TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Don't think theres a ring big enough for all those handbags.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Don't think theres a ring big enough for all those handbags.Can’t we all do a charity free for all, in an enlarged boxing ring. A mass free for all. The SBT royal rumble.
Nick get this sortedCan’t we all do a charity free for all, in an enlarged boxing ring. A mass free for all. The SBT royal rumble.
Had a bit of this conversation earlier in the thread in response to the denying people a platform. Nick Griffin was used as an example so I’ll continue to use him him as an example. Why should I have to see someone who actually thinks I shouldn’t exist as a person on my tv. Ok so he dug his own grave so to speak, but I guarantee a lot of people agreed with what he was saying.
The post earlier about ISIS was a great example. Should we give them a party political broadcast on bbc at 6:00pm on a Friday? Of course we shouldn’t.
Slight bit of whataboutary but what’s good for the goose etc.
The likes of Robinson gain some Kudos and respect as he never faces public scrutiny or a challenge on a debate. He would end up exposed.
I think you have sort of answered your own question here. In that you mention party political broadcast, That is a platform with no response as opposed to no platforming which is really a case of denying a voice in a debate
The denial of a voice in a debate does enhance the image of the bogeyman. In the case of Griffin no one had really heard him speak in a debate situation and the assumed view from the snippets you saw of him was that at least he was educated and articulate and a thoughtful person. Real politicians have to withstand public scrutiny. He escaped it for years and would exploit this with the car crash voting system of the EU elections which gave him a seat.
The minute he had to face scrutiny he failed. He was a socially inept freakshow (I think he was privately educated in a girls own school) and the scrutiny exposed the myth. You look at snippets of people and its easy to sound very plausible. If you were in a TV audience you could challenge him with a question and ask what he offers you. He would stumble look silly and the giant powerful bogeyman is exposed as a small weak coward. Its the same with people like Hamsa - give him an audience and he looks stupid.
The likes of Robinson gain some Kudos and respect as he never faces public scrutiny or a challenge on a debate. He would end up exposed.
The reverse side of this shows the point better. I am sure you have zero idea who Linda Bellos is but she was a very hated figure in the early 80's as part of the loony left. She I think was leader of Lambeth council - extreme politically, black and gay. Her public image was dire and she was reviled in all mainstream press. She along with a colleague was invited on the Richard Littlejohn chatshow. She was really put there to be abused and mocked and appeared alongside Michael Winner (a classic gammon in BSB speak). Winner turned the tables on the chatshow host by backing Bellos and supported her and said she was a credit to society and Littlejohn was an arse - the audience cheered and of course when you actually saw her for what she was she was a decent person and a far more useful member of society than Littlejohn.
In modern society though Bellos herself has been no platformed. She remains a gay right, race and equality activist but wanted to appear in a I think Oxford debate on transgender and said "she would challenge the norms of transgender" she was banned and subjected to a barrage of hate from the very people she had spent her life helping and campaigning for.
The point of allowing a voice - as long as the challenge is allowed - is that you soon find the wheat from the chaff - the Linda Bellos example shows the chaff is now eating itself
We did think about it at election time tbf, and we said no thanks.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Another lazy comment - Labour were rejected because of their ludicrous Brexit stance.
And let’s be honest, however you might want to badge it up, Labour offered socialism - not Marxism. Comparable policy and strategy would sit firmly in the centre ground in most well-rounded countries.
The policies put in place over the Cov-ID 19 crisis again are socialist in their very nature.
The policies put in place over the Cov-ID 19 crisis again are socialist in their very nature.
I'm sorry, I have to pick you up on that as well. Nothing about the COVID emergency package is socialist. Indeed it's exactly the opposite. The government is funding private business precisely so that it can continue to be private business after this crisis. Nobody is suggesting putting the means of production into the hands of the 'people' (and who are the people if not the state?). Nothing has been nationalised.
Ian, I find that surprising from you. You must know that socialism is effectively the same thing as communism and Marxism. Marx himself uses both terms almost interchangeably. The only distinction he ever makes is that he sees socialism being implemented first with state control before evolving into real communism.
Of course, any country that has tried Marxism never gets past an authoritarian state; leading many to say 'real communism has never been tried'. Corbyn knows that socialism means communism. That's why he describes himself as a democratic socialist - someone that wants the electorate to vote for socialism/communism rather than taking control by force. Democratic socialism is very different to social democracy.
Socialist mode of production - Wikipedia
I'm sorry, I have to pick you up on that as well. Nothing about the COVID emergency package is socialist. Indeed it's exactly the opposite. The government is funding private business precisely so that it can continue to be private business after this crisis. Nobody is suggesting putting the means of production into the hands of the 'people' (and who are the people if not the state?). Nothing has been nationalised.
Socialism is a far broader church than you’re making out. You can start by looking at the Nordic Model of socialism.Ian, I find that surprising from you. You must know that socialism is effectively the same thing as communism and Marxism. Marx himself uses both terms almost interchangeably. The only distinction he ever makes is that he sees socialism being implemented first with state control before evolving into real communism.
Of course, any country that has tried Marxism never gets past an authoritarian state; leading many to say 'real communism has never been tried'. Corbyn knows that socialism means communism. That's why he describes himself as a democratic socialist - someone that wants the electorate to vote for socialism/communism rather than taking control by force. Democratic socialism is very different to social democracy.
Socialist mode of production - Wikipedia
"Communism, sometimes referred to as revolutionary socialism, also originated as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and came to be defined by Marx’s theories—taken to their extreme end. In fact, Marxists often refer to socialism as the first, necessary phase on the way from capitalism to communism. Marx and Engels themselves didn’t consistently or clearly differentiate communism from socialism, which helped ensure lasting confusion between the two terms."
from: https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences#:~:text=Communism, sometimes referred to as,way from capitalism to communism.
Socialism is definitely not the same thing as Communism.
And the lines between all political ideologies can become blurred.
In our country which has supposedly rejected socialism we all expect free health care and state pensions.
In communist China they seem to be embracing free market capitalism while, as you'd expect, rejecting democracy.
The Russian kleptocracy could not have succeeded without being enabled by western capitalists, (lawyers, accountants etc). London being one of the main enablers
Marx and Engels disagreed with you. I do agree that your perception of the terms may differ - but make no mistake that when people like Corbz use the term they know the Marxian theory and use it advisedly.
Socialism is a far broader church than you’re making out. You can start by looking at the Nordic Model of socialism.
Marx and Engels disagreed with you. I do agree that your perception of the terms may differ - but make no mistake that when people like Corbz use the term they know the Marxian theory and use it advisedly.
During the election campaign the source tax research.com was often used as evidence that the Labour Party historically controlled the economy better in terms of competency and debt management.
The instinct was to laugh but the graphs looked impressive
Sadly the impressive sounding site was a platform for Richard Murphy the self proclaimed genuine behind Corbynomics - I lost interest at that point
Explain how the Conservatives have improved the national financial position between 2010 and 2020 prior to the lockdown then?
I don't think a lot of people did agree with Griffin, hence he disappeared off the face of the earth and hence why I think the majority of people in this country are actually when it comes down to it, good people.
People should be smart enough to realise that BLM doesn't mean 'only' Black, but for the sake of the intellectually challenged, I still think things would improve if it was rebranded as BLMT with the T as 'too' which it actually means I'm sure anyway, but I genuinely believe that some would be less antagonised if it was pointed out to them that it wasn't saying theirs didn't matter.
When you get to that sort of level people latch onto it but later on try and disassociate themselves from it when they show their true colours.
NF people went BNP. BNP then went UKIP, UKIP went to Brexit. It'll happen again.
I think you have sort of answered your own question here. In that you mention party political broadcast, That is a platform with no response as opposed to no platforming which is really a case of denying a voice in a debate
The denial of a voice in a debate does enhance the image of the bogeyman. In the case of Griffin no one had really heard him speak in a debate situation and the assumed view from the snippets you saw of him was that at least he was educated and articulate and a thoughtful person. Real politicians have to withstand public scrutiny. He escaped it for years and would exploit this with the car crash voting system of the EU elections which gave him a seat.
The minute he had to face scrutiny he failed. He was a socially inept freakshow (I think he was privately educated in a girls own school) and the scrutiny exposed the myth. You look at snippets of people and its easy to sound very plausible. If you were in a TV audience you could challenge him with a question and ask what he offers you. He would stumble look silly and the giant powerful bogeyman is exposed as a small weak coward. Its the same with people like Hamsa - give him an audience and he looks stupid.
The likes of Robinson gain some Kudos and respect as he never faces public scrutiny or a challenge on a debate. He would end up exposed.
The reverse side of this shows the point better. I am sure you have zero idea who Linda Bellos is but she was a very hated figure in the early 80's as part of the loony left. She I think was leader of Lambeth council - extreme politically, black and gay. Her public image was dire and she was reviled in all mainstream press. She along with a colleague was invited on the Richard Littlejohn chatshow. She was really put there to be abused and mocked and appeared alongside Michael Winner (a classic gammon in BSB speak). Winner turned the tables on the chatshow host by backing Bellos and supported her and said she was a credit to society and Littlejohn was an arse - the audience cheered and of course when you actually saw her for what she was she was a decent person and a far more useful member of society than Littlejohn.
In modern society though Bellos herself has been no platformed. She remains a gay right, race and equality activist but wanted to appear in a I think Oxford debate on transgender and said "she would challenge the norms of transgender" she was banned and subjected to a barrage of hate from the very people she had spent her life helping and campaigning for.
The point of allowing a voice - as long as the challenge is allowed - is that you soon find the wheat from the chaff - the Linda Bellos example shows the chaff is now eating itself
Explain how the Conservatives have improved the national financial position between 2010 and 2020 prior to the lockdown then?
Although I know this is a foreign example what about the likes of Alex Jones from infowars? Never seen anyone so ridiculous (apart from maybe Icke) yet he has loads of viewers. OK, most people think he's a complete loon but just the few who do take on board what he says is enough to cause a problem.
What do you mean by the national financial position? I would also like to know if you believe the Blair government was the utopian Model of socialism and then I will understand your standpoint better. I suspect it isn’t
Infowars bullshit has been quoted on here.
It's so evidently true that the financial health of the country had improved that I'd say that the onus is on you to prove otherwise. By any measure you like, 2020 was better. In 2010 debt was increasing by more than 10% of GDP; there was greater unemployment; higher inflation and greater inequality. Which measure are you hoping will show the opposite?
So you think the Tories have reduced inequality? Based on what measure?It's so evidently true that the financial health of the country had improved that I'd say that the onus is on you to prove otherwise. By any measure you like, 2020 was better. In 2010 debt was increasing by more than 10% of GDP; there was greater unemployment; higher inflation and greater inequality. Which measure are you hoping will show the opposite?
So you think the Tories have reduced inequality? Based on what measure?
Exactly - Ian is the master of the lazy anecdotal trope. He will know become very agitated and produce an obscure individual example without addressing a bigger picture
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?