The General Corbyn Thread

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Tntp
Navel Tan
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:33 am

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Tntp » Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:14 pm

Thank you for that. My post was intended to get a response, and you duly obliged. For the record, I generally agree with your posts about Ukraine. NATO clearly has superior military technology and it should be applied asap to kick the Russians out of Ukraine. Where I think you go wrong on some issues is to turn the discussion into who is and isn’t anti-Semitic. This has happened with your comments on the Lineker controversy. Things aren’t black and white. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Corbyn was a useless leader and tin-eared on a number of matters. But I don’t think he is anti-Semitic. I notice you only seem to attack those on the left when it comes to alleged anti-semitism. What about those not on the left? Rachel Reeves and Teresa May were positively gushing about Nancy Astor when her statue was unveiled. But where was the criticism of her antisemitism and Nazi sympathies? Perhaps it was because Corbyn also praised her for her being the first woman MP. There was no criticism of Corbyn that I can recall, because if he was accused of anti-semitism regarding his support for Nancy Astor, then the same criticism would have to be levelled at Rachel Reeves and co, but that would never do.

Here’s a test for you. I am a member of the National Secular Society (NSS). It has long campaigned for the banning of male child ritual circumcision, whether for children of Jewish or Muslim parents, or for cultural reasons, such as in the USA. In those countries where prohibition has from time to time been proposed by lawmakers, the representatives of Jewish communities have accused those lawmakers of anti-semitism. Do you agree with that view? You should be aware that there are a number of Labour parliamentarians in this country who are members of the NSS. As far as I am aware, most if not all are not Corbynites. Are you going to go after them if you think their opposition to ritual male child circumcision amounts to anti-semitism? To help you, you could Google Brian D Earp, a medical ethicist who has written extensively on bodily autonomy as it relates to circumcision. By the way, you lose the argument if you claim male circumcision is nothing like FGM.

For the record, I voted for Corbyn first time round, then for Owen Smith, and finally for Starmer. In the latter two cases, I naively believed their pledges to continue with Corbyn’s main economic policies, but you can surely understand why non-Corbynite old style lefties like me (I’m 70 this year) feel let down, if not betrayed. I’ve now resigned from the Labour Party, but I will continue to vote for them.

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Bewildered » Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:19 am

Tntp wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:14 pm
Thank you for that. My post was intended to get a response, and you duly obliged. For the record, I generally agree with your posts about Ukraine. NATO clearly has superior military technology and it should be applied asap to kick the Russians out of Ukraine. Where I think you go wrong on some issues is to turn the discussion into who is and isn’t anti-Semitic. This has happened with your comments on the Lineker controversy. Things aren’t black and white. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Corbyn was a useless leader and tin-eared on a number of matters. But I don’t think he is anti-Semitic. I notice you only seem to attack those on the left when it comes to alleged anti-semitism. What about those not on the left? Rachel Reeves and Teresa May were positively gushing about Nancy Astor when her statue was unveiled. But where was the criticism of her antisemitism and Nazi sympathies? Perhaps it was because Corbyn also praised her for her being the first woman MP. There was no criticism of Corbyn that I can recall, because if he was accused of anti-semitism regarding his support for Nancy Astor, then the same criticism would have to be levelled at Rachel Reeves and co, but that would never do.

Here’s a test for you. I am a member of the National Secular Society (NSS). It has long campaigned for the banning of male child ritual circumcision, whether for children of Jewish or Muslim parents, or for cultural reasons, such as in the USA. In those countries where prohibition has from time to time been proposed by lawmakers, the representatives of Jewish communities have accused those lawmakers of anti-semitism. Do you agree with that view? You should be aware that there are a number of Labour parliamentarians in this country who are members of the NSS. As far as I am aware, most if not all are not Corbynites. Are you going to go after them if you think their opposition to ritual male child circumcision amounts to anti-semitism? To help you, you could Google Brian D Earp, a medical ethicist who has written extensively on bodily autonomy as it relates to circumcision. By the way, you lose the argument if you claim male circumcision is nothing like FGM.

For the record, I voted for Corbyn first time round, then for Owen Smith, and finally for Starmer. In the latter two cases, I naively believed their pledges to continue with Corbyn’s main economic policies, but you can surely understand why non-Corbynite old style lefties like me (I’m 70 this year) feel let down, if not betrayed. I’ve now resigned from the Labour Party, but I will continue to vote for them.
I don’t want to get into a long debate about male circumcision, however I really don’t like EACL’s posts about anti-semiticism and disagree with him a lot*, but my (perhaps uneducated, just going in the understanding I accumulated from whatever sources I’ve been exposed to and passively absorbed) view of male circumcision is that it’s entirely different from female circumcision because my understanding is that it is not a particularly damaging or harmful procedure that affects function/feeling in the same way , and much of the criticism is from anti-religious biogotry, and when focussed on Jewish circumcision could be anti-semitic. So I think your test here is not that acute, ie i don’t think I am biased against Corbyn supporters in the same way EACL is, but I would say their opposition to male circumcision could be problematic. Also we don’t need this test, EACL clearly is biased against Corbyn.

* To be a little more precise I wasn’t a Corbyn supporter but I thought some of the things regarding him and anti-semitism was political exploitation and phony, though I also think (actually personally know) there was a real issue of people in the hard left holding anti-Semitic views and getting into the party and I think Corbyn did tolerate too much anti-Semitism.

User avatar
Iron Magpie
Sindis Poop
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:02 pm

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Iron Magpie » Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:32 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 7:57 pm
Tntp wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 7:28 pm
I see Corbyn is still living in your head rent free.
:lol:

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by bjn » Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:11 am

Can we move the Corbyn stuff to another thread? It’s derailing.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Mar 12, 2023 12:32 pm

bjn wrote:
Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:11 am
Can we move the Corbyn stuff to another thread? It’s derailing.
I've done that (others asked privately as well).

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Imrael » Sun Mar 12, 2023 1:39 pm

I'm late to the party and havent re-read the thread. Also I'm in a ridiculously safe Tory seat so one of the meaningless votes

I would have voted Corbyn over Johnson if I thought it would mean anything. But it would have been very much lesser of 2 evils - I thought then he was marginally more likely to "go quietly" and allow an orderly transfewr of power when he lost the following election.

I saw him as another personailty cult much like Johnson in many ways, and just as potentially demagogic/dangerous. Also prone to unthought-through policies domestically and very worrying on foreign affairs. And I thought the charge of anti-semitism stood up (as someone who's generally very critical of the Israeli government)

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by noggins » Sun Mar 12, 2023 2:27 pm

Corbyn was simply not competent. Being a mardy conscience-driven backbencher, regardless of what you think of that conscience, does not qualify one to be a party leader, let alone PM.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:50 am

Tntp wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:14 pm
Thank you for that. My post was intended to get a response, and you duly obliged. For the record, I generally agree with your posts about Ukraine. NATO clearly has superior military technology and it should be applied asap to kick the Russians out of Ukraine. Where I think you go wrong on some issues is to turn the discussion into who is and isn’t anti-Semitic. This has happened with your comments on the Lineker controversy. Things aren’t black and white. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Corbyn was a useless leader and tin-eared on a number of matters. But I don’t think he is anti-Semitic.
More than 85% of the British Jewish community disagrees with you on that. It isn't just an issue of personal prejudice - though Corbyn has expressed antisemitic tropes before - but also what one considers acceptable. Corbyn donated money to an open Holocaust denier. He praised a man that said that Jews used the blood non-Jewish children to bake bread - that's a very old libel that's lead to a lot of pogroms. There's plenty of other examples, but the key is that Corbyn didn't have any problem promoting these people because he agreed with them on some things and he did not believe the the extreme racism they displayed was a reason not to to do.

To put it another way, if you claim to support no platform policies for racists, and were too "pure" to appear alongside tories to campaign for remaining in the EU - which was Labour policy* - then you will inevitably end up judged by the people you don't consider too unpleasant to share a platform with. In Corbyn's case, that's holocaust deniers (plural), blood-libellers (plural), terrorists (Hezbollah and Hamas and PFLP spokespersons, also a PFLP hijacker who threw an armed grenade on a hijacked aeroplane that by some miraculous chance did not go off).

Additionally he defended a mural featuring traditional racist caricatures of Jews, and has several times engaged in conspiratorial inuendo regarding Jews including ones regarding alleged outsize power in the media, a staple of old-fashioned antisemitism, and defended others who do so, like the disgraced clergyman Stephen Sizer.

Here's a thread covering a number of the issues as I don't have time to dig through every one of them myself. I don't really care if you think every example is clear cut, enough of them are to be damning.
I notice you only seem to attack those on the left when it comes to alleged anti-semitism. What about those not on the left? Rachel Reeves and Teresa May were positively gushing about Nancy Astor when her statue was unveiled. But where was the criticism of her antisemitism and Nazi sympathies? Perhaps it was because Corbyn also praised her for her being the first woman MP. There was no criticism of Corbyn that I can recall, because if he was accused of anti-semitism regarding his support for Nancy Astor, then the same criticism would have to be levelled at Rachel Reeves and co, but that would never do.
Well there aren't many people defending traditional right-wing antisemitism on here, thankfully, so I don't have to set them straight.

Astor's repulsive views seem to have slipped under the radar amid the rush to praise her for being the first woman elected to parliament. For what it is worth, I do not think she should be honoured, given how extreme her views were, but I also understand why people want some representation of the overcoming of sexism that a woman being elected as an MP represents.

Here’s a test for you. I am a member of the National Secular Society (NSS). It has long campaigned for the banning of male child ritual circumcision, whether for children of Jewish or Muslim parents, or for cultural reasons, such as in the USA. In those countries where prohibition has from time to time been proposed by lawmakers, the representatives of Jewish communities have accused those lawmakers of anti-semitism. Do you agree with that view? You should be aware that there are a number of Labour parliamentarians in this country who are members of the NSS. As far as I am aware, most if not all are not Corbynites. Are you going to go after them if you think their opposition to ritual male child circumcision amounts to anti-semitism? To help you, you could Google Brian D Earp, a medical ethicist who has written extensively on bodily autonomy as it relates to circumcision. By the way, you lose the argument if you claim male circumcision is nothing like FGM.
This is an unexpected example to choose, but actually quite a useful one. My take on it would be if your opposition to infant circumcision arises from a position that surgery that is not medically necessary should not be carried out on those too young to consent** and you apply that belief consistently, then it wouldn't be antisemitic. Such criticisms are also unlikely to fall foul of any recognised definition of antisemitism, and I don't see anything about criticising Jewish religious practise in the IHRA working definition. Obviously there is no prejudice in existence that hasn't seen false accusations, but the criticisms of Corbyn aren't really to do with things like this issue.

That said, it doesn't mean all criticism of the practise is free of antisemitism. It is routinely weaponised against Jews by the far right in particular. What makes their criticisms antisemitic are things like the use of traditional racist caricatures of Jews in cartoons and so on, as well as claims that Jews imposed the practise on (usually American) Gentiles in some way shape or form - this is often from the same people who think that migration is a Jewish plot too. For the record, infant circumcision in the USA among those who are neither Muslim nor Jewish is largely a product of Christian hysteria about m.st.rbation.

This is one of the reasons I really don't like the term antisemitism*** - and likewise Islamophobia - is because it does lead to the conflation of criticism of religion with ethnic prejudice, especially as Judaism is traditionally an ethnoreligion that has not actively sought converts, as opposed to universal religions like Christianity and Islam that traditionally have sought converts, often by force. Likewise criticism of Islamic religious practices and beliefs can stem from the conflict of those practices and beliefs with a liberal, equal society, but it can also be used to a euphemise bigotry against Arabs and South Asians especially. It also results in people thinking it is something other than racism - for the most part, it is just a form of racism, and a form - given the Christian and Islamic intellectual inheritance of much of the world - that is all too common.
For the record, I voted for Corbyn first time round, then for Owen Smith, and finally for Starmer. In the latter two cases, I naively believed their pledges to continue with Corbyn’s main economic policies, but you can surely understand why non-Corbynite old style lefties like me (I’m 70 this year) feel let down, if not betrayed. I’ve now resigned from the Labour Party, but I will continue to vote for them.
You can feel how you want, of course. The votings the important part anyway. Corbyn was known to me well before 2015, mostly due to his disgraceful work with the Iranian propaganda channel Press TV, which is why I so staunchly opposed his leadership candidacy. There are two issues to it. One of them is that Labour is supposed to be an antiracist party - and that has to apply to all kinds of racism. We knew Corbyn was bad on this, and during his time as leader, antisemites were emboldened, to the point we even had things like a council candidate selected despite having shared Holocaust denial articles from American white supremacists, and Jews within the party were bullied relentlessly. The second issue is one you recognise - Corbyn was a useless leader. Few other people could have done so badly against Johnson in 2019. It wasn't just the perception that he was soft on antisemitism that caused that, though, it was things like being so soft on Russia after the Salisbury poisonings. I'm disabled - quite seriously so. My life is very, very precarious. So are those of my closest friends. We are exactly the kind of people that are in danger from a Tory government. We don't need a Labour government to feel good about ourselves, we need one as a matter of safety. One that's further left would be nice, but the key thing right now is winning, and that's something Corbyn was never going to do. On top of that, there was the referendum. Brexit is one of the biggest acts of national self-sabotage I've witnessed, isolating and impoverishing the country and empowering xenophobes. Though it was Labour policy to support remain, Corbyn barely campaigned**** and we all know why - he's a lifelong europhobe.

*Labour policy, but not Corbyn's policy - he's always been a europhobe which is just one of the reasons he was such a bad pick for leadership with a referendum incoming

**This is my position, for what it's worth, and I was a member of the NSS for a while, but allowed my membership to lapse due to nothing more than disorganisation on my part.

***ideally not "anti-Semitism", for the record, "Semitism" isn't a reference to semitic linguistic or ethnic origin, but an accusation that Jewry had infiltrated German (Aryan) culture. This is also why the term doesn't refer to other traditional speakers of semitic languages - it was always a euphemism for hatred of Jews (Judenhasse)

****This is particularly of note as one thing he can't be criticised over is how hard he campaigns on issues he cares about.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:05 am

Bewildered wrote:
Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:19 am
Also we don’t need this test, EACL clearly is biased against Corbyn.
"Biased against". Lol. As if knowing about someone for well over a decade and forming an opinion on them based on their actions is akin to prejudice.

Corbyn hosted a f.cking talk show for the Iranian regime's* propaganda channel for a number of years. Then that channel got caught broadcasting forced confessions obtained by torture - direct complicity in torture, in other words. That didn't stop Corbyn from working for them, of course. It did, however, lead to them getting a fine. Eventually the non-payment of that fine forced them off the airwaves in this country. Only then did Corbyn stop working for them.

He also signed an early day motion commending Pilger for denying Serbian atrocities in Kosovo.

There's a lot to dislike. More recently there's his stances on the Douma poison gas attack by the Assad regime and the Salisbury poisoning, and his both-sidesing of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

*currently busy beating schoolgirls to death for how they dress and how they react to other schoolgirls being beaten to death for how they dress

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:53 am

Diane Abbott should be expelled from the f.cking party for this letter.

Image

Antisemitism is racism. Antiziganism is racism. She points out Jim Crow, but ignores that for most of their history in Europe, Ashkenazim were subject to similar treatment, and Sephardi and Mizrahi jews suffered similarly at Arab hands across the Middle East and North Africa to the point those communities were all driven out. . That prejudice against travellers is still intense in this country and across Europe, and that slavery was practised against Roma for racialised reasons - indeed I have a friend who had Roma ancestors enslaved rather more recently than slavery was practised in the Caribbean or American South.

And both Jews and Roma were targetted for indsutrial extermination by the nazis, one of the most extreme and appalling acts of racism ever perpetrated.

Antiblack racism is vile and despicable, but it does not give licence to deny other forms of racism, and Abbott has form for dismissing antisemism. This wasn't some dark, inappropriate thought she then thought better of. She took the effort to write this down and send it to a newspaper.

I'm pleased to see she's been suspended, and hope that turns into the appropriate action - expulsion.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
After Pie
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:08 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:53 am
Diane Abbott should be expelled from the f.cking party for this letter.

Image

Antisemitism is racism. Antiziganism is racism. She points out Jim Crow, but ignores that for most of their history in Europe, Ashkenazim were subject to similar treatment, and Sephardi and Mizrahi jews suffered similarly at Arab hands across the Middle East and North Africa to the point those communities were all driven out. . That prejudice against travellers is still intense in this country and across Europe, and that slavery was practised against Roma for racialised reasons - indeed I have a friend who had Roma ancestors enslaved rather more recently than slavery was practised in the Caribbean or American South.

And both Jews and Roma were targetted for indsutrial extermination by the nazis, one of the most extreme and appalling acts of racism ever perpetrated.

Antiblack racism is vile and despicable, but it does not give licence to deny other forms of racism, and Abbott has form for dismissing antisemism. This wasn't some dark, inappropriate thought she then thought better of. She took the effort to write this down and send it to a newspaper.

I'm pleased to see she's been suspended, and hope that turns into the appropriate action - expulsion.
Her apology is pretty sh.t

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/statu ... 52994?s=61
IMG_0586.jpeg
IMG_0586.jpeg (315.99 KiB) Viewed 1254 times
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:16 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:08 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:53 am
Diane Abbott should be expelled from the f.cking party for this letter.

Image

Antisemitism is racism. Antiziganism is racism. She points out Jim Crow, but ignores that for most of their history in Europe, Ashkenazim were subject to similar treatment, and Sephardi and Mizrahi jews suffered similarly at Arab hands across the Middle East and North Africa to the point those communities were all driven out. . That prejudice against travellers is still intense in this country and across Europe, and that slavery was practised against Roma for racialised reasons - indeed I have a friend who had Roma ancestors enslaved rather more recently than slavery was practised in the Caribbean or American South.

And both Jews and Roma were targetted for indsutrial extermination by the nazis, one of the most extreme and appalling acts of racism ever perpetrated.

Antiblack racism is vile and despicable, but it does not give licence to deny other forms of racism, and Abbott has form for dismissing antisemism. This wasn't some dark, inappropriate thought she then thought better of. She took the effort to write this down and send it to a newspaper.

I'm pleased to see she's been suspended, and hope that turns into the appropriate action - expulsion.
Her apology is pretty sh.t

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/statu ... 52994?s=61

IMG_0586.jpeg
Agreed, in fact, terming it an apology is quite inaccurate. It's a slippery attempt at evasion.

She repeated the central thrust - denial that antisemitism and antiziganism are racism - in several different formulations, there's no way a bit of bigotry slipped in by accident, she wrote and sent a letter to a newspaper. There's no innocent version that's just a few words different that she meant to write but slipped up. She expressed a very bigoted position, and reacted to getting rightly criticised for it.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 23, 2023 12:18 pm

Also just want to add that while I've only addressed the issue of antisemitism and antiziganism, I do not accept her comments about anti-Irish prejudice either, and know people who were hurt by it.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Opti » Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:06 pm

It really vindicates those in the LP that voiced serious concerns about how deeply entrenched antisemitism was. This shows that it still has that problem.
She should be expelled, her 'apology' just makes her position worse.
Time for a big fat one.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by bjn » Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:49 pm

She’s been suspended

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 23, 2023 2:01 pm

bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 1:49 pm
She’s been suspended
Yes, and I noted that in my post. There should always be investigation before expulsion, but the only real defence I can see to this - that a staffer sent it and she didn't - isn't supported by her appalling non-apology statement, therefore she should go.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by bjn » Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:09 pm

You did. Sorry, reading fail on my behalf.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Apr 23, 2023 8:23 pm

bjn wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:09 pm
You did. Sorry, reading fail on my behalf.
No worries.

Also, aside from the very selective nature of her examples, she's also just entirely f.cking wrong on at least one of them - several nations, Portugal, for example, enslaved Romani people and transported them as slaves to the new world.

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Apr 24, 2023 12:45 am

She's genersally useless. The Independent has a list of her blunders: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 25277.html

Her gross errors over the cost of 10,000 police shows that even when she should be able to work out the correct answer for herself, she can still get it wrong. For stuff which requires a reasonable knowledge of society and history, it's hopeless. It's a mystery why she keep getting re-elected.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm

Diane Abbott sent her racist letter from her own email address, and sent it twice. Apparently she received an automated response saying to include a postal address, so re-sent it with a postal address included. This was a week before it was published. At no point did she try to do anything or show any sign of regret over sending it until it was published and she saw how it was received. It rather does blow her "I sent a racist letter to the Observer by mistake" defence out of the water, not that it was remotely convincing even before these details became apparent.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by monkey » Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:11 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm
Diane Abbott sent her racist letter from her own email address, and sent it twice. Apparently she received an automated response saying to include a postal address, so re-sent it with a postal address included. This was a week before it was published. At no point did she try to do anything or show any sign of regret over sending it until it was published and she saw how it was received. It rather does blow her "I sent a racist letter to the Observer by mistake" defence out of the water, not that it was remotely convincing even before these details became apparent.
That seems irrelevant to me, why would she change her mind before being told she's wrong? It's possible, but not what it seems most people do. People generally don't know they're wrong until they're told and epiphanies are rare. She was wrong at the time of writing, wrong at the time of uploading, if no one tells or shows her how wrong she is for a week, the likelihood is that she'd be wrong for a week. She probably held this view for longer too, the ideas behind aren't new.

I think it's a sh.tty excuse because if the letter was a draft, I can't see how you can get to anything other than dismissal of various forms of racism from that as a building block for your argument*. It just doesn't work as an excuse as far as I can tell.


*If she (or a staff member tasked with writing it) worked out how to do that, I think we would have seen that version of it by now.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:02 pm

monkey wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:11 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm
Diane Abbott sent her racist letter from her own email address, and sent it twice. Apparently she received an automated response saying to include a postal address, so re-sent it with a postal address included. This was a week before it was published. At no point did she try to do anything or show any sign of regret over sending it until it was published and she saw how it was received. It rather does blow her "I sent a racist letter to the Observer by mistake" defence out of the water, not that it was remotely convincing even before these details became apparent.
That seems irrelevant to me, why would she change her mind before being told she's wrong? It's possible, but not what it seems most people do. People generally don't know they're wrong until they're told and epiphanies are rare. She was wrong at the time of writing, wrong at the time of uploading, if no one tells or shows her how wrong she is for a week, the likelihood is that she'd be wrong for a week. She probably held this view for longer too, the ideas behind aren't new.

I think it's a sh.tty excuse because if the letter was a draft, I can't see how you can get to anything other than dismissal of various forms of racism from that as a building block for your argument*. It just doesn't work as an excuse as far as I can tell.


*If she (or a staff member tasked with writing it) worked out how to do that, I think we would have seen that version of it by now.
Abbot stated that: "The errors arose in an initial draft being sent"

The implication that I read, and many others did as well, was that an early version had mistakenly been sent instead of a revised later version which contained the words that she had meant to submit. ETA by implication she had changed her mind.

The submission of the same draft twice suggests that it wasn't sent in error. Though I suppose that is still possible.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by monkey » Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:42 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:02 pm
monkey wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:11 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:48 pm
Diane Abbott sent her racist letter from her own email address, and sent it twice. Apparently she received an automated response saying to include a postal address, so re-sent it with a postal address included. This was a week before it was published. At no point did she try to do anything or show any sign of regret over sending it until it was published and she saw how it was received. It rather does blow her "I sent a racist letter to the Observer by mistake" defence out of the water, not that it was remotely convincing even before these details became apparent.
That seems irrelevant to me, why would she change her mind before being told she's wrong? It's possible, but not what it seems most people do. People generally don't know they're wrong until they're told and epiphanies are rare. She was wrong at the time of writing, wrong at the time of uploading, if no one tells or shows her how wrong she is for a week, the likelihood is that she'd be wrong for a week. She probably held this view for longer too, the ideas behind aren't new.

I think it's a sh.tty excuse because if the letter was a draft, I can't see how you can get to anything other than dismissal of various forms of racism from that as a building block for your argument*. It just doesn't work as an excuse as far as I can tell.


*If she (or a staff member tasked with writing it) worked out how to do that, I think we would have seen that version of it by now.
Abbot stated that: "The errors arose in an initial draft being sent"

The implication that I read, and many others did as well, was that an early version had mistakenly been sent instead of a revised later version which contained the words that she had meant to submit. ETA by implication she had changed her mind.

The submission of the same draft twice suggests that it wasn't sent in error. Though I suppose that is still possible.
I don't think she's lying about sending a draft. There's plenty of plausible ways a draft could be sent in error. e.g. if an old draft was saved with the wrong filename, you'd just send the same one an hour later without rechecking, or the new version might never have been saved after being rewritten*.

It's just not an explanation for writing what was written. If there was a better composed and more nuanced letter written, it would still contain the trope that Jewish people, etc. are white and don't/haven't suffered racism. It would still be wrong for the same reason. If the intended letter was completely different and acceptable, this draft was still written, and you'd still have to question Abbot's views on this subject. As far as I can tell she's either saying "I meant to send a better version of the same thing", or "You weren't supposed to see that", and that has undermined her apology, no matter how genuine it was meant to be.



*I've done that one before, luckily with only minor changes. ETA: It didn't get me in the news.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:57 pm

monkey wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:42 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:02 pm
monkey wrote:
Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:11 pm


That seems irrelevant to me, why would she change her mind before being told she's wrong? It's possible, but not what it seems most people do. People generally don't know they're wrong until they're told and epiphanies are rare. She was wrong at the time of writing, wrong at the time of uploading, if no one tells or shows her how wrong she is for a week, the likelihood is that she'd be wrong for a week. She probably held this view for longer too, the ideas behind aren't new.

I think it's a sh.tty excuse because if the letter was a draft, I can't see how you can get to anything other than dismissal of various forms of racism from that as a building block for your argument*. It just doesn't work as an excuse as far as I can tell.


*If she (or a staff member tasked with writing it) worked out how to do that, I think we would have seen that version of it by now.
Abbot stated that: "The errors arose in an initial draft being sent"

The implication that I read, and many others did as well, was that an early version had mistakenly been sent instead of a revised later version which contained the words that she had meant to submit. ETA by implication she had changed her mind.

The submission of the same draft twice suggests that it wasn't sent in error. Though I suppose that is still possible.
I don't think she's lying about sending a draft. There's plenty of plausible ways a draft could be sent in error. e.g. if an old draft was saved with the wrong filename, you'd just send the same one an hour later without rechecking, or the new version might never have been saved after being rewritten*.

It's just not an explanation for writing what was written. If there was a better composed and more nuanced letter written, it would still contain the trope that Jewish people, etc. are white and don't/haven't suffered racism. It would still be wrong for the same reason. If the intended letter was completely different and acceptable, this draft was still written, and you'd still have to question Abbot's views on this subject. As far as I can tell she's either saying "I meant to send a better version of the same thing", or "You weren't supposed to see that", and that has undermined her apology, no matter how genuine it was meant to be.
I agree with pretty much all of this. I think that sending it twice and doing nothing in the interim makes it a lot less likely the wrong draft was sent, but the more important question is why did she write a draft denying certain minorities are subject to racism, in effect downplaying the often murderous prejudice against them, especially as she uses several examples to (ignorantly and incorrectly) restate her point.

I also agree with comments elsewhere that it reflects poorly on the Observer for treating this as a routine letter.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by discovolante » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:12 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Apr 24, 2023 12:45 am
She's genersally useless. The Independent has a list of her blunders: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 25277.html

Her gross errors over the cost of 10,000 police shows that even when she should be able to work out the correct answer for herself, she can still get it wrong. For stuff which requires a reasonable knowledge of society and history, it's hopeless. It's a mystery why she keep getting re-elected.
That's a stupid article though. That comment about trying to get a taxi isn't the same as saying all taxi drivers are 'racists' (she might think that, who knows, but she didn't say it). My friend was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver, should I be prepared to accept that they are capable of sexual assault but aren't capable of racism? Has the Independent completely forgotten half the message of the Black Lives Matter movement?

The mojito incident was a bit daft but it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of the shite many other politicians get up to.

The other allegations might be well founded, but maybe one of the reasons people keep voting for her is because she is so often targeted for stuff that isn't really deserved. That and you know, being a Labour MP in London, which on the whole is generally pretty friendly to Labour.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

Post Reply