UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Sweet Square]

Why can’t you refer to her as Rachel Riley?

Other people might not know who she is. Also Countdown Lady is a far better name(Sounds like something from a Kojima game)

 

[FlawlessThaw]

The standards aren't yours to decide. They're the Jewish communities.

If that's the case then there really should be no such thing as "political correctness gone mad" as it is up to the referred community to decide if and how much they are offended by.

 

[Kentonio]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I’d like to hear an explanation for why that is supposedly anti-Semitic.

 

[finneh]

I don't agree with this view and it hasn't been the case for any other minority unless you can prove me otherwise.

Why doesn't society routinely call black people the "N" word, despite it being a widely used term several decades ago (in the US at least)?

Hint: the black community find it distressing (specifically when white people use this term).

If that's the case then there really should be no such thing as "political correctness gone mad" as it is up to the referred community to decide if and how much they are offended by.

Has the term "political correctness gone mad" been legitimately used in situations where a group of people are genuinely feeling distressed, by a group of people who want to legitimise the ability to continue to make them feel distressed? If so could you provide an example where the person causing the distress wouldn't at least be an asshole?

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Has the term "political correctness gone mad" been legitimately used in situations where a group of people are genuinely feeling distressed, by a group of people who want to legitimise the ability to continue to make them feel distressed?

For example would the term "political correctness gone mad" be a befitting response to a South Asian being offended by being called a "Paki"?

Not the most comparable of situations as calling someone a Paki isn't necessarily the same as putting Jewish and "Final Solution" in the same sentence as above.One is an obvious slur while the other one is an attempt to get a dig in based on history.

Offense is how it is taken and you just said it is up to the offended community to legitimise how offensive it is. Therefore you can't really use the phrase "Political correctness gone mad" unless you are a part of that community based on that assumption.

 

[Charlie Foley]

The standards aren't yours to decide. They're the Jewish communities.

If you know something is causing someone else distress, but you ignore that distress because you don't feel it's justified; you're at best an asshole or worse prejudicial. So Corbyn is either an asshole or he's prejudicial. Neither would be fit to govern in my view.

I haven’t read the conversation so I don’t know what context I’m missing but in fairness to the comment you replied to, is it really an attempt to set a standard or just an observation on where he thinks the standard is at?

 

[finneh]

Not the most comparable of situations as calling someone a Paki isn't necessarily the same as putting Jewish and "Final Solution" in the same sentence as above.One is an obvious slur while the other one is an attempt to get a dig in based history.

Offense is how it is taken and you just said it is up to the offended community to legitimise how offensive it is. Therefore you can't really use the phrase "Political correctness gone mad" unless you are a part of that community based on that assumption.

I amended my reply in truth - although the term "final solution" and the connotations that go with it I'd say is patently in the same category as the "N" word or "Paki".

The term political correctness gone mad from my perspective generally refers to something being changed despite no group being offended by it. For example a council might decide not to put up Christmas lights in order not to offend anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas. However in reality no-one is actually offended by Christmas lights.

I haven’t read the conversation so I don’t know what context I’m missing but in fairness to the comment you replied to, is it really an attempt to set a standard or just an observation on where he thinks the standard is at?

Good point... I assumed the latter but it could have been the former.

 

[Shamwow]

Why doesn't society routinely call black people the "N" word, despite it being a widely used term several decades ago (in the US at least)?

Hint: the black community find it distressing (specifically when white people use this term).

Well obviously things that everyone accepts as racist generally align with the things that the minority groups in question find racist. But that doesn't mean that black people have historically been "in charge" of what society defines as racist towards them, or even now.

You can work these things out logically from fundamental principles and that is important because people within minority groups don't always agree on what is discriminatory and what is not. I don't know where the idea came from that if you aren't part of a minority then you can't work out what is discriminatory towards that minority and what isn't. Listening to minority groups is of course essential but there is a difference.

Find me the black IHRA. There is now a Muslim equivalent now but not many people outside of Labour give a crap for some reason that I can't possibly think of.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

I amended my reply in truth - although the term final solution I'd say is patently in the same category as the "N" word or "Paki".

The term political correctness gone mad from my perspective generally refers to something being changed despite no group being offended by it. For example a council might decide not to put up Christmas lights in order not to offend anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas. However in reality no-one is actually offended by Christmas lights.

I guess that again depends on what Jewish and South Asian communities say based on your assumption.

So if the council decrees that Christmas lights are unacceptable it is political correctness gone mad. But if the Jewish or other non-Christian communities found Christmas lights offensive then it wouldn't be because they set the standards on what offends them?

 

[sun_tzu]

I’d like to hear an explanation for why that is supposedly anti-Semitic.

There is some history with throwing out the final solution as a way of settling the Israel and Palestine situation...

I think in this instance when a Labour party official already warned the latest instant had

. “breached IHRA (the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism) in almost every single way possible”.

It was probably time to apologise rather than pretend it's not a problem

 

[NWRed]

Absolute disaster looming for Labour in this election, and consequently the nation because with FPTP it's going to end up with a Tory majority:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Ubik]

Absolute disaster looming for Labour in this election, and consequently the nation because with FPTP it's going to end up with a Tory majority:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

North west makes me raise an eyebrow. If this is just a standard big poll then probably no reason to panic, if it's the MRP model which called the last election weeks in advance...

 

[sun_tzu]

Absolute disaster looming for Labour in this election, and consequently the nation because with FPTP it's going to end up with a Tory majority:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That's the same poll that puts the conservatives 14 points ahead of labour nationally isn't it... And had a pretty large poll size of 11500... Think labour and libs were within the margin of error on national vote as well
Not sure how but I imagine it's tony Blair's fault

 

[Kentonio]

There is some history with throwing out the final solution as a way of settling the Israel and Palestine situation...

I think in this instance when a Labour party official already warned the latest instant had

It was probably time to apologise rather than pretend it's not a problem

That example is certainly anti-Semitic. In the other case however, the guy was specifically accusing Israel of wanting to enact genocide. He may well be anti-Semitic, and his accusation might be total bullshit, but the accusation itself isn’t anti-Semitic to me. A slur, sure. Insulting, certainly. But there was no suggestion that Israel wanted to wipe them out because the Israelis are Jews. Attacking Israel is not the same as anti-semitism, and I say that as someone who has long been a supporter of Israeli right to self defense (although not to their more recent actions).

 

[NWRed]

That's the same poll that puts the conservatives 14 points ahead of labour nationally isn't it... And had a pretty large poll size of 11500... Think labour and libs were within the margin of error on national vote as well
Not sure how but I imagine it's tony Blair's fault

 

[finneh]

I guess that again depends on what Jewish and South Asian communities say based on your assumption.

So if the council decrees that Christmas lights are unacceptable it is political correctness gone mad. But if the Jewish or other non-Christian communities found Christmas lights offensive then it wouldn't be because they set the standards on what offends them?

They don't find it distressing though, so you're engaging in straw man whataboutery. Find me an example of genuine distress caused to a group of people, whereby "political correctness gone mad" can be used to justify actions, without the person using it being still being an asshole or worse.

For example let's say that a member of the "Q" community tells their friends and family that they want to be known as "they" and that calling them "he" or "she" causes them genuine distress as they don't feel like a "he" or a "she". I could imagine a scenario whereby one of those family members says what they're proposing is political correctness gone mad. Merely believing that is somewhat acceptable. However the action of continuing to call them "he" or "she" and/or not calling out others (who may merely be ignorant) whilst knowing it causes them distress is the actions of a intolerant asshole.

Corbyn may feel that the fact that his actions cause distress is political correctness gone mad and he's perfectly entitled to that view... However to continue to cause distress by reiterating his views or failing to clamp down on part of his party that persists in causing this distress when repeatedly told that it's doing so... Is the actions of a (possibly racist) asshole.

Well obviously things that everyone accepts as racist generally align with the things that the minority groups in question find racist. But that doesn't mean that black people have historically been "in charge" of what society defines as racist towards them, or even now.

You can work these things out logically from fundamental principles and that is important because people within minority groups don't always agree on what is discriminatory and what is not. I don't know where the idea came from that if you aren't part of a minority then you can't work out what is discriminatory towards that minority and what isn't. Listening to minority groups is of course essential but there is a difference.

Find me the black IHRA. There is now a Muslim equivalent now but not many people outside of Labour give a crap for some reason that I can't possibly think of.

I think if you continue to cause distress to a community, despite being told how and why your actions are causing distress, you're at a minimum an asshole. I think whereby the "how" and "why" is closely related to the historic mistreatment (and/or death) of people in that group, then you can't complain when the majority of that group believe that your actions aren't merely that of an asshole, but are that of someone who holds prejudicial views.

However the threshold for "racism" in its literal form is exceptionally high. The "N" word for example isn't specifically in and of itself racist. Racism in its literal form is the doctrine of believing that one group of people is inferior to another and/or prejudicing against someone on the belief that they're inferior (obviously Corbyn doesn't believe Jews are inferior).

The problem is (as per the original statement) that we don't see people defending the flagrant and distressing use of the "N" word on the basis that in and of itself it doesn't specify that black people are inferior. We believe that people are racist if they use the "N" word because they know it causes distress to the black community for obvious reasons and carry on regardless. The term "final solution" is no different.

Irrespective of this I know one thing for sure: the Labour Party would never by its actions and inactions cause a large proportion of the black community to feel distressed and/or unsafe. They would have dealt with it with an absolute iron fist and this thread would not be mentioning it, apart from possibly commending the shift and decisive action Corbyn took against people who were either racist, prejudicial or highly ignorant. My wife amongst thousands of others would ask the question "why is this not the case for the Jewish community?". Can that question be answered whereby the answer is "merely" the actions of systemic assholery?

Voting Labour to a large proportion of Jewish people (my wife included) is the ratification/acquiescence at an absolute minimum of extreme assholery against the Jewish people.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Untied]

Only 2 parties have ever had formal investigations by the ehrc
One was the bnp
The other is the labour party... that investigation is ongoing and there is an election on
It's totally valid

You continue to act like the EHRC isn't a branch of government and that there isn't a reason why it has not investigated Windrush despite MPs asking it to.

 

[TheGame]

Not sure quite what we will be left with? Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Francois, Cleverley

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Untied]

That's the same poll that puts the conservatives 14 points ahead of labour nationally isn't it... And had a pretty large poll size of 11500... Think labour and libs were within the margin of error on national vote as well
Not sure how but I imagine it's tony Blair's fault

"The poll of 11,590 voters, carried out between 17 and 28 October, gave the Tories a comfortable overall lead on 36 per cent to Labour’s 22 per cent and the Lib Dems’ 19 per cent"

Data collected from before the election campaign started and before Johnson failed to leave the EU on the 31st

 

[Sweet Square]

"The poll of 11,590 voters, carried out between 17 and 28 October, gave the Tories a comfortable overall lead on 36 per cent to Labour’s 22 per cent and the Lib Dems’ 19 per cent"

Data collected from before the election campaign started and before Johnson failed to leave the EU on the 31st

Oh poor old sun, he was just getting excited as well.

 

[2mufc0]

The discussion is valid of course but the idea that people like yourself actually care or what an discussion is a completely different matter.

- Insert ironic anti semitic jokes here -

Although at least you only post on a football forum.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Freedland just smearing someone from the labour party as a anti Semite.(Also the countdown lady is really weird)

We brown people all look the same after all

 

[Ubik]

"The poll of 11,590 voters, carried out between 17 and 28 October, gave the Tories a comfortable overall lead on 36 per cent to Labour’s 22 per cent and the Lib Dems’ 19 per cent"

Data collected from before the election campaign started and before Johnson failed to leave the EU on the 31st

This one's from 30-4th, and tells a similar story

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not leaving will be priced in, but the succession of Tory inhumanities won't be (not that I imagine it'll dent the Tory topline.)

 

[esmufc07]

Oh poor old sun, he was just getting excited as well.

How many seats do you think Labour will win in the election?

 

[Ultimate Grib]

North west makes me raise an eyebrow. If this is just a standard big poll then probably no reason to panic, if it's the MRP model which called the last election weeks in advance...

Its just Yougov shite 3 weeks ago before election was even called.

How many seats do you think Labour will win in the election?

We’re very early in the campaign, a lot can happen along the way but I personally believe they will get somewhere between 250-300 seats.

 

[Cheesy]

@Cheesy you didn’t answer this question.

Do I personally think Corbyn is actively anti-Semitic in that he actively dislikes/Jewish people? No, not really - although I'm aware that as someone who's vaguely sympathetic to a lot of Corbyn's politics and wants to think the best of him for the most part, I may be downplaying the concerns of the UK's Jewish community, especially when there own worries are no widespread. My own view that Corbyn is, for the most part, is a relatively decent guy is obviously not shared by swathes of the country; a lot don't really seem him as having particularly altruistic motives and may think the worst of him.

But to boil it down to two individual incidents and pretend there's no wider context to this also strikes me as quite disingenuous. There's a prospective Labour candidate today who's just stood down after likening Israel to a child abuser, for example, there have been a considerable number of activists who've come out with incredibly problematic stuff, and if you take a look through Twitter you'll see screeds of problematic posts from Labour supporters who are either dismissing problems or perpetrating anti-Semitic stereotypes even if they don't realise they're doing so. I, again, wouldn't ever imply that's anywhere near the majority or even a significant number within the Labour Party who feel that way; but at the same time the fact that there's evidently a problem is also compounded by the fact that there have been certain voices who have been incredibly dismissive of that problem. There were some fairly grim reactions to the Panorama documentary a while back. Again, that's not to say that the documentary was necessarily perfect, or even wholly accurate, but there are clearly dismissive voices within the party who just refuse to see this as a problem.

Edit: There's also his rather problematic stances in the past when it comes to groups like Hezbollah. And again, when you compound his statements on them with wider concerns, it's difficult not to sympathise with the concerns of Jewish people who really can't regard him with good faith at all.

 

[Cheesy]

Not the most comparable of situations as calling someone a Paki isn't necessarily the same as putting Jewish and "Final Solution" in the same sentence as above.One is an obvious slur while the other one is an attempt to get a dig in based on history.

Offense is how it is taken and you just said it is up to the offended community to legitimise how offensive it is. Therefore you can't really use the phrase "Political correctness gone mad" unless you are a part of that community based on that assumption.

Anyone who is using the phrase "Final Solution" when talking about Jewish people quite patently knows what they're doing, sorry - but I'm struggling to see how it isn't remarkably offensive on the level of major slurs. It's just something you do not need to invoke and anyone who goes down that route is being a dick.

 

[NWRed]

Its just Yougov shite 3 weeks ago before election was even called.



We’re very early in the campaign, a lot can happen along the way but I personally believe they will get somewhere between 250-300 seats.

Absolutely no chance, the the best Labour can hope for is stopping the Tories getting a majority and given the likely seats for other parties (SNP approx 40-50, LD 30-40 DUP 8-10, PC maybe 4, G probably 1, SF 7 leaving about 540-550 seats for the Tories and Labour to share) Labour getting 250-300 would probably mean Labour beating the Tories, something no one believes can happen. It's more likely < 200, possibly 200-250 if they do well.

 

[Ubik]

This Sally Gimson stuff in Bassetlaw is weird as well.

 

[Steven Seagull]

How big is the issue of anti semitism in the Labour Party outside of the London media bubble (and of course the Jewish community)?

I can genuinely never remember hearing anybody in real life mention anything about labour and their treatment of Jewish people. Yet it seems to dominate the news cycle and social media constantly

 

[berbatrick]

North west makes me raise an eyebrow. If this is just a standard big poll then probably no reason to panic, if it's the MRP model which called the last election weeks in advance...

the pdfs aren't clear on methodology, and the dates are a little all-over-the-place. some from before and some after 28 oct.

i have some thoughts on yougov's polling, based on both the uk and us, but let's wait for the result to see if that has any merit.

 

[hobbers]

Just above 200 seats is I think the absolute best Labour could ever hope for at this point.

Tories will lose seats in Scotland, but Labour will still have fewer. Elsewhere you have to say that winning back potential Brexit party voters will be a lot easier for Boris than Corbyn will find winning over LD/Plaid/Green party voters.

 

[Cheesy]

How big is the issue of anti semitism in the Labour Party outside of the London media bubble? I can genuinely never remember hearing anybody in real life mention anything about labour and their treatment of Jewish people. Yet it seems to dominate the news cycle constantly

I think it's definitely something that's probably focused on the news a lot more than it comes up in general, everyday political discussions - certainly up in Scotland I've not heard a lot about it, due to the different political dynamics up here.

But then you could say that's the case for a lot of news stories that dominate agenda. Or even politics in general: plenty of people across the country (including those who vote) don't necessarily talk about it all that much, but it naturally dominates the news agenda anyway.

 

[Ubik]

the pdfs aren't clear on methodology, and the dates are a little all-over-the-place. some from before and some after 28 oct.

i have some thoughts on yougov's polling, based on both the uk and us, but let's wait for the result to see if that has any merit.

Yeah I think they did something similar before the last election and it was similarly catastrophic. Then they released the MRP model a few weeks later and it made ridiculous predictions like Labour winning Canterbury...which then happened. Best to just sit tight and wait for that, I think.

 

[SteveJ]

Thanks to a RAWK poster I stole this from:

(My general election focus group tour has begun with a look at three heavily remain-voting constituencies that the newly confident Liberal Democrats hope to take next month: Cambridge, which they aim to win from Labour, and Finchley & Golders Green and Richmond Park, both of which they hope to take back from the Conservatives):

A final quickfire round. What do we actually know about the leaders?

Jo Swinson: “Er, she’s a lady;” “Has a young child;” “Was a junior minister in the coalition;” “Has a Labrador.”

Boris: “Lives in Islington;” “Had a big fight with his girlfriend;” “Went to Eton;” “Doesn’t know how many children he has;” “Lied to the Queen;” “Wrote a novel called Seventy-Two Virgins;” “There was a scandal with a pig.” How will you feel if you wake up on 13th December and he’s still Prime Minister? “Thank God;” “Well, here we are again;” “There will be riots outside the Co-op. I might even be there;” “I’d go to Europe like a shot, but we won’t be allowed to.”

Mr Corbyn: “Went to Glastonbury;” “Has an allotment;” “He cycles everywhere;” “Vegetarian;” “He had a thing with Diane Abbott. A tryst, I think they called it;” “Went to a private school;” “He has a cat called El Gato who comes when he sings Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree.”

 

[sun_tzu]

You continue to act like the EHRC isn't a branch of government and that there isn't a reason why it has not investigated Windrush despite MPs asking it to.

Don't let facts get in the way of you spouting shite
The home office has been referred to the ehrc...
The main difference being (as yet) the ehrc has not found enough evidence of criminal discrimination to trigger the formal investigation (unlike with labour)
And yeah the ehrc is not a part of the government... Even a cursory glance at wiki would tell you that

.The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a non-departmental public body in England and Wales, established by the Equality Act 2006 with effect from 1 October 2007. The Commission has responsibility for the promotion and enforcement of equality and non-discrimination laws in England, Scotland and Wales. It took over the responsibilities of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission. It also has responsibility for other aspects of equality law: age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. A national human rights institution, it seeks to promote and protect human rights in England and Wales.

.In the United Kingdom, non-departmental public body (NDPB) is a classification applied by the Cabinet Office, Treasury, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations)

I would also point out that saying somebody else i disgree with exhibits racist behaviour does not excuse racist behaviour of those you agree with

If the ehrc find enough evidence to start a formal investigation over windrush that will be followed through and ultimately those responsible should be put on trial if their behaviour is criminal... Just as with labour

 

[Ultimate Grib]

Absolutely no chance, the the best Labour can hope for is stopping the Tories getting a majority and given the likely seats for other parties (SNP approx 40-50, LD 30-40 DUP 8-10, PC maybe 4, G probably 1, SF 7 leaving about 540-550 seats for the Tories and Labour to share) Labour getting 250-300 would probably mean Labour beating the Tories, something no one believes can happen. It's more likely < 200, possibly 200-250 if they do well.

Have you been looking at Fib Dem bar charts?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I think it's definitely something that's probably focused on the news a lot more than it comes up in general, everyday political discussions - certainly up in Scotland I've not heard a lot about it, due to the different political dynamics up here.

But then you could say that's the case for a lot of news stories that dominate agenda. Or even politics in general: plenty of people across the country (including those who vote) don't necessarily talk about it all that much, but it naturally dominates the news agenda anyway.

There aren’t many Jews in Scotland but apparently anti-semitism is on the rise, according to this anyway.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...onsidering-leaving-over-antisemitism-1.478109

 

[FlawlessThaw]

They don't find it distressing though, so you're engaging in straw man whataboutery. Find me an example of genuine distress caused to a group of people, whereby "political correctness gone mad" can be used to justify actions, without the person using it being still being an asshole or worse.

For example let's say that a member of the "Q" community tells their friends and family that they want to be known as "they" and that calling them "he" or "she" causes them genuine distress as they don't feel like a "he" or a "she". I could imagine a scenario whereby one of those family members says what they're proposing is political correctness gone mad. Merely believing that is somewhat acceptable. However the action of continuing to call them "he" or "she" and/or not calling out others (who may merely be ignorant) whilst knowing it causes them distress is the actions of a intolerant asshole.

Corbyn may feel that the fact that his actions cause distress is political correctness gone mad and he's perfectly entitled to that view... However to continue to cause distress by reiterating his views or failing to clamp down on part of his party that persists in causing this distress when repeatedly told that it's doing so... Is the actions of a (possibly racist) asshole.

Alright I think we're actually in agreement then that a lot of the "PC Gone Mad" reaction to people from minorities is a lot of guff and that it's generally an excuse made by arseholes. Which I think is fair since hate crimes in general are on the rise.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...se-anti-gay-transgender-attacks-a9156291.html

 

[Shamwow]

However the threshold for "racism" in its literal form is exceptionally high. The "N" word for example isn't specifically in and of itself racist. Racism in its literal form is the doctrine of believing that one group of people is inferior to another and/or prejudicing against someone on the belief that they're inferior (obviously Corbyn doesn't believe Jews are inferior).

The problem is (as per the original statement) that we don't see people defending the flagrant and distressing use of the "N" word on the basis that in and of itself it doesn't specify that black people are inferior. We believe that people are racist if they use the "N" word because they know it causes distress to the black community for obvious reasons and carry on regardless. The term "final solution" is no different.

I disagree. The N word is racist in and of itself. There is no legitimate use of that word for a non-black person. Its very purpose is racism and that is well known.

I think that "final solution" used in the context mentioned is also racist but might give someone the benefit of the doubt that they are being ignorant rather than intentionally racist in certain circumstances.

If the Jewish community (somehow) collectively decided that eating Mar bars was offensive for no other reason than a dislike of the fact that they have shrunk in the past 20 years then I'd not be racist for eating a Mars bar.