Time to resurrect Rock Against Racism?

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

Murdoch owns both of the Time and the Sun, and is often damned for what either might print ... yet often they're printing polar opposite things. Why is Bannon solely responsible for what breitbart published AND 100% means it, when it would be impossible to make similar stick to Murdoch (and where Murdoch is in sole control, and Bannon isn't)?

You're going waaaaay beyond what the evidence supports.

1.  Do you have any evidence that it didn't reflect his views? 

2.  When you say that Murdoch's publications "often"  display opposing views,  what's your evidence for that?   I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen the times editorial vary significantly from the scum since he's owned it.  The latter has been seen to be the mouthpiece which  most often reflected his  views, I think the former he's more inclined to let do what they like. 

3.  These are not normal times and it's not a normal administration.   They can do things to change that,  but haven't yet as far as I see.   You're counting blessings which are simply rumours.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Indeed,  hence if people think his jokes are inappropriate for a man in his position they're entitled to say so, as I think with some of our own politicians. 

its inappropriate for anyone to do.

For all the while we put ordinary people on pedestals only because they won a popularity contest we're kidding ourselves

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, clarkete said:

1.  Do you have any evidence that it didn't reflect his views? 

nope I don't have evidence, just as you don't have any evidence that it does.

Only one of us is stretching a circumstance into an unfounded allegation.

 

2 minutes ago, clarkete said:

2.  When you say that Murdoch's publications "often"  display opposing views,  what's your evidence for that?   I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen the times editorial vary significantly from the scum since he's owned it.  The latter has been seen to be the mouthpiece which  most often reflected his  views, I think the former he's more inclined to let do what they like. 

An easy one would be around brexit, where they took distinctly different lines.

It's likely one is more aligned with his views, and we can take informed guesses on that because of everything that's been written around Murdoch over the years, but the same clarity doesn't exist around Bannon.

But even if he's the "white nationalist" he's often described as it's still not a heinous view (tho one I disagree with). People are permitted to have views on the best way that society should be ordered and run, provided they don't step over certain lines.

"White nationalism" is not the same thing as "white supremacy", in case you've missed it.

I'm quite happy to go with the idea that his views are likely to be a long way from mine, and even that they might well step over the line in particular areas, but there's no evidence to damn him with, and certainly nothing to back up the "literal nazi" that zahidf was using to claim he should be barred from office.

If we're to decide who can have a public office by rumour and slur, we're in at least as much trouble as anything Trump might bring.

 

2 minutes ago, clarkete said:

3.  These are not normal times and it's not a normal administration.   They can do things to change that,  but haven't yet as far as I see.   You're counting blessings which are simply rumours.

They're very normal times. Yep, I'm still calling out wild exaggerations. 

Trump isn't a normal administration, true. But again, if 'outsiders' are not allowed to play a part in the political process, we've bigger problems than Trump.

And no, Trump disassociating himself from the alt-right and many of the other stances he took when campaigning are not rumours.

The rumours are the stuff such as

1. "Jews are terrified" without presenting anything to substantiate why they should be beyond the person who says that having presented those Jews with stuff that terrifies them - on a completely false basis.

2,. Trump has "a literal nazi" by his side.

Etc, etc, etc.

If any people are really "terrified" then the responsibility for that falls on what has terrified them - which is far more the false narratives of the likes of zahidf than the actual facts (even when taking on board all of Trump's campaigning).

(Just about all of the USA's media have been doing the zahidf lying thing, so I do recognise that some people have been suckede in by that sort of bullshit)

 

 

[clarkete]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"White nationalism" is not the same thing as "white supremacy", in case you've missed it.

The rumours are the stuff such as

1. "Jews are terrified" without presenting anything to substantiate why they should be beyond the person who says that having presented those Jews with stuff that terrifies them - on a completely false basis.

2,. Trump has "a literal nazi" by his side.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

None of that is anything to do with me, indeed I think you're responding to someone who's no longer looking at the thread, so save your effort eh sweetie  

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, clarkete said:

None of that is anything to do with me, indeed I think you're responding to someone who's no longer looking at the thread, so save your effort eh sweetie  

the top bit is to do with what you said. No idea why you're pretending it's not.

Nice way to swerve the rest i said that very specifically applied to what you'd said.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[Hagrid]

Hi, long time reader of this board. Brilliant place for information, hype and the like (try to press on an ad a visit!).

I think the broad thrust of yer man Mr Efestivals is maybe right - in that I take you to be generally of the centre-left, but keen that the concerns of people are not dismissed, fudged or misunderstood. However, do think a couple of things worth saying:

 

 

1) White nationalism is the same as white supremacy. Of course it is. Nationalism (Oxford Dictionary definition: 'an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries' ) dependent on ethnicity. 

 

2) Interesting piece on Bannon. http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/steve-bannon-and-new-crusade.html

A Bannon quote on his world-view:

- ' [W]e’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict...the people in this room, the people in the church, [need to] bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant...to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting..  '

This is just as dangerous as plain old 'white nationalism'. It could quite easily develop into a call of arms. And that could be incredibly dangerous. Think about how many people over-estimate the 'threat' of Islam - this kind of language could be very powerful. 

BTW don't think cannot be dismissed as an 'employee' of Breitbart. He ran it. In the same way that Paul Dacre cannot be dismissed as an 'employee' of the Daily Mail.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Hagrid said:

1) White nationalism is the same as white supremacy. Of course it is. Nationalism (Oxford Dictionary definition: 'an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries' ) dependent on ethnicity

The SNP are all that?

(yes, I know it's 'national party' and not 'nationalist party', but they self-describe themselves as nationalists)

I'm not fan of nationalism at any level, and i've been involved in a 3-year Scottish indy discussion here where you can see I'm no fan of the SNP.

Not all nationalism has to be 'extreme' or conquer up images of gas chambers and death camps. It is, at it's most mild, a preference for benefitting your own nation before other nations.

Like how Trump was saying (via rhetoric and racism ) that Mexico would not longer be sent American jobs, and they'd instead keep the jobs within the nation.

Or how the most recent Scottish indy-friendly post-indy economic ideas doc suggests Scotland doesn't pay its full NATO dues but instead keeps that money for itself.

(PS: call me centre left again and i'll string you up   ....  if the politics didn't come with fascism you're find me waaaaay to the left. And I have a plan to counter that fascism, too - just wait till I'm leader of the world, you'll see )

[scrippit]

17 minutes ago, Hagrid said:

BTW don't think cannot be dismissed as an 'employee' of Breitbart. He ran it. In the same way that Paul Dacre cannot be dismissed as an 'employee' of the Daily Mail.

This.

[Hagrid]

Ha! Agreed, nationalism is the most powerful, most persuasive and most difficult to grab hold of political ideas. 

We need a middle ground between nationalism and unfettered economic liberalism. A third way. Where's Big Tone?  

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Hagrid

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, Hagrid said:

2) Interesting piece on Bannon. http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/steve-bannon-and-new-crusade.html

A Bannon quote on his world-view:

- ' [W]e’re at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict...the people in this room, the people in the church, [need to] bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant...to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting..  '

This is just as dangerous as plain old 'white nationalism'. It could quite easily develop into a call of arms. And that could be incredibly dangerous. Think about how many people over-estimate the 'threat' of Islam - this kind of language could be very powerful. 

Thanks for link. It's certainly a less rash take on things than just about everything else I've seen.

You're being a little disengenious with what you've presented here, because you've taken it out of it's full context.

The full context is the threat from 'radical Islam' - a real threat, tho there can be arguments about how dangerous - and what you've quoted above is a response to what he feels that threat is. Bannon (from that) feels that the fight is going to come into the USA. It's a view.

I'm not going to try and justify that view, tho I will point out that the opposing candidate was justifying her bombing of Muslim countries on the basis of stopping that threat reaching the USA. 

Likewise, the UK went to war in Iraq and now (to some extent, at least) is involved in Syria on the basis of stopping that threat (or claimed threat, for iraq) reaching here.

Fighting back against or protecting yourself from a real threat is nothing unusual for a country to do.

 

 

Quote

BTW don't think cannot be dismissed as an 'employee' of Breitbart. He ran it. In the same way that Paul Dacre cannot be dismissed as an 'employee' of the Daily Mail.

Paul Dacre's likely to end up with a peerage sometime soon. Perhaps the same levels of 'evil' apply to Bannon for him to also be invited into the govt establishment?

Dacre, at least, is the bleeding editor, 100% responsible for the content. Bannon was the exec, a very different role.

And no, I'm not attempting to say it shouldn't be noted, or people shouldn't to keep a close eye on what he's up to if they're concerned. 

I'm simply saying that he cannot be certainly damned by what breitbart has published. He didn't commission it, he didn't write it, he didn't editor it. He's simply responsible for making a commercial success of it. It might take a line that's similar to his own, but that doesn't mean he personally endorses  it all.

Edited November 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, scrippit said:

This.

it's not even true.

Bannon is not the editor.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Hagrid said:

Ha! Agreed, nationalism is the most powerful, most persuasive and most difficult to grab hold of political ideas. 

We need a middle ground between nationalism and unfettered economic liberalism. A third way. Where's Big Tone?  

 

someone did a poll the other day, to see how Labour would do in an election now with Blair or Corbyn as leader. Blair beat Corbyn.

In all seriousness, he's nailed it. Shouting people down has to end. Real people have to be properly engaged with, rather than (say) calling them racist for having a different view about immigration, cos whatever your views on immigration there would be a level of immigration where you'd think it a bad thing and not a good thing (imagine if 50M new people turned tomorrow; yes I know it won't happen, but if it did it wouldn't be 'good' immigration).

 

[scrippit]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Bannon is not the editor.

He was executive chairman. That is the top - answerable to shareholders only and living or dying by the success of the organisation. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, scrippit said:

He was executive chairman. That is the top - answerable to shareholders only and living or dying by the success of the organisation. 

Precisely.

That's about the commercial side of things, and not managing the content of the paper. In the normal scheme of things that's a role that's 100% removed from the content, no different to the Daily Mail printer.

It's widely said that he's had a greater role in setting it's direction, and that might well be true. It's quite possible it reflects some of his views, too. But that's still something different from it being a personal reflection of his views.

To associate him the way you're doing is exactly what his detactors says he does and that it's wrong to do that.

If all people associated with breitbart are tainted by that association to mean that's their view, care to tell me why all Muslims aren't similarly tainted by the abhorent aspects of Islam?

The line you're taking actually justifies stuff like the Muslim register. Guilt by association, rather than guilt by proven action.

[scrippit]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's about the commercial side of things, and not managing the content of the paper. In the normal scheme of things that's a role that's 100% removed from the content, no different to the Daily Mail printer.

It's widely said that he's had a greater role in setting it's direction, and that might well be true. It's quite possible it reflects some of his views, too. But that's still something different from it being a personal reflection of his views.

Executive chair is absolutely critical to the running of any organisation and in particular its' tone and direction. 

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If all people associated with breitbart are tainted by that association to mean that's their view, care to tell me why all Muslims aren't similarly tainted by the abhorent aspects of Islam?

This argument is specious. There are 1.6 billion Muslims and (guessing here) a few (let's say 25) staff at Brietbart. It is not much of a leap to be accusatory about a few staff. It would be massively stupid to accuse all Muslims.

Thank you all for the lively discussion. I have learnt a great deal.

I do think it is important that we debate these things and don't just blindly follow the herd on Twitter or accept the status quo. I still believe that we ignore the rising normalisation of the alt-right at our peril. I will duck out now.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, scrippit said:

Executive chair is absolutely critical to the running of any organisation and in particular its' tone and direction. 

Utter bullshit. Loads of people in a role like that never leave the golf course.

But anyway, even if he personally set its tone and direction, from his job role that's about chasing the money, not chasing his political dreams.

Even if your take on what he did there is 100% correct, you're still trying to associate his job role with his personal views. That's guilt by association, the wrong thing not the right thing.

Hold people guilty for what can be proven of them. Guilt by made-up-bollocks is the worse world we're wanting to avoid, isn't it?

 

11 minutes ago, scrippit said:

This argument is specious. There are 1.6 billion Muslims and (guessing here) a few (let's say 25) staff at Brietbart. It is not much of a leap to be accusatory about a few staff. It would be massively stupid to accuse all Muslims.

I'm sat here typing. I guess Scott holds identical views to me. I also guess - cos you've told me - that you sit next to your clone at work.

FFS.

PS: is your wife your clone too? Associations don't get any closer.

 

11 minutes ago, scrippit said:

Thank you all for the lively discussion. I have learnt a great deal.

I do think it is important that we debate these things and don't just blindly follow the herd on Twitter or accept the status quo. I still believe that we ignore the rising normalisation of the alt-right at our peril. I will duck out now.

There is no normalisation of anything heinous. The heinous is still be called out as heinous.

And I'll keep on calling out bullshit too, often just as heinous when it's working on the basis of guilt by associatoion.

 

[scrippit]

OK. We dont have to agree. Peace and Love to you.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, scrippit said:

OK. We dont have to agree. Peace and Love to you.

We don't have to agree - the very point of democracy. Peace and love.

It means different views are valid even if you don't like them. Obviously, not the properly-evil stuff, but ya know, when (say) benefit cuts get labelled as evil we're starting to get it wrong. That's a value view even if it's not your (or my) view.

[fur_q]

On 22/11/2016 at 10:07 AM, eFestivals said:

I dunno about you, but I'm seeing more fascist tendencies from the people labelling others as fascists than I am from those who are being labelled as fascists.

I'd say that needs addressing before those people might be able to launch any successful campaign against fascists.

Ah yes the old, the anti fascists are the real fascists because I've just decided I can complealty change  the definition of established concepts to mean anything I want the to mean, argument. 

[fur_q]

On 22/11/2016 at 10:27 AM, Homer said:

How about Rock Against Rock Against Racism then?

What's Eric Clapton up to these days, he'd probably Ben interested

[Cornelius_Fudge]

18 minutes ago, fur_q said:

What's Eric Clapton up to these days, he'd probably Ben interested

He could sub Dylan in Zagreb

[Homer]

40 minutes ago, fur_q said:

What's Eric Clapton up to these days, he'd probably Ben interested

 

Ha ha - could get Morrissey to support!

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, fur_q said:

Ah yes the old, the anti fascists are the real fascists because I've just decided I can complealty change  the definition of established concepts to mean anything I want the to mean, argument. 

I suggest you take a look around you, at the people saying that Trump should not be allowed to govern. 

Some people definitely think their votes should count more than other people's.

[fur_q]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I suggest you take a look around you, at the people saying that Trump should not be allowed to govern. 

Some people definitely think their votes should count more than other people's.

That may be the case but for some people but that is not fascism. 

And the fact that Trump won the presidency without winning the popular vote means that quite literally some people's votes did count more than others

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, fur_q said:

That may be the case but for some people but that is not fascism. 

Really? Saying some people are lesser, their opinions - their life - counts less is all about recognising the equality of humanity?

That's what Trump has done within his campaigning, and that's what many of his opponents are doing now.

Being better than Trump is not doing the same self-serving things.

 

Quote

And the fact that Trump won the presidency without winning the popular vote means that quite literally some people's votes did count more than others

that's simply the rules of the contest, same as FPTP in this country has that effect. Everyone still has an equal one-vote and those votes are tallied up in the way the rules say. Using a popular vote method has its flaws too, as about half the people in Scotland might tell you.

In any democracy there are only the rules which define what those people recognise as democratic. You pick one version and stick to it until such time as you pick another. The only result that counts is the result made under the rules in use.

Edited November 25, 2016 by eFestivals