Ketara wrote:
The sentence is repeated in the media as "They" meaning zionists. In context 'they' is actually referring to the zionists that 'berated' Manuel afterwards and hence at most Corbyn can be accused of casting aspersions on all zionists in the audience What he definitely didn't say was against *all* zionists in the UK as that was never previously referenced.
I never said he was addressing all zionists in the
UK.
And where did I say that you said this? This is why I take your arguments with some cynicism. You read what you want to read and then infer an outcome. The same could be said about Corbyn's comments. The problem with this is then it compounds individual bias. I never said your comments were referencing all zionists in the
UK, I said that this was how it was being represented by the media. If you are going to quote me at least get the interpretation correct.
Is all utterly, utterly irrelevant to anything I said. If you want to debate with me, please don't waste my (and everybody else's) time muddying waters.
I'll quite happily muddy the waters if that means it puts an alternative view that is based on the full information rather than a specific sentence to reinforce a certain view.
The mention of 'history' has nothing to do wtih my point; it's just part of the complete sentence. The bit I'm grappling with is the mentioning of 'them 'living here'(maybe all their lives!), and not getting 'English' irony; when they're English and homegrown.
Could it not simply be that there is a view that there is a specific type of irony that is quintessentially english. Have you never heard people say that only the english do sarcasm well or that there are differences between english and american humour? The question whether that is real or perceived is another debate or whether that is based on how the english language is set up. I've said similar things to other people before when I'l being sarcastic and friends/family don't get it, at which point they might get "How long have you lived here and you still don't get my british sarcasm". Usually comes out whilst playing football and sarcasm over our wonderful skills. Which brings me to the following point that you don't understand, you don't seem yo understand that such a comment can be made in reference to any other factor other than a religious one. Yet I use that sort of 'humour' in different contexts all the time. I wonder then whether it is just a lifestyle/development things and the how such language is used differently depending on the environment you are brought up in. Hence i recognise that there can be a view that 'english irony' may be considered unique and that some people, regardless of who they are, where they are born etc may just not 'get it'. I suppose a lack of understanding of a concept?
Sure. We can be intellectually obtuse and pretend that in portraying the people he was talking about in his statement; Corbyn was imagining they might have shared an ethnic heritage of Upper Zoroastrianism. If you want to do those mental somersaults, just let me know and I'll proceed to ignore you from here on out.
This is simply facetious. You fully know that there are varying types of zionism, you only have to look a wikipedia to find see the different variants. You are effectively saying that there only religious zionism should be considered and the others can be ignored such as green zionism, post-zionism and so forth.
Or we can deal with the reality, which is that there are only two common factors linking the people he's specifically referring to here, one of which is Jewishness. The only other linking factor in the group (that they are zionists, which is a political position) has absolutely diddly squat to do with 'how long they've lived here', or their understanding of specifically 'English' irony. To return to his original statement.
This is your inference, your interpretation. This point could really be turned on its head as your the one that is interpreting it in this way and hence you can only see the two common factors and nothing else?
Please note that you are now bending over backwards to try and prove that a man (a) who regularly stands on stages with rabid anti-semites, and is (b) currently attempting to redefine 'anti-semitism' so as to exclude himself, is not being anti-semitic.
Sigh, back to making personal remarks I see to try and denigrate an argument...Standing next to someone doesn't make you that person. Indeed I would argue that the only way you can actually get people to change their views is to stand beside them and argue why it isn't acceptable and that there are better approaches to the world. If we always take the approach of "we never talk to the people we don't like then" then these same people become isolated and live in an echo chamber that reinforces those same views. The argument that we won't talk to them until they change their views simply doesn't work because it expects those changes to align to what 'we' want without any way of demonstrating this whilst at the same time demonising those that you want to change. Can you cite where he has said he wants to change the definition of anti-semitism to exclude himself specifically, which areas he doesn't want to comply with'?
Even when he looks at a group of zionists/Jews and dismisses them with the words
This really reinforces my concerns; the assumption that a view on a zionist must also mean a view on someone that is jewish, despite being two different things. One a political view, one a religious view. That they cannot be considered separately even though they can be. The inference that what a person said must mean something else without real evidence.
But this is getting silly.
I agree on this but the reason why are probably the polar opposites.