What's all this about Starmer being somehow a big ol centrist anyway
Kier Starmer was definitely socialist enough for a certain Jeremy Bernard Corbyn when he served him in the Shadow Cabinet for years and his big policies are broadly similar; nationalisation of public transport, investment in public services, strengthening and development of welfare, worker protections and such. The reason why the Corbynites hate him is because their guy fucking lost and Starmer has a very different form of politics.
A form of politics which has caused him to close a 20pt poll gap in a few months. I voted for Corbyn and I supported him and I wanted him to do well, even though he was shit on Brexit, shit on genuine concerns of national defence, and shit on the anti-semitism scandal. But he fucking lost, hard, he got smashed and we need something different or we're going to see ten more years of Tory gov, not five. And the country is literally falling apart (dissolution of the union! kids are starving, Covid-19 is devastating the old, the economy is undergoing a savage recession which Brexit will compound etc etc etc) under them so forgive me if this isn't something I am prepared to taking a massive risk on ideological principle on
I mean, good luck, John. I think you've got about as much hope of stopping Corbyn from claiming it was "dramatically overstated" and it was all the fault of the previous leadership team as you have of getting Ken Livingstone to stop talking about Hitler.
The commission handed in their report which said yeah it happened and part of it was Labour leadership constantly saying it was overblown. Corbyn said well yes that's very nice but it was all dramatically overblown.
He could have absolutely said something else, but I don't think Starmer had much alternative but to suspend him given what he said. If Corbyn gave a fuck about party unity he could have said nothing, or said he accepted the findings and hoped the party would move on.
The centre/left not simply giving him a pass for denying it was ever a problem is not them refusing to compromise with the left, unless anti-semitism is now baked into Corbyn's wing of the party.
It's not difficult to think of accurate usages of the term, but it's effectively taken the place of political correctness gone mad as a buzzword for the hard of thinking.
Gonna be a lot of very public cutting up of membership cards on the socials over the next few days.
This could indeed be very damaging for Labour in both the short and long run. It could also be a moment that solidifies Starmer sloughing off Corbyn's legacy in a very definite way. Whether you think that's good or bad is another matter.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So wait, Labour has had an anti-semitism problem internally. There was a commission to investigate that, found that it was true to some extent or another, and Corbyn is... denying it? What a complete piece of shit. But him aside, uh, what is being done to stop the rest of the anti-semitism happening within the party?
Also, as an aside, it's pretty weird that a government with an official church is pretending to care about other faiths / the peoples thereof.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
I am quite certain this will not reduce suspicion among the left towards Israel or Jewish organizations in Britain, to say nothing of actual anti-Semitic attitudes. Corbyn arguably did more against anti-Semitism than Milliband but the media had their jaws around his pants leg and were determined to destroy him and Labour.
Now see, I don't see the 'the media was out to get Labour' thing, given that an independent investigation has found that yes, anti Semitism is a problem with Labour?
Do you dispute the findings, and if so on what grounds?
I don't relish the thought of Labour shattering and I'm pretty sure it'll hand the Tories more elections but the simple fact is if the far left of the party can't integrate that's where we're at anyway. The exceptionalisim they think applies to them makes them a wrench in the works of what ever mechanism they're trying to be a part of. The idea that when they're in charge everyone needs to shut up and get in line and when they're not they're entitled to disagree on moral principle for everything just doesn't work.
Labour is just fucked either way. Can't live with the far left probably can't live without them either. Maybe somewhere down the line if they're lucky a centerist stance will take votes off the Tories to replace the Corbynites but who knows?
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Now see, I don't see the 'the media was out to get Labour' thing, given that an independent investigation has found that yes, anti Semitism is a problem with Labour?
Do you dispute the findings, and if so on what grounds?
Labour worked hard against anti-Semitism but it was never enough for the obsessives and the slanderers, who ignored islamophobia with zeal. I despise Corbyn's pathetic waffling on the EU but this is a public self-flagellation that will never be rewarded by the public or the media.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Not being anti-semitic seems like a reasonable demand of your government. Just throwing it out there.
Now see, I don't see the 'the media was out to get Labour' thing, given that an independent investigation has found that yes, anti Semitism is a problem with Labour?
Do you dispute the findings, and if so on what grounds?
Labour worked hard against anti-Semitism but it was never enough for the obsessives and the slanderers, who ignored islamophobia with zeal. I despise Corbyn's pathetic waffling on the EU but this is a public self-flagellation that will never be rewarded by the public or the media.
Ok but this doesn't address the reports finishings at all? What specifically about this reports finishings are incorrect? Do think it was biased, if so on what grounds?
What reason is there to not take this report at face value?
Now see, I don't see the 'the media was out to get Labour' thing, given that an independent investigation has found that yes, anti Semitism is a problem with Labour?
Do you dispute the findings, and if so on what grounds?
The issue comes from the fact that "the media were biased against Corbyn" and "Corbyn turned a blind eye to anti sematism in the labour party" are both true statements. They're not mutually exclusive things but people with agendas like to pretend they are. For the Corbynites it's a way to claim everything the media was saying was bullshit just because some of them had an agenda saying it. This has forever cemented the attitude that anyone saying it for any reason is part of the smear campaign.
One anti-Semite is one too many, 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. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.
I’ve made absolutely clear that those who deny there has been an antisemitism problem in the Labour party are wrong.
It’s also undeniable that a false impression has been created of the number of members accused of antisemitism, as polling shows: that is what has been overstated, not the seriousness of the problem.
The latter seems far less defensive and far better worded. It makes it far clearer that anti-semitism existed within the Labour party, doesn't try to shirk responsibility for it on to an earlier leadership team and doesn't add the modifier "dramatically" into the mix. If he'd said that first and the other statement wasn't released at all I think he might not have been suspended.
Corbyn wasn't helped very much by those around him denying it was a problem at all (McCluskey saying it was all "mood music"), and him then not telling them publicly that they were wrong and should shut up. The attitude seemed to be very much that although there might be a couple of anti-semites here and there they'd never witnessed any anti-semitism themselves and if they'd never seen it how serious could it be? How could people believe they could be racist, or even tolerate it for a second? This must be a media conspiracy.
Big Len would then tell a man of Jewish heritage to go back into a room and count his gold, suggesting that perhaps he wasn't the best judge of what constituted anti-semitism.
So wait, Labour has had an anti-semitism problem internally. There was a commission to investigate that, found that it was true to some extent or another, and Corbyn is... denying it? What a complete piece of shit. But him aside, uh, what is being done to stop the rest of the anti-semitism happening within the party?
Also, as an aside, it's pretty weird that a government with an official church is pretending to care about other faiths / the peoples thereof.
The report says
a) There weren't that many antisemitism complaints, rather there were a few serious ones.
b) But - the process for dealing with them was opaque compared with (for example) the parties process for dealing with sexual harassment
c) The processes have been improved considerably over 2019-2020 and are now dealt with much better
d) The Office of the Leader of the Opposition got itself involved in specific complaints to seek particular outcomes; quashing some, elevating others, seemingly on whim.
0
Options
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
edited October 2020
out of 70 sample incidents in the report, there were 2 that the EHRC could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt were anti-semitic
there were an additional 18 that were either not undisputedly proven, not made by "true" labour party members and so not the legal responsibility of labour, or within their right of free speech
that's still close to 30% of possible anti-semitic expressions and harassments that remained, according to the report, systematically unaddressed by the party's leadership under corbyn
expand that out to labour as a national party over a period of several years and who knows how many thousands of incidents we are talking about here that were either ignored by party authorities or not reported at all because those who were discriminated against knew they had no one to turn to
The problem is not that bigotry exists, or that little or nothing is being done about the bigotry. No. The problem is that people are talking about and drawing attention to it.
Racism is okay, being called a racist is unforgivable!
:rotate:
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
This is some real horseshit
This stance is not going to age well. Once trans rights get the same heft as gay rights and ethnic minority rights people and organisations saying stuff like "teach the debate" are going to look like real pieces of shit.
e: also telling queer people they can't go to pride or they'll be sacked is going to get shot down hard the first time it gets tested in court, whoever thought of this is an imbecile
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
the better established bbc journalists are already reacting by quoting the new guidelines with violations eg the anti-emoji stuff covered in welsh flags or whatever
not sure this will work
+1
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
For some reason when someone says they want to be neutral in the debate about your rights it feels a bit like they're against your rights. How weird.
+32
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
The fact that they prohibited the "these are my opinions, not reflective of an official statement of my employer" disclaimers on social media accounts seems to me to make any freedom of expression arguments by journalists much easier, since you can point to a deliberate strategy to police the free expression of all employees all the time.
For some reason when someone says they want to be neutral in the debate about your rights it feels a bit like they're against your rights. How weird.
Good point, you're either for Trans rights or you're against them. There's no middle ground.
It's all so ridiculous, Channel 4 had a lockdown debate. One side were Professors of Epidemiology and on the other anti-lockdown side was the bloke who owned Pimlico plumbers.
I'm so tired of racists, transphobes and climate change ignoring wankers being invited on to TV to spout their nonsense in the name of "balance".
+16
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
This clarification doesn't help. More to the point, news and current affairs staff SHOULD be present TO FUCKING OBSERVE AND REPORT ON NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS.
If pride parades are not also protests in support of queer rights then they are doing it wrong
+22
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The rights are constantly under assault by conservative efforts so... yeah.
I mean at the end of the day it's not up to the BBC to define what these events are or are not. That's up to the people organizing said events. The BBC can go fuck itself. YEAH I SAID IT <_<
Can I just say that the last few years has made me absolutely hate this phrase and its variants.
Whenever I hear or read it, what I now interpret is that the speaker is aware that what they previously said was NOT clear, they're about to say something different, and they have made the conscious decision to blame you - the listener - for having to correct themselves. It was a favourite of Theresa May for "Brexit means Brexit" and similar nonsense of spouting phrases to pretend you've addressed the issue.
The simple change to future tense "want to be" makes all the difference - as it is, the use of past tense just makes it a gaslighting tool.
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
This clarification doesn't help. More to the point, news and current affairs staff SHOULD be present TO FUCKING OBSERVE AND REPORT ON NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS.
Are Trans people not allowed to have pride?
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+4
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
This clarification doesn't help. More to the point, news and current affairs staff SHOULD be present TO FUCKING OBSERVE AND REPORT ON NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS.
Are Trans people not allowed to have pride?
No. Is the clear answer here.
This stance is not going to age well. Once trans rights get the same heft as gay rights and ethnic minority rights people and organisations saying stuff like "teach the debate" are going to look like real pieces of shit.
I like your optimism.
I think it's far more likely I'll find myself against a wall in the next decade than having my right to live respected.
Especially with previous comments from "allies" in this thread telling me we need to listen to the terfs and respect their points of view and "detoxify" the "debate".
Fuck off. This is where that gets us. If you are happy to watch us be forced out of society, that's your decision to make. It should be blindingly obvious however that they have no intention of stopping at trans people, and maybe have a think about where you're going to draw the line on "people it's ok to have debates about their right to exist".
BBC staff told they could be suspended if they attend LGBT pride events under new rules
It is understood employees in news and current affairs have been told that they could be issued with a formal warning or suspended from their jobs if they attend LGBT events
According to sources, senior staff challenged Mr Jordan to extend the ban to pride events over concerns the BBC could be seen to take a side in the debate around transgender rights.
The guidelines only apply to staff who are expected to be politically neutral, such as in news and current affairs.
Asked for clarity on confusion, BBC said pride is fine if it is seen as a “a celebration”, but if the “trans issue" (as it was described) is involved then it passes as a protest and news and current affairs staff should not attend.
This clarification doesn't help. More to the point, news and current affairs staff SHOULD be present TO FUCKING OBSERVE AND REPORT ON NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS.
Are Trans people not allowed to have pride?
No. Is the clear answer here.
This stance is not going to age well. Once trans rights get the same heft as gay rights and ethnic minority rights people and organisations saying stuff like "teach the debate" are going to look like real pieces of shit.
I like your optimism.
I think it's far more likely I'll find myself against a wall in the next decade than having my right to live respected.
Especially with previous comments from "allies" in this thread telling me we need to listen to the terfs and respect their points of view and "detoxify" the "debate".
No one in this thread said anything of the sort to you. Maybe stop attacking people who are on your side and direct it at the people who are actually saying those things?
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
LGB = OK, T = Not OK is one hell of a clarification.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
New Tory appointees like the director general are extending their fucking awful culture war bullshit in every direction they can. It's repulsive and done with the intention of silencing any and all criticism of the government, and casting anyone who disagrees as virtue signalling woke lefties.
The ex head of news who went to work for Theresa May recently said he thought fact checkers were an insult to the hard working minsters who tries so very hard to make sure what they said was right.
Hollow out the BBC and then slowly dissolve it in acid once it's been shorn of anything worth defending.
Can I just say that the last few years has made me absolutely hate this phrase and its variants.
Whenever I hear or read it, what I now interpret is that the speaker is aware that what they previously said was NOT clear, they're about to say something different, and they have made the conscious decision to blame you - the listener - for having to correct themselves. It was a favourite of Theresa May for "Brexit means Brexit" and similar nonsense of spouting phrases to pretend you've addressed the issue.
The simple change to future tense "want to be" makes all the difference - as it is, the use of past tense just makes it a gaslighting tool.
Posts
Kier Starmer was definitely socialist enough for a certain Jeremy Bernard Corbyn when he served him in the Shadow Cabinet for years and his big policies are broadly similar; nationalisation of public transport, investment in public services, strengthening and development of welfare, worker protections and such. The reason why the Corbynites hate him is because their guy fucking lost and Starmer has a very different form of politics.
A form of politics which has caused him to close a 20pt poll gap in a few months. I voted for Corbyn and I supported him and I wanted him to do well, even though he was shit on Brexit, shit on genuine concerns of national defence, and shit on the anti-semitism scandal. But he fucking lost, hard, he got smashed and we need something different or we're going to see ten more years of Tory gov, not five. And the country is literally falling apart (dissolution of the union! kids are starving, Covid-19 is devastating the old, the economy is undergoing a savage recession which Brexit will compound etc etc etc) under them so forgive me if this isn't something I am prepared to taking a massive risk on ideological principle on
I mean, good luck, John. I think you've got about as much hope of stopping Corbyn from claiming it was "dramatically overstated" and it was all the fault of the previous leadership team as you have of getting Ken Livingstone to stop talking about Hitler.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
oh of course not
but "anti-zionsim" (😉) might be
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
For "conservative thought thinkers"?
Steam | XBL
This could indeed be very damaging for Labour in both the short and long run. It could also be a moment that solidifies Starmer sloughing off Corbyn's legacy in a very definite way. Whether you think that's good or bad is another matter.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Also, as an aside, it's pretty weird that a government with an official church is pretending to care about other faiths / the peoples thereof.
Do you dispute the findings, and if so on what grounds?
Labour is just fucked either way. Can't live with the far left probably can't live without them either. Maybe somewhere down the line if they're lucky a centerist stance will take votes off the Tories to replace the Corbynites but who knows?
Labour worked hard against anti-Semitism but it was never enough for the obsessives and the slanderers, who ignored islamophobia with zeal. I despise Corbyn's pathetic waffling on the EU but this is a public self-flagellation that will never be rewarded by the public or the media.
Ok but this doesn't address the reports finishings at all? What specifically about this reports finishings are incorrect? Do think it was biased, if so on what grounds?
What reason is there to not take this report at face value?
The issue comes from the fact that "the media were biased against Corbyn" and "Corbyn turned a blind eye to anti sematism in the labour party" are both true statements. They're not mutually exclusive things but people with agendas like to pretend they are. For the Corbynites it's a way to claim everything the media was saying was bullshit just because some of them had an agenda saying it. This has forever cemented the attitude that anyone saying it for any reason is part of the smear campaign.
To this slightly later statement:
The latter seems far less defensive and far better worded. It makes it far clearer that anti-semitism existed within the Labour party, doesn't try to shirk responsibility for it on to an earlier leadership team and doesn't add the modifier "dramatically" into the mix. If he'd said that first and the other statement wasn't released at all I think he might not have been suspended.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Big Len would then tell a man of Jewish heritage to go back into a room and count his gold, suggesting that perhaps he wasn't the best judge of what constituted anti-semitism.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The report says
a) There weren't that many antisemitism complaints, rather there were a few serious ones.
b) But - the process for dealing with them was opaque compared with (for example) the parties process for dealing with sexual harassment
c) The processes have been improved considerably over 2019-2020 and are now dealt with much better
d) The Office of the Leader of the Opposition got itself involved in specific complaints to seek particular outcomes; quashing some, elevating others, seemingly on whim.
there were an additional 18 that were either not undisputedly proven, not made by "true" labour party members and so not the legal responsibility of labour, or within their right of free speech
that's still close to 30% of possible anti-semitic expressions and harassments that remained, according to the report, systematically unaddressed by the party's leadership under corbyn
expand that out to labour as a national party over a period of several years and who knows how many thousands of incidents we are talking about here that were either ignored by party authorities or not reported at all because those who were discriminated against knew they had no one to turn to
Racism is okay, being called a racist is unforgivable!
:rotate:
This stance is not going to age well. Once trans rights get the same heft as gay rights and ethnic minority rights people and organisations saying stuff like "teach the debate" are going to look like real pieces of shit.
e: also telling queer people they can't go to pride or they'll be sacked is going to get shot down hard the first time it gets tested in court, whoever thought of this is an imbecile
That's the problem with trying to please the right wing, it's never enough.
not sure this will work
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Good point, you're either for Trans rights or you're against them. There's no middle ground.
It's all so ridiculous, Channel 4 had a lockdown debate. One side were Professors of Epidemiology and on the other anti-lockdown side was the bloke who owned Pimlico plumbers.
I'm so tired of racists, transphobes and climate change ignoring wankers being invited on to TV to spout their nonsense in the name of "balance".
I mean at the end of the day it's not up to the BBC to define what these events are or are not. That's up to the people organizing said events. The BBC can go fuck itself. YEAH I SAID IT <_<
Whenever I hear or read it, what I now interpret is that the speaker is aware that what they previously said was NOT clear, they're about to say something different, and they have made the conscious decision to blame you - the listener - for having to correct themselves. It was a favourite of Theresa May for "Brexit means Brexit" and similar nonsense of spouting phrases to pretend you've addressed the issue.
The simple change to future tense "want to be" makes all the difference - as it is, the use of past tense just makes it a gaslighting tool.
Are Trans people not allowed to have pride?
No. Is the clear answer here.
I like your optimism.
I think it's far more likely I'll find myself against a wall in the next decade than having my right to live respected.
Especially with previous comments from "allies" in this thread telling me we need to listen to the terfs and respect their points of view and "detoxify" the "debate".
Fuck off. This is where that gets us. If you are happy to watch us be forced out of society, that's your decision to make. It should be blindingly obvious however that they have no intention of stopping at trans people, and maybe have a think about where you're going to draw the line on "people it's ok to have debates about their right to exist".
I'm so. So. Angry.
No one in this thread said anything of the sort to you. Maybe stop attacking people who are on your side and direct it at the people who are actually saying those things?
The ex head of news who went to work for Theresa May recently said he thought fact checkers were an insult to the hard working minsters who tries so very hard to make sure what they said was right.
Hollow out the BBC and then slowly dissolve it in acid once it's been shorn of anything worth defending.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Viz, as always, has us covered