Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 25/11/2020 at 11:23, Dr Gloom said:

i was struck by what she said about being censored more by the left than the right. "the left" in this country really has got itself into a bit of a pickle. 

 


This is happening everywhere. Glenn Greenwald has been forced to quit Intercept recently.  
 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation

 

Substack is becoming the platform for unbiased investigative journalism 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 24k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ewerk

    2585

  • Rayvin

    2504

  • Christmas Tree

    2253

  • Renton

    1831

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Roses are red Violets are blue Please vote for Labour Unless you're a Jew

But surely.....    

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, S Norman said:


This is happening everywhere. Glenn Greenwald has been forced to quit Intercept recently.  
 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation

 

Substack is becoming the platform for unbiased investigative journalism 

 

I've not gone into the Grenwald stuff in too much detail but as I understand it, he was trying to publish unsubstantiated reports about Biden. I'm open minded on this but has any evidence come to light that weighs in favour of one side or the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

I've not gone into the Grenwald stuff in too much detail but as I understand it, he was trying to publish unsubstantiated reports about Biden. I'm open minded on this but has any evidence come to light that weighs in favour of one side or the other?


It started with a New York Post article who published some of Hunter Biden’s emails on his allegedly dodgy dealings in the Ukraine. The article was quickly dismissed by left leaning publications as Russian disinformation propaganda without them having any evidence of this.

 

I only really followed this through Taibi

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/10-ways-to-call-something-russian

 

As far as I’m aware Greenwald simply wanted to dig a bit deeper and find out whether there is any truth in the Post’s claims, but was discouraged by his editors on the basis, that pusuing the story would hurt the Biden campaign. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, S Norman said:


It started with a New York Post article who published some of Hunter Biden’s emails on his allegedly dodgy dealings in the Ukraine. The article was quickly dismissed by left leaning publications as Russian disinformation propaganda without them having any evidence of this.

 

I only really followed this through Taibi

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/10-ways-to-call-something-russian

 

As far as I’m aware Greenwald simply wanted to dig a bit deeper and find out whether there is any truth in the Post’s claims, but was discouraged by his editors on the basis, that pusuing the story would hurt the Biden campaign. 

 

Well, having read the Intercept's response it's hard to really get a sense for which side is telling the truth or not:

 

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/

Edited by Rayvin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Marr is a fucking disgrace and an embarrassment to journalism. The contrast today with his interviewing style today with Raab and Sturgeon was disgusting. With the possible exception of Maitlis, maybe Faisil, can't think of a single decent political commentator in the BBC. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Starmer seems determined to push ahead with this idea that voting for the deal will win back red wall voters, despite the fact that when it all goes horribly wrong Labour will spend the rest of the term having valid criticism shot down with "but you voted for it!"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Labour are fucked whatever they do. If they vote against a deal, they'll be actively harming the country. If they vote for a deal, they own it. If they abstain, they are fence sitting. Same if they go for a free vote.

 

On balance I think abstaining is the best  of a bad bunch of choices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I learned that the EHRC board is made up of political appointments, including people who have either worked for or donated to the Tory party, and who post in support of fairly right wing views about Islamophobia and misogyny despite criticising Labour as not having done enough to investigate identical actions by members concerning antisemitism.

 

I'm not saying this discredits their report on Labour, although the guy in question here actually led the report on Labour apparently :lol:but I'm pretty appalled by the sorts of people working for them and will apply more scrutiny to them in future. I was under the impression that they were an independent body of equal rights campaigners, not a collective of Tory stooges. 

 

EHRC: Labour failed to act on party members liking offensive tweets.

 

Also EHRC: Muslims should be banned from entering Europe.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/30/ehrc-board-member-under-scrutiny-over-social-media-use?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NJS said:

Says the bloke who got virtually nothing "done". 

 

I know he lost the senate which stymied him but maybe if he'd pitched more than fuck all he wouldn't have lost it in the first place.

 

 

The Affordable Care Act is nothing now? Phew, it's a relief that Trump can't have done much damage dismantling his legacy then I guess.

 

See also Blair and tory austerity.

Edited by Renton
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renton said:

 

The Affordable Care Act is nothing now? Phew, it's a relief that Trump can't have done much damage dismantling his legacy then I guess.

 

See also Blair and tory austerity.

It still left 20m without health care because the centrist cowards won't go for medicare for all despite its popularity in polls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NJS said:

It still left 20m without health care because the centrist cowards won't go for medicare for all despite its popularity in polls. 

ACA actually polls better than Medicare for all but ignoring that you’re doing exactly what he says and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen, people who get behind rallying cries like "Defund the police" are already so disillusioned with the political system that they don't care how the message is received because they no longer believe in democracy as a means for change. They now have greater faith in organised protest and public mischief.

 

So yeah, nice points from Obama, and I agree with him, but he's speaking to other moderates with that message. He's speaking to people who still believe that the system works. Not the people who are carrying those messages.

Edited by Rayvin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2020 at 10:20, Rayvin said:

Today I learned that the EHRC board is made up of political appointments, including people who have either worked for or donated to the Tory party, and who post in support of fairly right wing views about Islamophobia and misogyny despite criticising Labour as not having done enough to investigate identical actions by members concerning antisemitism.

 

I'm not saying this discredits their report on Labour, although the guy in question here actually led the report on Labour apparently :lol:but I'm pretty appalled by the sorts of people working for them and will apply more scrutiny to them in future. I was under the impression that they were an independent body of equal rights campaigners, not a collective of Tory stooges. 

 

EHRC: Labour failed to act on party members liking offensive tweets.

 

Also EHRC: Muslims should be banned from entering Europe.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/30/ehrc-board-member-under-scrutiny-over-social-media-use?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This is damning.

It doesn’t change the fact Corbyn and co were antisemitic, of course 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

This is damning.

It doesn’t change the fact Corbyn and co were antisemitic, of course 

 

It does not.

 

It does rather confirm my view that the only reason  anyone with authority or power cared was to be able to weaponise the issue, however. Clearly this guy who led the inquiry doesn't actually give a shit.

 

Corbyn should have done better, he should have seen it coming and cracked down. He enabled antisemitism through inaction. However, I'm going to struggle to believe that this wasn't just a convenient excuse in the end for a great many of those who picked it up as a cause.

 

Which, for all our arguments on this issue, is more or less what I said to begin with.

Edited by Rayvin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was right that people in power and society more broadly acknowledged and tackle the issue though, even if some did so because they spotted an open goal. 
 

Just ask Jewish Labour Party members. Of course Labour’s political opponent weaponised it. I’m actually glad they did, to be honest, because they helped highlight just how bad the problem was - something, which, incredibly, many on the left still refuse to accept, despite all the evidence to the contrary - and ultimately it has helped get rid of these scumbags. 

Edited by Dr Gloom
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get headlong back into this and respect your opinion on the matter, but I've read things which suggest that "the political interference from the leaders office in the processes" were actually to speed up the handling of the complaints rather than to slow them down. I think the truth of this issue is that there were some instances of legitimate antisemitism, and some instances of actual sabotage to make the party look bad. If Corbyn's office did try to speed up handling, then the EHRC has pulled them up on a context free technicality that doesn't match the spirit of what the report is arguing.

 

That's certainly how most of the more balanced left wingers I've spoken to see it. Legitimate criticism blended with illegitimate mud slinging.

 

Anyway, beyond the fact that we're still suffering politically for this catastrophe now, I don't think it really matters anymore. I also don't know to what extent it even made a difference in the end - its impossible to imagine that Corbyn would have won that election if not for this issue. The real harm it's causing is actually to Starmer, ironically, as it's creating schism.

Edited by Rayvin
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I'm not going to get headlong back into this and respect your opinion on the matter, but I've read things which suggest that "the political interference from the leaders office in the processes" were actually to speed up the handling of the complaints rather than to slow them down. I think the truth of this issue is that there were some instances of legitimate antisemitism, and some instances of actual sabotage to make the party look bad. If Corbyn's office did try to speed up handling, then the EHRC has pulled them up on a context free technicality that doesn't match the spirit of what the report is arguing.

 

That's certainly how most of the more balanced left wingers I've spoken to see it. Legitimate criticism blended with illegitimate mud slinging.

 

Anyway, beyond the fact that we're still suffering politically for this catastrophe now, I don't think it really matters anymore. I also don't know to what extent it even made a difference in the end - its impossible to imagine that Corbyn would have won that election if not for this issue. The real harm it's causing is actually to Starmer, ironically, as it's creating schism.

It really does matter to Jewish people and to Jewish Labour party members. It is more than a distraction and I’m relieved that the new party leader recognises this and is dealing with it in a way that was beyond his predecessor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

It really does matter to Jewish people and to Jewish Labour party members. It is more than a distraction and I’m relieved that the new party leader recognises this and is dealing with it in a way that was beyond his predecessor.  

 

I meant more the debate about the extent of the antisemitism doesn't matter, rather than the antisemitism itself. Corbyn and his wing have lost this fight, and I didn't really bring up the EHRC thing in order to re-run the argument - it was more to demonstrate that the EHRC could probably do with questioning itself over the same lines of enquiry that it charged Labour, the hypocritical fucks.

Edited by Rayvin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...