Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As regards to Corbyn and anti-Semitism, I've been wondering for a long time now as to why the politics of another country (Israel) is such a big deal in Britain. As you know, I don't give two hoots for Israel or the Middle East, so I'm mystified as to why we keep banging on about it.

Well we were instrumental in the creation of Israel, and the current borders in the whole of the Middle East really, so it’s partially our fault when they’re behaving like dicks to each other over lines that we drew.

 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.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As regards to Corbyn and anti-Semitism, I've been wondering for a long time now as to why the politics of another country (Israel) is such a big deal in Britain. As you know, I don't give two hoots for Israel or the Middle East, so I'm mystified as to why we keep banging on about it.

Well we were instrumental in the creation of Israel, and the current borders in the whole of the Middle East really, so it’s partially our fault when they’re behaving like dicks to each other over lines that we drew.

But mostly France's fault,

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Well we were instrumental in the creation of Israel, and the current borders in the whole of the Middle East really, so it’s partially our fault when they’re behaving like dicks to each other over lines that we drew.

But mostly France's fault,

I would suggest the roots of the issue a fair bit older than this though and fundamentally comes down to the issue that as a species we don't seem to be able to get away from acting like asshats to those that have different views on the world than our own.

But back to Wrexit. Despite earlier reports the French European minister has stated that May's bodge job plan is unworkable and that they are surprised that somehow the British press are thinking Macron has softened his position at all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-plan-france-minister-not-possible-macron-nathalie-loiseau-a8516476.html

additional Barnier has come out with his strongest warning yet that the UK has to come up with a sensible backstop solution to Eire/NI before there can be any deal and that time is running out.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-barnier-border-ireland-urgency-latest-october-raab-a8516606.html

Start stockpiling folks! Or move to the EU...

Lord Adonis writes in The Independent:Trump's claim that he wants to leave the WTO removes our last fig leaf of protection for a no-deal Brexit.

Lord Adonis wrote:It is possible that the WTO will soon completely collapse. Even if it survives, it will be weak and toothless in a dog-eat-dog world of Trump, Putin and Xi

T:/DR: Good luck trading under WTO rules because there won't be any.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Lord Adonis writes in The Independent:Trump's claim that he wants to leave the WTO removes our last fig leaf of protection for a no-deal Brexit.

Lord Adonis wrote:It is possible that the WTO will soon completely collapse. Even if it survives, it will be weak and toothless in a dog-eat-dog world of Trump, Putin and Xi

T:/DR: Good luck trading under WTO rules because there won't be any.

But don't worry! US will happily give UK 2 way deal that is obviously pro-UK! Not at all going to take advantage of UK wanting trade deals desperately oh no!

 Jadenim wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As regards to Corbyn and anti-Semitism, I've been wondering for a long time now as to why the politics of another country (Israel) is such a big deal in Britain. As you know, I don't give two hoots for Israel or the Middle East, so I'm mystified as to why we keep banging on about it.

Well we were instrumental in the creation of Israel, and the current borders in the whole of the Middle East really, so it’s partially our fault when they’re behaving like dicks to each other over lines that we drew.

By that logic, we should bill the Italian government for the upkeep of Hadrian's wall. After all, they did build it, and the Romans gave this country its name.

Technically, Britain is responsible for the creation of the USA, but we're not carrying the can for Trump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Lord Adonis writes in The Independent:Trump's claim that he wants to leave the WTO removes our last fig leaf of protection for a no-deal Brexit.

Lord Adonis wrote:It is possible that the WTO will soon completely collapse. Even if it survives, it will be weak and toothless in a dog-eat-dog world of Trump, Putin and Xi

T:/DR: Good luck trading under WTO rules because there won't be any.

The usual bluff and bluster from Trump.

As for Adonis, he's an arch-Blairite, unashamed supporter of the Iraq debacle, and of course, Pro-European to his bone.

After Iraq, I'm amazed that people like him have the nerve to show their face in public.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


By that logic, we should bill the Italian government for the upkeep of Hadrian's wall. After all, they did build it, and the Romans gave this country its name.

We all have a responsibility of the the upkeep of the whole world. That means not turning a blind eye to events elsewhere. At best we are caretakers of the planet for future generations rather than being defined by the dust of the past. If that means we get involved to assist in ensuring the safety of the earth for the future then we should do.

And as for bluff and bluster...trump is famous for revocing deals. he doesn't belive in keeping to them. Withdrawing from WTO fits what he has done

I would say good riddance to the WTO... capitalist pigs.
That said, it should be replaced by a more fair trading organisation. And by that I do not mean more "fair" for the US (which in Trump's world means that it should only benefit him), but one that is more fair for the poor third world countries that suffer the most from the WTO.
But yeah, no WTO would be bad for Britain. Not that the WTO would make things that much better. With a no-deal Brexit, Britain is screwed anyways.

Hi guys,

After much discussion, we've decided that given the current political climate, we would rather keep Dakka a haven to discuss our fun hobbies, and do away with religious and political debates on the site altogether.

Our reasoning is that, like a FLGS, we've got a bunch of diverse folks here who share a common passion, and just like in that setting, you wouldn't enter a heated debate about religion or politics - you'd have fun playing with toy soldiers!

So, that's the environment we'd like to try to implement here. You're still free to talk about "Off Topic" things, of course, as this section is titled. But we've updated the forum description, and the rules sticky, to indicate that political and religious debate are no longer allowed. Please see the spoilered section of the first post of the OT rules sticky for more info:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/236985.page

Thanks for understanding, and for helping us out with this change!

I'm re-opening this thread to add a link to two politics thread that users have made in the OT Zone to continue discussing politics. This is not connected to Dakka, but has our full blessing! Feel Free to head over there to continue the conversation:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, to get this party started:

US and NA Poltiics Thread has been moved to:
http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7450/na-poltiics-general?page=1&scrollTo=126674

UK and EU threads have been moved to:
http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7451/uk-eu-politics-general