering if they were there because of racism or bigotry or discrimination?

If it it wrong it is wrong. It doesn’t make it worse if it is directed at one specific group, which is precisely where Abbott’s arguement failed so badly.

Hopefully the focus will turn towards the appalling rhetoric used by Braverman and Jenrick against migrants. It seems that they can pour bigotry, prejudice and discrimination towards this small group of people with impunity. Wrong type of victims of prejudice so therefore fair game I guess. 

I am not in anyone’s gang but when you seem to want to find it ‘interesting’ that it has become about Jews that is exactly the sort of thing that Corbyn and his like come out with. They oppose all bigotry yada yada and will never anything clearly openly anti-Semitic but funny how they have such an ‘interest’ in Jewishness which Jews who are quite perceptive on the matter of persecution.
As I said earlier and a Hypo has repeated above worth listening to Baddiel on the subject.

The left seem to think being against the Jews is like being against society and money yet fail to see their clear racism and prejudice

 

Edited by whelk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...