[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 81994)
File  []
>> No. 81994 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 9:33 am
81994 spacer
Did Livingstone say anything wrong?
Expand all images.
>> No. 81995 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 9:57 am
81995 spacer
The original comment is almost irrelevant; the problem is his refusal to apologise. By continuing to defend his remarks, he has put his own ego above the interests of the Labour party. He could have retracted his remarks, made a mealy-mouthed non-apology and everything would have been basically fine. Instead, he has absolutely destroyed Labour's credibility in the Jewish community. The whole thing was an extraordinary display of arrogance and poor judgement.
>> No. 81996 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 10:27 am
81996 spacer
If you apologise for saying something antisemitic when you actually haven't, then you're chipping away at free speech. So the original comment is totally relevant - assuming your principles lie with free speech and not seizing political power through any means.

I've seen widespread condemnation of his comments but not a real breakdown of why what he said was antisemitic. Hitler wanted to remove Jews from Germany - that's not in dispute is it? The 'working with Zionists' bit may or may not be historically accurate but what makes it antisemitic?
>> No. 81997 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 10:57 am
81997 spacer
Do you really think they'd have let him away with a non-apology though? The whole thing gives the impression they they (The press, that is.) desperately wanted to seize on something to have a moan about because har-har-har Labour's imploding.

In such a context, a non-apology just puts more fuel on the fire. (I'm not sure if the fact the fire is an an oil refinery diminishes or amplifies the problem of doing so.)
Maybe it's a bit too close to the holocaust-deniers card where they talk about that thing where the Nazis let some Jews go to the Mandate of Palestine as part of some convoluted thing that was-wasn't co-operation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement ) Because generally it's used as the thin edge of the "See, actually Hitler didn't really mind the Jews at all. Then they sadly all got Typhus and died thanks to allied bombing. He didn't do anything wrong, really." wedge. (Even if he wasn't using it as such personally, it's one of those things that rightly-or-wrongly gets alarm bells ringing.)

Also a guy told me that Zionism is an inherent part of Judaism and the thing mentions "oh, let's go back to Israel" so often that it'd be like cutting Jesus out of Christianity. (My hyperbolic analogy, not his.) So if he's right then maybe.

I suppose it's particularly open to the problem of the English language where two individuals of a group can be referred to with the general plural of that group. (i.e. if two Labour voters beat two people up, you could headline it "Labour voters are going around beating people up!" without technically lying, but implying a much stronger trend. Combine it with the general trend to dog-whistling "Zionist" and "Jews" and you've got a big mess of implications.)

Still feels like a storm in a teacup on a slow-news day though.
>> No. 81999 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 11:52 am
81999 spacer

>Do you really think they'd have let him away with a non-apology though?

Yes. The "I'm sorry for any offence caused" gambit consistently works. It doesn't have to be believable to the people who are demanding an apology, it just needs to look like enough of an apology to everyone else. It turns a clear cut "we demand an apology" into the far weaker "we demand a real apology". If your opponents don't give up after you give a non-apology, it's easy to make yourself look magnanimous and make them look like spoiled brats. You just keep repeating your non-apology, making contrite noises without actually accepting any degree of responsibility or wrongdoing.

It shouldn't work, but it does. So do "mistakes were made", "we have no plans to do x", answering the question you wish you'd been asked, repeating a soundbite ad nauseum, and all the other staples of the spin-doctor's playbook. The media are too capricious, lazy and easily distracted to cut through that sort of bullshit.
>> No. 82004 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 10:14 pm
82004 spacer
>"I'm sorry for any offence caused"
Is "I'm sorry for any offence taken" in the same vein as "I'm sorry you feel that way"? It just seems more accurate and honest in general.
>> No. 82005 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 11:12 pm
82005 spacer

The only people he should apologise to is the Labour party for saying things that he didn't need to say because people are stupid and don't like hearing things that are true.
>> No. 82006 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 11:12 pm
82006 spacer
Also he's a twat, a stupid twat, but in this case an accurate twat.
>> No. 82009 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 11:40 pm
82009 spacer
Yes, he did.
>> No. 82013 Anonymous
6th April 2017
Thursday 5:27 pm
82013 spacer
His remarks were nazi, Ann Frankly he should should feel ashamed.
>> No. 82017 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 12:49 am
82017 spacer
Don't jew dare start this nonsense.
>> No. 82019 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 12:16 pm
82019 spacer
These jokes aren't kosher. Someone's been leading you boys ashtray.
>> No. 82020 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 3:47 pm
82020 spacer
Can you fuckers shut up - you're ruining my concentration.
>> No. 82021 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 7:30 pm
82021 spacer
Baddiel, media Jew, weighs in.

>> No. 82022 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 7:31 pm
82022 spacer
I should clarify by which I mean 'resident Jewish commentator', not 'one of the Jews that controls the media'.
>> No. 82023 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 8:22 pm
82023 spacer

I mean, neither sounds great, mate.
>> No. 82024 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 8:24 pm
82024 spacer
Maybe he should write about something other antisemitism then.
>> No. 82025 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 8:29 pm
82025 spacer

>> No. 82026 Anonymous
7th April 2017
Friday 10:57 pm
82026 spacer
Because, if he doesn't think being labelled as a Jewish commentator "sounds great", then only writing about Jewish issues won't help.

Sage for explaining simple logic to a simpleton
>> No. 82090 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 1:21 am
82090 spacer

leftoid twatmonkeys eating themselves alive

that is about it
>> No. 82100 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 10:40 am
82100 spacer
You have to let go of the hate.
>> No. 82109 Anonymous
18th April 2017
Tuesday 2:34 pm
82109 spacer
The truth is rassssssssssisssssssssssssssssssss now. It doesn't matter if he states simple facts. All must submit to the demands of the Party and their narrative of ever shifting reality and history, written to suit their current plans. Reality is ignored. Study of reality instead of the model they construct to replace it is forbidden. Facts must be buried. Dangerous commies are good at burying stuff, often millions of the dead they murdered, but also facts.
>> No. 82110 Anonymous
18th April 2017
Tuesday 2:41 pm
82110 spacer
>It doesn't matter if he states simple facts
Which incident are you referring to? Clearly not the Hitler thing since those were only facts in the alternative sense.
>> No. 82231 Anonymous
27th April 2017
Thursday 9:30 pm
82231 spacer
>Ann Frankly
Good one, anon.

Return ]

Delete Post []