General Election 2019 - Page 22 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

General Election 2019


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, phart said:

That's not the logical implication at all, but nice sophistry.

The thing i'm saying is race is subjective not objective.

So racism is subjective not objective , which is true.

A poor effort, want to try the actual meat of the diuscussion now and your claiming of an open and shut case and the terrible hidden anti-semitism of Marek Edelman (and other holocaust survivors, let's piss all over them with insinuations of textbook anti-semitism cause they compared Israeli government actions with Nazi government actions) That's the real implication of that statement of yours.

When I said "open and shut case" I was referring to Neale Hanvey.  I've no idea who Marek Edelman is and have never heard of him.  I'm assuming he's one of the people responsible for those quotes you posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aaid said:

When I said "open and shut case" I was referring to Neale Hanvey.  I've no idea who Marek Edelman is and have never heard of him.  I'm assuming he's one of the people responsible for those quotes you posted.

Here's the quote.

" It mentions a number of things regarding comments on the State of Israel as being anti-Semitic such as describing the State of Israel as a racist endeavour or saying that all Jews are responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.  Where it specifically mentions criticism of the State of Israel being anti-Semitic is when that is compare to the actions of the Nazis and that's one of the things that Hanvey has admitted doing.  Open and shut case."

I'm attacking the definition as explained by you. I know you didn't write them or even neccessarily agree with them, you're the messenger. It's just the definition pissess me off mainly cause it makes a lot of people who identify as Jewish anti-semites, which when you know their history is absolutely horrifying and actually straight up insulting.

Yeah i picked out 5 different quotes from 4 different people from the 1940's to 2018 who all made the same criticism or comparison but calling them anti-semitic would be idiotic.

 

Marek Edelman was one of the commanders of the Ghetto uprisings in Warsaw, created the Jewish Combat Organisation in the Ghetto's , after a few folk were killed he was the Leader in the last 3 weeks before the Nazi's burned the place to the ground forcing them out via the sewers to "safety", he used to say "We were beaten by the flames, not the Germans."

 

I have no idea if the SNP guy is anti-semitic. But it's like saying the definition of a bird is it has feathers and it can fly, and you keep parading penguins ostriches etc to show that it's not true...no it's not as simple as that.

On a side note, Rachel Riley is mental for sophist accusations of anti-semitism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phart said:

Here's the quote.

" It mentions a number of things regarding comments on the State of Israel as being anti-Semitic such as describing the State of Israel as a racist endeavour or saying that all Jews are responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.  Where it specifically mentions criticism of the State of Israel being anti-Semitic is when that is compare to the actions of the Nazis and that's one of the things that Hanvey has admitted doing.  Open and shut case."

I'm attacking the definition as explained by you. I know you didn't write them or even neccessarily agree with them, you're the messenger. It's just the definition pissess me off mainly cause it makes a lot of people who identify as Jewish anti-semites, which when you know their history is absolutely horrifying and actually straight up insulting.

Yeah i picked out 5 different quotes from 4 different people from the 1940's to 2018 who all made the same criticism or comparison but calling them anti-semitic would be idiotic.

 

Marek Edelman was one of the commanders of the Ghetto uprisings in Warsaw, created the Jewish Combat Organisation in the Ghetto's , after a few folk were killed he was the Leader in the last 3 weeks before the Nazi's burned the place to the ground forcing them out via the sewers to "safety", he used to say "We were beaten by the flames, not the Germans."

 

I have no idea if the SNP guy is anti-semitic. But it's like saying the definition of a bird is it has feathers and it can fly, and you keep parading penguins ostriches etc to show that it's not true...no it's not as simple as that.

On a side note, Rachel Riley is mental for sophist accusations of anti-semitism.

 

Fair enough and similarly I've no idea whether or not Neale Hanvey is anti-semitic or had anti-semitic intent in making those comments.    I believe its possible to make remarks that are discriminatory or could be construed as discriminatory without necessarily being discriminatory, particularly if you don't pay care to your words.

That said, as an aspiring politician in particular he should know a lot better.    A general rule of thumb is, especially as a non-Jew, unless you are talking specifically about the holocaust - and obviously not in terms of denial - then if you are writing or speaking about either Israel, the Jews as a race or religion or individual Jews, you would be better off not to mention the Nazis, both because it's likely to cause offence but also it allows people to make false accusations of anti-semitism in order to deflect from whatever your core point.  It's really easy to not bring the Nazis into it, in fact you probably have to try harder to shoehorn it in more.

The comments from someone like Marek Edelman who you mention probably need to be looked at in a different context, as someone who had direct personal experience of the Nazi regime and who as a Jew couldn't be realistically speaking from an anti-semitic standpoint.  The same benefit of the doubt should not necessarily be given to others who don't have the same history.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aaid said:

Fair enough and similarly I've no idea whether or not Neale Hanvey is anti-semitic or had anti-semitic intent in making those comments.    I believe its possible to make remarks that are discriminatory or could be construed as discriminatory without necessarily being discriminatory, particularly if you don't pay care to your words.

That said, as an aspiring politician in particular he should know a lot better.    A general rule of thumb is, especially as a non-Jew, unless you are talking specifically about the holocaust - and obviously not in terms of denial - then if you are writing or speaking about either Israel, the Jews as a race or religion or individual Jews, you would be better off not to mention the Nazis, both because it's likely to cause offence but also it allows people to make false accusations of anti-semitism in order to deflect from whatever your core point.  It's really easy to not bring the Nazis into it, in fact you probably have to try harder to shoehorn it in more.

The comments from someone like Marek Edelman who you mention probably need to be looked at in a different context, as someone who had direct personal experience of the Nazi regime and who as a Jew couldn't be realistically speaking from an anti-semitic standpoint.  The same benefit of the doubt should not necessarily be given to others who don't have the same history.


 

Just always be specific and with examples. So folk know exactly what you're talking about and never try and communicate with memes on serious subjects. Individuals make the decisions and do the actions etc. So point them out specifically , which takes effort cause the brain is pre-conditioned to pigeon-hole, fling conceptiual blankets etc cause of less calorific loads in that thinking.

It's worth pointing out that the most strident critics of Israel as a state(Zionism) are a Jewish Sect called Neturei Karta.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Orraloon said:

It would be very funny if the SNP guy still won. :lol:

Hanvey has been tweeting that if he wins he'll take his seat as an independent.

I suspect, though, given the Greens are standing a candidate in the constituency, that the pro-independence vote will split, and the sitting MP, Leslie Laird - a genuine numpty, by all accounts - will retain her seat. 

Considering Laird's majority is wafer thin, this would be a missed opportunity for the SNP of Iwelumo-esque proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, scotlad said:

Hanvey has been tweeting that if he wins he'll take his seat as an independent.

I suspect, though, given the Greens are standing a candidate in the constituency, that the pro-independence vote will split, and the sitting MP, Leslie Laird - a genuine numpty, by all accounts - will retain her seat. 

Considering Laird's majority is wafer thin, this would be a missed opportunity for the SNP of Iwelumo-esque proportions.

Labour were 11/8 til this morning.  A great bet, but its down to evens with 365.

Edited by weekevie04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, scotlad said:

Hanvey has been tweeting that if he wins he'll take his seat as an independent.

I suspect, though, given the Greens are standing a candidate in the constituency, that the pro-independence vote will split, and the sitting MP, Leslie Laird - a genuine numpty, by all accounts - will retain her seat. 

Considering Laird's majority is wafer thin, this would be a missed opportunity for the SNP of Iwelumo-esque proportions.

And there's only one person to blame for that.   

Ideally he would never had been so stupid in the first place or this would've been picked up in vetting but having come to light, the SNP couldn't do anything other that acting in this way and doing it quickly.

Apart from being the right thing to do, those suggesting they shouldn't have passed up the opportunity with this winnable seat, if they hadn't acted decisively, there's no doubt this would've been used as a stick to beat the SNP with and would potentially impact every seat in the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aaid said:

Specifically, a shady Jewish figure pulling the strings of two generals though?

This was a fairly common Nazi propaganda meme used in WW2.   I think you're kidding yourself if you can't see the parallel between the two.

 

There’s nothing in the picture to suggest he’s Jewish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

The Soros one

Apart from the fact that it's got Soros written on it and the disembodied hand pulling his strings says Rothschilds on the cuff.  Absolutely nothing to suggest who it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Because absolutely no-one knows that George Soros is Jewish. 

Most probably don’t know who he is.
Those who share the picture probably do though but doesn’t automatically make you someone who hates Jewish folk, you can hate Soros and his ilk without being anti Semitic. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Most probably don’t know who he is.
Those who share the picture probably do though but doesn’t automatically make you someone who hates Jewish folk, you can hate Soros and his ilk without being anti Semitic. 

 

Correct, but doing that in a way that utilises a historic antisemitic trope is probably going to make most people think that's the basis for your objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, aaid said:

Correct, but doing that in a way that utilises a historic antisemitic trope is probably going to make most people think that's the basis for your objection.

Yes, a stupid thing to do.  Had it just been him criticising Israeli government policy it would have been a different matter, but to most people it just looks bad and the SNP couldn't ignore it.  I'd rather the SNP did the right thing - it will benefit them in the longer term.  Mind you, Johnson should be toast for many of his remarks, so double standards are applied...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Yes, a stupid thing to do.  Had it just been him criticising Israeli government policy it would have been a different matter, but to most people it just looks bad and the SNP couldn't ignore it.  I'd rather the SNP did the right thing - it will benefit them in the longer term.  Mind you, Johnson should be toast for many of his remarks, so double standards are applied...

Difference is Hanvey is a nobody but Johnson is part of the UK political establishment who is doing great work distracting the masses with his gaffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Yes, a stupid thing to do.  Had it just been him criticising Israeli government policy it would have been a different matter, but to most people it just looks bad and the SNP couldn't ignore it.  I'd rather the SNP did the right thing - it will benefit them in the longer term.  Mind you, Johnson should be toast for many of his remarks, so double standards are applied...

We know the SNP is held to a different standard in Scotland, in some ways I think any governing party should be but that doesn't seem to apply in the UK at moment. 

To get a sense of how things would be if the SNP hadn't acted so decisively.   Five candidates have been suspended from their parties, two Labour, two Tories and one SNP.   On Reporting Scotland tonight, they were interviewing John Swinney about it, I haven't seen anyone from Labour or the Tories asked to comment on their candidates suspensions or ask them who people should now be voting for in their constituencies.

That might not be fair but it is how it its and is why SNP representatives need to be very careful in their actions and words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, aaid said:

We know the SNP is held to a different standard in Scotland, in some ways I think any governing party should be but that doesn't seem to apply in the UK at moment. 

To get a sense of how things would be if the SNP hadn't acted so decisively.   Five candidates have been suspended from their parties, two Labour, two Tories and one SNP.   On Reporting Scotland tonight, they were interviewing John Swinney about it, I haven't seen anyone from Labour or the Tories asked to comment on their candidates suspensions or ask them who people should now be voting for in their constituencies.

That might not be fair but it is how it its and is why SNP representatives need to be very careful in their actions and words. 

Did Swinney pull them up on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, daviebee said:

Did Swinney pull them up on this?

He probably doesn't know whether Labour or the Tories have been asked to comment or not. Especially at the time of his interview. He might know now, if he has bothered to ask somebody to find out for him. I am guessing he is pretty busy just now and doesn't have time to sit around watching TV all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

He probably doesn't know whether Labour or the Tories have been asked to comment or not. Especially at the time of his interview. He might know now, if he has bothered to ask somebody to find out for him. I am guessing he is pretty busy just now and doesn't have time to sit around watching TV all day.

I'm sure he won't have time but there'll be people detailed to go through every bit of coverage in the MSM and broadcast media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, daviebee said:

I'm sure he won't have time but there'll be people detailed to go through every bit of coverage in the MSM and broadcast media.

Of course there are but Swinney or any other SNP spokesperson isn't going to have all that information inside his head going into every interview. 

In any case it is current SNP policy not to attack the media. That has been the case for a long time, going back as far as Salmond's first stint in charge. Salmond is old enough and wise enough to remember what happened to the Labour party in the 80s when they tried to go down that route. Ironically it was Alex who broke his own rules when he had a go at Nick Robinson. It was quite out of character for Alex to do that. I think he was just testing the water with that one.

Personally I think it's now time for that policy to change. I think more and more people are prepared to hear about media bias, especially when it's the State Broadcaster that is doing it. But that is a huge policy change and would need a strong team to manage it well. I'm not sure the middle of an election campaign is the right time to start it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...