Andrew Neil and Squeaking Little Shít Owen Jones should settle this like men.

[Sir C]

Neil will kick his **** in.

I'd pay anything, anything at all, to watch Jones getting battered. Imagine that smug face with rivers of tears, blood and snot pouring down it :clap: :clap: :cloud9:

Back in 5.

[Burney]

Neil will kick his **** in.

I'd pay anything, anything at all, to watch Jones getting battered. Imagine that smug face with rivers of tears, blood and snot pouring down it :clap: :clap: :cloud9:

Back in 5.
It's quite extraordinary. Not least because there are actual tweets from Jones and his coterie praising Neil when he's gone after Tory politicians. This is quite simply an attack on him because he is believed to hold conservative, pro-Brexit views while appearing on the BBC. It is simply an attempt to oust a widely-admired journalist because he's a/ the best interviewer the BBC has and b/ may hold the 'wrong' views (something that was never a problem for Owen it seems when - for instance - Paul Mason was on Newsnight).

[World's End Stella]

Neil will kick his **** in.

I'd pay anything, anything at all, to watch Jones getting battered. Imagine that smug face with rivers of tears, blood and snot pouring down it :clap: :clap: :cloud9:

Back in 5.

There's a pretty good youtube video of Owen looking a right t1t on his show as he failed to understand the difference between income and wealth. :hehe:

Go to youtube and look up 'owen jones car crash TV on BBC'

[Burney]

There's a pretty good youtube video of Owen looking a right t1t on his show as he failed to understand the difference between income and wealth. :hehe:

Go to youtube and look up 'owen jones car crash TV on BBC'

:nod: Neil retweeted it yesterday.

[Sir C]

It's quite extraordinary. Not least because there are actual tweets from Jones and his coterie praising Neil when he's gone after Tory politicians. This is quite simply an attack on him because he is believed to hold conservative, pro-Brexit views while appearing on the BBC. It is simply an attempt to oust a widely-admired journalist because he's a/ the best interviewer the BBC has and b/ may hold the 'wrong' views (something that was never a problem for Owen it seems when - for instance - Paul Mason was on Newsnight).

It's clearly come down from McDonnell. Jones hasn't the stones to have instigated such an attack off his own back. My concern is that the leftists running the BBC might be involved in this plot to remove him.

But anyway, back to happier matters. Imagine punching the little ****'s face until it resembled a mallet-tenderised steak, until your arm ached so much you feared you'd dislocated your shoulder, until he drowned in his own blood and mucus :cloud9:

Back in 7or 8.

[Sir C]

There's a pretty good youtube video of Owen looking a right t1t on his show as he failed to understand the difference between income and wealth. :hehe:

Go to youtube and look up 'owen jones car crash TV on BBC'

I'd imagine googling that phrase would return a wealth of results.

I can't look at him. The sight of his face makes me so angry I can't settle for hours. :-(

[Burney]

It's clearly come down from McDonnell. Jones hasn't the stones to have instigated such an attack off his own back. My concern is that the leftists running the BBC might be involved in this plot to remove him.

But anyway, back to happier matters. Imagine punching the little ****'s face until it resembled a mallet-tenderised steak, until your arm ached so much you feared you'd dislocated your shoulder, until he drowned in his own blood and mucus :cloud9:

Back in 7or 8.

Seems an odd way of going about things. If you explicitly try and get a particular beeb journo sacked for political reasons, it will dig in its heels and do anything to stop that happening because of the precedent it sets.

I agree it's clearly concerted, though. All the usual apparatchiks are out in force retweeting the article with suspiciously similar wording. Clearly McDonnell et al are sick of having the embarrassing shortcomings of their personnel and policies exposed with forensic precision. They prefer nice soft lobs from poorly-briefed walkovers like thon wonky-faced cvnt Marr.

[Sir C]

Seems an odd way of going about things. If you explicitly try and get a particular beeb journo sacked for political reasons, it will dig in its heels and do anything to stop that happening because of the precedent it sets.

I agree it's clearly concerted, though. All the usual apparatchiks are out in force retweeting the article with suspiciously similar wording. Clearly McDonnell et al are sick of having the embarrassing shortcomings of their personnel and policies exposed with forensic precision. They prefer nice soft lobs from poorly-briefed walkovers like thon wonky-faced cvnt Marr.

Andrew Marr's nice soft lob, you say?

Back in 20 :-(

[Peter]

Seems an odd way of going about things. If you explicitly try and get a particular beeb journo sacked for political reasons, it will dig in its heels and do anything to stop that happening because of the precedent it sets.

I agree it's clearly concerted, though. All the usual apparatchiks are out in force retweeting the article with suspiciously similar wording. Clearly McDonnell et al are sick of having the embarrassing shortcomings of their personnel and policies exposed with forensic precision. They prefer nice soft lobs from poorly-briefed walkovers like thon wonky-faced cvnt Marr.

What is all this about?

[Sir C]

What is all this about?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/bbc-andrew-neil-media-politics#comments

[SWv2]

Neil will kick his **** in.

I'd pay anything, anything at all, to watch Jones getting battered. Imagine that smug face with rivers of tears, blood and snot pouring down it :clap: :clap: :cloud9:

Back in 5.

Quick question, and I don't mean this in any way argumentative or antagonistic - but why do you allow journalists to annoy you or wind you up so much?

Can't you just you know, ignore them, not read them or whatever.

[World's End Stella]

That really is quite a remarkable article. After you extract yourself from the endless rhetoric and unsupported statements (like 'Our press overwhelmingly supports the Tories and is intolerant of even mild deviations from rightwing orthodoxy.', as an example) you realize that the point he is making is that someone cannot do his job effectively because he holds views that I don't agree with.

And he's a liberal. :hehe:

[Sir C]

Quick question, and I don't mean this in any way argumentative or antagonistic - but why do you allow journalists to annoy you or wind you up so much?

Can't you just you know, ignore them, not read them or whatever.

Politics matters, because we all luve with the consequences. The fellow in question peddles a line which is clearly appealing to the weak-minded, the lazy and the feckless (what he call 'Labour voters') and he could potentially be partly responsible for this country and its once-proud inhabitants being crushed under the merciless heel of a McDonnell-led communist dictatorship.

It's important stuff, sw. Our freedom is worth fighting for.

[World's End Stella]

Politics matters, because we all luve with the consequences. The fellow in question peddles a line which is clearly appealing to the weak-minded, the lazy and the feckless (what he call 'Labour voters') and he could potentially be partly responsible for this country and its once-proud inhabitants being crushed under the merciless heel of a McDonnell-led communist dictatorship.

It's important stuff, sw. Our freedom is worth fighting for.

The video of him storming off of Sky news over the Miami shootings in the gay club is always good for a laugh. I honestly think he felt he had the moral high ground and was making himself a martyr as he stormed out.

Talk about divorced from reality. :hehe:

[Peter]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/bbc-andrew-neil-media-politics#comments

He has a point and the right to make it. Why such a big hissy fit?

Using David Irving was a bit much, although he would have been considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at the time.

[Burney]

The video of him storming off of Sky news over the Miami shootings in the gay club is always good for a laugh. I honestly think he felt he had the moral high ground and was making himself a martyr as he stormed out.

Talk about divorced from reality. :hehe:

I thought he looked and sounded p1ssed.

[Sir C]

He has a point and the right to make it. Why such a big hissy fit?

Using David Irving was a bit much, although he would have been considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at the time.

Tim Montgomerie just summed it up rather nicely:

"The Corbyn Left’s intolerance of alternative views is already unattractive - in opposition. Could become dangerously unhealthy if ends up in power. (Always true of ppl with absolutist sense of their moral superiority)."

These people are dangerous.

[SWv2]

Politics matters, because we all luve with the consequences. The fellow in question peddles a line which is clearly appealing to the weak-minded, the lazy and the feckless (what he call 'Labour voters') and he could potentially be partly responsible for this country and its once-proud inhabitants being crushed under the merciless heel of a McDonnell-led communist dictatorship.

It's important stuff, sw. Our freedom is worth fighting for.

Fair enough but I have always given politics the full swerve, indicators on, the lot. Though technically that would be overtaking and not swerving.

A factor of having grown up in NI and the nonsense political landscape there.

[Peter]

Tim Montgomerie just summed it up rather nicely:

"The Corbyn Left’s intolerance of alternative views is already unattractive - in opposition. Could become dangerously unhealthy if ends up in power. (Always true of ppl with absolutist sense of their moral superiority)."

These people are dangerous.

The issue is more the BBC insist it? We have an unrealistic expectation of objectivity when it comes to the BBC which tends to demand either fake neutrality or centrist consensus- which is, of itself, a clear form of bias.

It would be tough to find a journalist to host a political show on TV who didnt have a background on one side of the fence.

[Burney]

He has a point and the right to make it. Why such a big hissy fit?

Using David Irving was a bit much, although he would have been considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at the time.

The fuss is because this is an explicit and concerted attempt to remove a journalist from a role not because of how he does his job, but because of who he is and personal views he may hold. We are essentially being told that the possession of certain political ideas makes one unsuitable for a role with the state broadcaster. It's a straight-up authoritarian move by Jones at the behest of his masters.

[redgunamo]

The issue is more the BBC insist it? We have an unrealistic expectation of objectivity when it comes to the BBC which tends to demand either fake neutrality or centrist consensus- which is, of itself, a clear form of bias.

It would be tough to find a journalist to host a political show on TV who didnt have a background on one side of the fence.

Yes, it seems to me politics has pinched all that partisanship, if that's a word, from the football.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Imagine if Owen Jones was a burglar who chose the wrong house to break into
:cloud9:

Back tomorrow

[Norn Iron]

What about your man James O'Brien. He grinds my gears. Such a condescending c_unt.

He's been bleating about Brexit ever since the referendum. He believes that all 17m people who voted for it are racist idiots. Always going on about 'flag wavers' & seems to think he knows more than everyone else. He gets working class people calling his show and talks down to them constantly. Cannot stand him.

[Peter]

The fuss is because this is an explicit and concerted attempt to remove a journalist from a role not because of how he does his job, but because of who he is and personal views he may hold. We are essentially being told that the possession of certain political ideas makes one unsuitable for a role with the state broadcaster. It's a straight-up authoritarian move by Jones at the behest of his masters.

We have always believed that the possession of certain political views makes one unsuitable for a role with the state broadcaster. WE just dont quite agree on which views those are.

Lets face it, its a bit ****ing rich for a man who hired a holocaust denier to work for his paper on some nazi diaries to be having a go at theLabour Party for being anti Semitic.

[Burney]

We have always believed that the possession of certain political views makes one unsuitable for a role with the state broadcaster. WE just dont quite agree on which views those are.

Lets face it, its a bit ****ing rich for a man who hired a holocaust denier to work for his paper on some nazi diaries to be having a go at theLabour Party for being anti Semitic.

No, it's deliberate and cynical whataboutery that utterly ignores context and intent on Neil's part in doing that in order to deflect from the antisemitism of the Labour Party. Nobody in their right mind thinks Neil is in any sense an anti-semite and he made it clear at the time that he was using Irving very reluctantly because he possessed the technical wherewithal to do what was needed.
If you disagree with that judgement call, that's fine, but it in no way undermines Neil's ability to point out and criticise anti-semitism. Jones is purely interested in smearing an opponent - nothing more.

[Peter]

No, it's deliberate and cynical whataboutery that utterly ignores context and intent on Neil's part in doing that in order to deflect from the antisemitism of the Labour Party. Nobody in their right mind thinks Neil is in any sense an anti-semite and he made it clear at the time that he was using Irving very reluctantly because he possessed the technical wherewithal to do what was needed.
If you disagree with that judgement call, that's fine, but it in no way undermines Neil's ability to point out and criticise anti-semitism. Jones is purely interested in smearing an opponent - nothing more.

Hiring the most famous holocaust denier in Britain to research a piece on Nazi material for an established national newspaper is a 'judgement call'?? You are damn right it is, and a pretty ****ing awful one.

Its absurd to suggest that this isnt relevant when you start throwing the stones of anti semitism at other people.

When Corbyn has a beer with someone from the IRA he is a terrorist. When Neil works with holocaust deniers he is simply a brilliant editor.

Bull****.

Of course this is smearing an opponent but that does NOT mean he doesnt have a point. :) and the smearing is not ofNeil as such but the BBC and wider media in general. Which is a bit ****ty....

[Burney]

Hiring the most famous holocaust denier in Britain to research a piece on Nazi material for an established national newspaper is a 'judgement call'?? You are damn right it is, and a pretty ****ing awful one.

Its absurd to suggest that this isnt relevant when you start throwing the stones of anti semitism at other people.

When Corbyn has a beer with someone from the IRA he is a terrorist. When Neil works with holocaust deniers he is simply a brilliant editor.

Bull****.

Of course this is smearing an opponent but that does NOT mean he doesnt have a point. :) and the smearing is not ofNeil as such but the BBC and wider media in general. Which is a bit ****ty....

Utter fúcking bóllocks.

The Labour Party contains, endorses, promotes and nurtures anti-semites from top to bottom. It’s riddled with them and the rot starts at the head.

That simply isn’t comparable to Neil hiring a qualified person with whom he explicitly disagreed and whose views he condemned AT THE TIME to do a certain job. You can argue he was wrong to do that, but you absolutely cannot say it disqualifies him on any level from highlighting and attacking anti-semitism now.

Anyway, the suggestion that the BBC is in any way right leaning is fûcking delusional and anyone spouting such drivel deserves contempt and ridicule.

[Peter]

Utter fúcking bóllocks.

The Labour Party contains, endorses, promotes and nurtures anti-semites from top to bottom. It’s riddled with them and the rot starts at the head.

That simply isn’t comparable to Neil hiring a qualified person with whom he explicitly disagreed and whose views he condemned AT THE TIME to do a certain job. You can argue he was wrong to do that, but you absolutely cannot say it disqualifies him on any level from highlighting and attacking anti-semitism now.

Anyway, the suggestion that the BBC is in any way right leaning is fûcking delusional and anyone spouting such drivel deserves contempt and ridicule.

Its funny how you are soooooo ****ing furious over anti-semitism but happy to parade your hatred of Muslims. Not that I would ever accuse you of simply wanting to smear an opponent or anything.

I have no problem with Neil whatsoever. I haven't problem with him working for the BBC. He's engaging and very watchable. However- using Irving was a dreadful judgement.. There were plenty of historians better qualified to do that work ( I know of at least three personally) and on whose judgement you could more safely rest.

And I am sorry, but you are either judged by the company you keep or you aren't. If Corbyn's friends taint him then Neil is linked to Irving and shall be forever more.

Your description of anti-semitism in the Labour Party is so off the charts crazy I cant even decide how to respond. This will need some thought.

[Sir C]

Its funny how you are soooooo ****ing furious over anti-semitism but happy to parade your hatred of Muslims. Not that I would ever accuse you of simply wanting to smear an opponent or anything.

I have no problem with Neil whatsoever. I haven't problem with him working for the BBC. He's engaging and very watchable. However- using Irving was a dreadful judgement.. There were plenty of historians better qualified to do that work ( I know of at least three personally) and on whose judgement you could more safely rest.

And I am sorry, but you are either judged by the company you keep or you aren't. If Corbyn's friends taint him then Neil is linked to Irving and shall be forever more.

Your description of anti-semitism in the Labour Party is so off the charts crazy I cant even decide how to respond. This will need some thought.

In short, the Labour party isn't a seething hotbed of jew-hating, but even if it is, whatabout your Islamophobia and whatabout David Irving and whatabout that squirrel!

[Burney]

Its funny how you are soooooo ****ing furious over anti-semitism but happy to parade your hatred of Muslims. Not that I would ever accuse you of simply wanting to smear an opponent or anything.

I have no problem with Neil whatsoever. I haven't problem with him working for the BBC. He's engaging and very watchable. However- using Irving was a dreadful judgement.. There were plenty of historians better qualified to do that work ( I know of at least three personally) and on whose judgement you could more safely rest.

And I am sorry, but you are either judged by the company you keep or you aren't. If Corbyn's friends taint him then Neil is linked to Irving and shall be forever more.

Your description of anti-semitism in the Labour Party is so off the charts crazy I cant even decide how to respond. This will need some thought.

I don't hate muslims. I absolutely despise their religion and regard it as utterly incompatible with a civilised country, but I don't hate them as individuals.

As for the rest of it, Corbyn seeks out anti-semites and terrorists as 'friends'. Neil once hired one in a business arrangement. Many Jews believe Corbyn to be an anti-semite. None believe Neil to be one.

[Peter]

I don't hate muslims. I absolutely despise their religion and regard it as utterly incompatible with a civilised country, but I don't hate them as individuals.

As for the rest of it, Corbyn seeks out anti-semites and terrorists as 'friends'. Neil once hired one in a business arrangement. Many Jews believe Corbyn to be an anti-semite. None believe Neil to be one.

I am sure Corbyn doesnt hate all jews as individuals. So that is fine, I suppose.

And can we not consider anti-semitism and holocaust denial to be the same thing. They are not.....

[Sir C]

I am sure Corbyn doesnt hate all jews as individuals. So that is fine, I suppose.

And can we not consider anti-semitism and holocaust denial to be the same thing. They are not.....

Have you been to Roti King at Euston? Best roti canai in london, apparently.

Who the fúck ever finds themselves anywhere near Euston?

[Peter]

In short, the Labour party isn't a seething hotbed of jew-hating, but even if it is, whatabout your Islamophobia and whatabout David Irving and whatabout that squirrel!


I suppose I am trying to suggest that I see it all as the same thing. Hating Israel means being pro-Palestine, which means being pro-arab, which means pro-Muslim, which means anti-semite. Loving Israel means being anti-Palestine, anti Arab, anti muslim and loving jews.

We are being asked to pick sides on something that most of dont care about and dont fully understand. It is total horse**** from start to finish but it seems to me that if one is appalled by one prejudice one should be appalled by the other. Unless one would rather choose sides, of course.

Having been closely involved with theLabour Party all my life, and having never witnessed so much as an anti-semitic joke, it is difficult to accept the current view of my party. Largely because I know it is *******s.

[Peter]

Have you been to Roti King at Euston? Best roti canai in london, apparently.

Who the fúck ever finds themselves anywhere near Euston?

No, not to my knowledge.

I mean, its just bread really isn't it. I struggle to get overexcited about it.

[Burney]

I am sure Corbyn doesnt hate all jews as individuals. So that is fine, I suppose.

And can we not consider anti-semitism and holocaust denial to be the same thing. They are not.....

I'm drawing the distinction between loathing people's beliefs and loathing them as individuals. I despise socialism, but find some socialists to be almost tolerable if you try not to think about the crap they believe. Similarly, I think Islam is a foul, savage and evil belief system, but that does not mean I necessarily believe muslims to be foul, savage and evil. That's quite different to anti-semitism, which is an actual hatred of people based on their race regardless of what they believe. The two are not comparable.

[Sir C]

No, not to my knowledge.

I mean, its just bread really isn't it. I struggle to get overexcited about it.

Just bread? Roti canai? Sort yourself out, son.

[Burney]

I suppose I am trying to suggest that I see it all as the same thing. Hating Israel means being pro-Palestine, which means being pro-arab, which means pro-Muslim, which means anti-semite. Loving Israel means being anti-Palestine, anti Arab, anti muslim and loving jews.

We are being asked to pick sides on something that most of dont care about and dont fully understand. It is total horse**** from start to finish but it seems to me that if one is appalled by one prejudice one should be appalled by the other. Unless one would rather choose sides, of course.

Having been closely involved with theLabour Party all my life, and having never witnessed so much as an anti-semitic joke, it is difficult to accept the current view of my party. Largely because I know it is *******s.

As someone pointed out last week, there are many, many worse countries in the world than Israel with vastly worse records of oppression and subjugation. And yet the left is obsessed with Israel rather than any of these others. Israel...the only Jewish state in the world. :rubchin:

It's legitimate to wonder why that might be and to wonder why it should be that, of all the peoples in the world with a grievance, the Palestinians should have found such fertile ground for their cause in the western left. The conclusion isn't hard to draw.

[Peter]

As someone pointed out last week, there are many, many worse countries in the world than Israel with vastly worse records of oppression and subjugation. And yet the left is obsessed with Israel rather than any of these others. Israel...the only Jewish state in the world. :rubchin:

It's legitimate to wonder why that might be and to wonder why it should be that, of all the peoples in the world with a grievance, the Palestinians should have found such fertile ground for their cause in the western left. The conclusion isn't hard to draw.

Traditionally, the left hated Israel because of american involvement, particularly in funding their military. THis was a legitimate prejudice as,lets face it, lefties hate the yanks and, in the post war years, for good and well established reasons.

It seems to have changed but I agree with you- I dont really see why a british labour movement should be so pre-occupied with an issue that doesnt concern 99% of british people and is not even a particularly significant part of british foreign policy.

[Sir C]

As someone pointed out last week, there are many, many worse countries in the world than Israel with vastly worse records of oppression and subjugation. And yet the left is obsessed with Israel rather than any of these others. Israel...the only Jewish state in the world. :rubchin:

It's legitimate to wonder why that might be and to wonder why it should be that, of all the peoples in the world with a grievance, the Palestinians should have found such fertile ground for their cause in the western left. The conclusion isn't hard to draw.

I think you'll find, old chap, that those hook-nosed money-grasping bankers have conspired with Amerika to downpress the poor workers for years now. Why even Our Karl Marx and Our Adolf Hitler knew it!

The Left's anti-semitism: where cultural bigotry meets whackjob conspiracy theory.

[Peter]

I'm drawing the distinction between loathing people's beliefs and loathing them as individuals. I despise socialism, but find some socialists to be almost tolerable if you try not to think about the crap they believe. Similarly, I think Islam is a foul, savage and evil belief system, but that does not mean I necessarily believe muslims to be foul, savage and evil. That's quite different to anti-semitism, which is an actual hatred of people based on their race regardless of what they believe. The two are not comparable.

You have said on here that you would love to have ensured that no muslims ever came to britain. Had anyone said that about jews would you have considered it anti-semitic?

The two are directly comparable. We cant trade beliefs and say 'I only hate him cos of his religion, not cos of his race'.

Prejudice is prejudice and if we can separate one entity from the individual we can separate the other. Judaism is after all a faith.

[Peter]

Just bread? Roti canai? Sort yourself out, son.

Have you been to that canteen place in KL, up the hill just past the Ptronas towers. Open all night....they do an outstanding roti for less than a quid.

I shall be back there in June.

[Burney]

Traditionally, the left hated Israel because of american involvement, particularly in funding their military. THis was a legitimate prejudice as,lets face it, lefties hate the yanks and, in the post war years, for good and well established reasons.

It seems to have changed but I agree with you- I dont really see why a british labour movement should be so pre-occupied with an issue that doesnt concern 99% of british people and is not even a particularly significant part of british foreign policy.

Of course you won't hear an anti-semitic joke - it isn't that kind of anti-semitism. The left also has a long history of associating Jews with capitalism. Turn up a stone on twitter and you'll find a Corbynista spouting Rothschild conspiracy sh1t. This isn't a new phenomenon. Orwell was pointing it out in the 30s. However, the need to pander to large Islamic communities in certain constituencies has undoubtedly made Labour more tolerant of it of late and given cover to the latent anti-semitism of longer-standing leftists.

[Monty92]

You have said on here that you would love to have ensured that no muslims ever came to britain. Had anyone said that about jews would you have considered it anti-semitic?

The two are directly comparable. We cant trade beliefs and say 'I only hate him cos of his religion, not cos of his race'.

Prejudice is prejudice and if we can separate one entity from the individual we can separate the other. Judaism is after all a faith.

That's b*ollocks. If I said I didn't want the UK to take in a single unvetted Muslim "refugee" in case one of them is a Jihadi, that isn't prejudice against Muslims in the slightest. It's entirely legitimate and reasonable pragmatism that has absolutely nothing to do with hating individuals because of their religion. Every Muslim who holds beliefs compatible with western values prevented from entering under my preferred policy would have my absolute sympathy.

I'm assuming this same pragmatism was behind Burney's comment.

[Sir C]

Have you been to that canteen place in KL, up the hill just past the Ptronas towers. Open all night....they do an outstanding roti for less than a quid.

I shall be back there in June.

I have not. With God's help and a little luck I shall be spared another visit to KL. It's not my favourite town.

[Burney]

You have said on here that you would love to have ensured that no muslims ever came to britain. Had anyone said that about jews would you have considered it anti-semitic?

The two are directly comparable. We cant trade beliefs and say 'I only hate him cos of his religion, not cos of his race'.

Prejudice is prejudice and if we can separate one entity from the individual we can separate the other. Judaism is after all a faith.

I didn't say 'love', I said that if it were possible to press a button that meant that the decades of muslim immigration to this country had never taken place, I would press it, since the consequences of it have on balance been largely negative (indeed, the only significant positive I can find is in food). I absolutely believe that those negatives are a consequence of the belief systems and cultures engendered by the Islamic faith rather than being a racial trait. If you consider that racist, then you'd have to say that any prejudice against Christian fundamentalists is also racism. :shrug:

Again, it's about beliefs, not about race.

[Peter]

That's b*ollocks. If I said I didn't want the UK to take in a single unvetted Muslim "refugee" in case one of them is a Jihadi, that isn't prejudice against Muslims in the slightest. It's entirely legitimate and reasonable pragmatism that has absolutely nothing to do with hating individuals because of their religion. Every Muslim who holds beliefs compatible with western values prevented from entering under my preferred policy would have my absolute sympathy.

I'm assuming this same pragmatism was behind Burney's comment.

If you had said that I would not have said what I did. So that's a comment I didnt make in response to a comment you didnt make.

I agree, total *******s.

[Monty92]

If you had said that I would not have said what I did. So that's a comment I didnt make in response to a comment you didnt make.

I agree, total *******s.

The point is, your original comparison was flawed. If someone could put up a convincing argument for why allowing Jews to come to the UK has been largely negative, then we might have reason to believe they weren't motivated by racism and inherent dislike of Jews as individuals.

Making the same convincing argument for Muslims is a piece of píss.

[Burney]

The point is, your original comparison was flawed. If someone could put up a convincing argument for why allowing Jews to come to the UK has been largely negative, then we might have reason to believe they weren't motivated by racism and inherent dislike of Jews as individuals.

Making the same convincing argument for Muslims is a piece of píss.

Indeed. On the one hand we have: Self-ghettoised communities leading to massive social divides; an undermining of the education and legal systems; systemic discrimination against women and gays; a massive rise in anti-semitism; cousin marriage; honour killings; mass sexual exploitation of white, working class girls; FGM, radicalisation; electoral fraud; restriction of free speech through threat and home-grown terrorism.

On the other hand we have curry and a variety of kebabs.

Tricky one.

[Peter]

The point is, your original comparison was flawed. If someone could put up a convincing argument for why allowing Jews to come to the UK has been largely negative, then we might have reason to believe they weren't motivated by racism and inherent dislike of Jews as individuals.

Making the same convincing argument for Muslims is a piece of píss.

Not really. The point is whether you think it is fine to discriminate against someone on religious grounds but not on the grounds of race. It doesn't really matter whether you think you can justify this prejudice in your own mind or show evidence.

They carry similar penalties before the law and both are illegal. You can go on until you are blue in the face about the negative impact of Muslims but it doesn't change the fact that you are discriminating against somebody on the basis of their beliefs. Your reasons for doing so are your own but the act itself remains illegal.

One could argue that the number of shootings and stabbing in parts of London are largely down to black people. Would this make disliking black people ok?

Nowhere does this translate into the hatred of individuals. One can dislike the jewish community (control of the media etc) but still maintain that your jewish bloke on the street is ok. Or are we suggesting that the Labour Party activelydislike all individual jewish people?

[Burney]

Not really. The point is whether you think it is fine to discriminate against someone on religious grounds but not on the grounds of race. It doesn't really matter whether you think you can justify this prejudice in your own mind or show evidence.

They carry similar penalties before the law and both are illegal. You can go on until you are blue in the face about the negative impact of Muslims but it doesn't change the fact that you are discriminating against somebody on the basis of their beliefs. Your reasons for doing so are your own but the act itself remains illegal.

One could argue that the number of shootings and stabbing in parts of London are largely down to black people. Would this make disliking black people ok?

Nowhere does this translate into the hatred of individuals. One can dislike the jewish community (control of the media etc) but still maintain that your jewish bloke on the street is ok. Or are we suggesting that the Labour Party activelydislike all individual jewish people?

Is it fine to discriminate against someone based on what they say, believe and openly espouse as being indisputably true?

Yes. Yes, it is. In fact, it's how we judge people all the time.

Does that have anything to do with race? No. There are plenty of white muslims. Their beliefs are fvcking idiotic as well.

[Peter]

Is it fine to discriminate against someone based on what they say, believe and openly espouse as being indisputably true?

Yes. Yes, it is. In fact, it's how we judge people all the time.

Does that have anything to do with race? No. There are plenty of white muslims. Their beliefs are fvcking idiotic as well.

Right, but this isnt just a belief that people on the dole are lazy ****s.

This is discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

[Burney]

Right, but this isnt just a belief that people on the dole are lazy ****s.

This is discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

There's nothing special about religious beliefs. They're just a set of ideas like any other and their bearers can be held accountable for them. They are not deserving of special protection.

If I walked into a job interview with you and told you I believed the earth was flat and run by lizard people, you wouldn't give me the job. Why would me claiming this was as a result of my religious beliefs make any difference to you?

[Monty92]

Hang on - your original assertion was that Burney declaring he’d rather no Muslim had ever come to the UK is evidence of his inherent prejudice against muslims (by his own standards). You said nothing of this being illegal and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t think expressing such a belief should be illegal.

So why are you bringing legality into the conversation?

We were merely talking about what is and isn’t racist. Burnley’s comment about Muslims is very, very easy to justify as not being driven by inherent prejudice. To do the same for an equivalent claim about Jews is almost impossible.

[Peter]

Hang on - your original assertion was that Burney declaring he’d rather no Muslim had ever come to the UK is evidence of his inherent prejudice against muslims (by his own standards). You said nothing of this being illegal and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t think expressing such a belief should be illegal.

So why are you bringing legality into the conversation?

We were merely talking about what is and isn’t racist. Burnley’s comment about Muslims is very, very easy to justify as not being driven by inherent prejudice. To do the same for an equivalent claim about Jews is almost impossible.

Everything both of you say about them is sufficient evidence of your prejudice against muslims. I am quite frankly stunned that you are even denying it having boasted of it so proudly in previous conversations.

My original point was that I found it puzzling that B could clearly be anti-muslim yet so 'appalled' by the notion of anti-semitism in the labour party. The defence that it is purely their religion that you are opposed is nonsense, but when it came up I asked why you felt it was ok to discriminate against one person because of their religion but not another because of their race. It was then I pointed out that in eyes of the law both carry an equal penalty.

THe defence of 'having nothing against the individuals themselves' is as old as the hills and has been used by pretty much every exponent of particular prejudice in the modern era. 'I have nothing against you personally, mate, just your religion'.....

[Peter]

There's nothing special about religious beliefs. They're just a set of ideas like any other and their bearers can be held accountable for them. They are not deserving of special protection.

If I walked into a job interview with you and told you I believed the earth was flat and run by lizard people, you wouldn't give me the job. Why would me claiming this was as a result of my religious beliefs make any difference to you?

You may well believe that but the law doesnt. Of course, you could say you had no problem whatsoever with jewish people but you ****ing hate the religion and are disgusted by the fact that it has its own state which you are also fanatically opposed to. Were I to do that, do you think the majority of people would think I was anti-semitic? Why???? I just dont like the religion, thats all. Nothing against jewish people at all (apart from the fact that they are jewish).

I would give you a job if you were a flat earther. Nothing wrong with that at all....

[World's End Stella]

That's b*ollocks. If I said I didn't want the UK to take in a single unvetted Muslim "refugee" in case one of them is a Jihadi, that isn't prejudice against Muslims in the slightest. It's entirely legitimate and reasonable pragmatism that has absolutely nothing to do with hating individuals because of their religion. Every Muslim who holds beliefs compatible with western values prevented from entering under my preferred policy would have my absolute sympathy.

I'm assuming this same pragmatism was behind Burney's comment.

You don't see a logistical issue with vetting someone's beliefs? Or an ethical one with assuming that a specific religion needs vetting while another does not? As an example, if you made believing in equal rights for homosexuals part of the vetting process you would ban fundamentalist Christians but probably not Anglicans. You'd be happy with that, would you?

[Burney]

You may well believe that but the law doesnt. Of course, you could say you had no problem whatsoever with jewish people but you ****ing hate the religion and are disgusted by the fact that it has its own state which you are also fanatically opposed to. Were I to do that, do you think the majority of people would think I was anti-semitic? Why???? I just dont like the religion, thats all. Nothing against jewish people at all (apart from the fact that they are jewish).

I would give you a job if you were a flat earther. Nothing wrong with that at all....

The law is bullsh1t and you know it. It doesn't stand up to a moment's intelligent scrutiny - as with all the absurd, repressive, authoritarian hate legislation brought in by Blair et al. Someone is entitled to believe what they want. However, I am equally entitled to judge them on those beliefs.

And your other argument is disingenuous. Nobody hates Judaism, they hate Jews. Anti-semitism is about hating Jews because of what they are, not what they believe. That renders your analogy meaningless.

[Burney]

You don't see a logistical issue with vetting someone's beliefs? Or an ethical one with assuming that a specific religion needs vetting while another does not? As an example, if you made believing in equal rights for homosexuals part of the vetting process you would ban fundamentalist Christians but probably not Anglicans. You'd be happy with that, would you?

No-one is suggesting vetting on the basis of belief. The point is that personal beliefs ought to be just that - personal. Believe what you want, but don't expect the world around you to bend to you. However, if you choose to put your beliefs on display, it isn't unreasonable for me to judge you on them.

[Peter]

The law is bullsh1t and you know it. It doesn't stand up to a moment's intelligent scrutiny - as with all the absurd, repressive, authoritarian hate legislation brought in by Blair et al. Someone is entitled to believe what they want. However, I am equally entitled to judge them on those beliefs.

And your other argument is disingenuous. Nobody hates Judaism, they hate Jews. Anti-semitism is about hating Jews because of what they are, not what they believe. That renders your analogy meaningless.

I still cannot see the moral basis for justifying one hatred and castigating the other.

If I talk to an anti-semite they will say they have nothing against individual jews. THey will say they****ing despise zionism, that it has imprisoned the jewish faith and the jewish people in political dogma, that it is the brainchild of bankers and globalists that want to control foreign oil and plant US military might in the middle east. They will tell me they don't have the slightest problem with individual jewish people.

If you can sit there, in all honesty, and tell me that you are 100% comfortable that your prejudice is justified by being solely about a belief system whereas anti-semitism, in all it forms, must and shall be the hatred of all jewish people on the grounds of race then I will let this go right now.

[World's End Stella]

No-one is suggesting vetting on the basis of belief. The point is that personal beliefs ought to be just that - personal. Believe what you want, but don't expect the world around you to bend to you. However, if you choose to put your beliefs on display, it isn't unreasonable for me to judge you on them.

I can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread. So what is Monty's 'preferred policy' then? How is he going to 'vet' Muslim immigrants?

[Burney]

Everything both of you say about them is sufficient evidence of your prejudice against muslims. I am quite frankly stunned that you are even denying it having boasted of it so proudly in previous conversations.

My original point was that I found it puzzling that B could clearly be anti-muslim yet so 'appalled' by the notion of anti-semitism in the labour party. The defence that it is purely their religion that you are opposed is nonsense, but when it came up I asked why you felt it was ok to discriminate against one person because of their religion but not another because of their race. It was then I pointed out that in eyes of the law both carry an equal penalty.

THe defence of 'having nothing against the individuals themselves' is as old as the hills and has been used by pretty much every exponent of particular prejudice in the modern era. 'I have nothing against you personally, mate, just your religion'.....

Your argument is wilfully obtuse in that you refuse to distinguish between judging someone on the basis of what they choose to believe and the ethnicity with which they happen to be born.
One is a rational judgement predicated on an understanding of another's openly-expressed ideas and motivations, while the other is a blind prejudice based on an absurd, arbitrary and scientifically-meaningless distinction. Until such time as you acknowledge the obvious fact that these two things are utterly dissimilar, there really is no point in arguing with you. You seem simply to want to explain any objection to Islam away as racism and are prepared to ignore logic in order to do so. :shrug:

[Burney]

I still cannot see the moral basis for justifying one hatred and castigating the other.

If I talk to an anti-semite they will say they have nothing against individual jews. THey will say they****ing despise zionism, that it has imprisoned the jewish faith and the jewish people in political dogma, that it is the brainchild of bankers and globalists that want to control foreign oil and plant US military might in the middle east. They will tell me they don't have the slightest problem with individual jewish people.

If you can sit there, in all honesty, and tell me that you are 100% comfortable that your prejudice is justified by being solely about a belief system whereas anti-semitism, in all it forms, must and shall be the hatred of all jewish people on the grounds of race then I will let this go right now.

I am 100% comfortable that my contempt for Islam is justified by an understanding of the belief system that underpins it.
I am equally comfortable that anti-semitism has nothing to do with the belief system of Judaism and everything to do with a long-standing and deep-rooted European (and latterly Islamic) hatred of the Jews as a race.

[Peter]

Your argument is wilfully obtuse in that you refuse to distinguish between judging someone on the basis of what they choose to believe and the ethnicity with which they happen to be born.
One is a rational judgement predicated on an understanding of another's openly-expressed ideas and motivations, while the other is a blind prejudice based on an absurd, arbitrary and scientifically-meaningless distinction. Until such time as you acknowledge the obvious fact that these two things are utterly dissimilar, there really is no point in arguing with you. You seem simply to want to explain any objection to Islam away as racism and are prepared to ignore logic in order to do so. :shrug:

So, just to check...if Monty comes to me for a job and I say 'sorry, mate, I dont hire jews'.... that is ok is it? It shouldn't be illegal?

and although you may disagree with me, you would support my right to discriminate on the grounds of his religion?

[Monty92]

Everything both of you say about them is sufficient evidence of your prejudice against muslims. I am quite frankly stunned that you are even denying it having boasted of it so proudly in previous conversations.

My original point was that I found it puzzling that B could clearly be anti-muslim yet so 'appalled' by the notion of anti-semitism in the labour party. The defence that it is purely their religion that you are opposed is nonsense, but when it came up I asked why you felt it was ok to discriminate against one person because of their religion but not another because of their race. It was then I pointed out that in eyes of the law both carry an equal penalty.

THe defence of 'having nothing against the individuals themselves' is as old as the hills and has been used by pretty much every exponent of particular prejudice in the modern era. 'I have nothing against you personally, mate, just your religion'.....

There are very good reasons why a comment such as stating it would have been better had no Muslim ever come to the UK is highly stigmatised and comes with a huge social penalty.

They are much the same reasons why discussing scientifically proven IQ differences across races (blacks lower than whites, Southeast Asians higher than whites, etc) is so radioactive. Both ideas have a historical legacy that none of us should want to revisit - but there remain people who wish to use such ideas to do just that.

The problem, however, is that both ideas have a strong case for being objectively true (when it comes to IQ across races, this is not even open to debate as the science is clear).

Furthermore, both ideas are also highly relevant to hugely important conversations that need to be had either now or in the future about the kind of societies we want to foster.

Which is why it is not always helpful when someone like you comes along and bandies crude words like racism and prejudice around.

You know full well why Burney and I don’t take the same position against any other religious group. If we woke up tomorrow morning and found that it was all a dream and it was in fact fundamentalist Buddhists or Jains whose disgusting belief systems and cultures had pervaded British society, our ire would turn in a split second to them.

And this fact (which I assume you accept) MUST be enough to acquit us of any meaningful charge of inherent discrimination. It is proof that what we object to are ideas - whoever holds them.

Regarding your final point about outdated justifications for bigotry, it has always been a mystery to me why “some of my best friends are xxx” has never been a sufficient counter argument to charges of prejudice. To me there could be no better proof that your prejudice is against ideas not people. But you continue to insist that we are lying or concealing our true feelings And it is this kind of bad faith that means conversations like this are always a dead end .

[Burney]

So, just to check...if Monty comes to me for a job and I say 'sorry, mate, I dont hire jews'.... that is ok is it? It shouldn't be illegal?

and although you may disagree with me, you would support my right to discriminate on the grounds of his religion?

No, since because he's an entirely secular (indeed atheist) Jew, he has no religion on the basis of which to discriminate.

On the other hand, if M were a frummer and expected to be able to come to work in a silly hat and not work after dusk on a Friday, I would fully support your right not to employ him.

[Sir C]

No, since because he's an entirely secular (indeed atheist) Jew, he has no religion on the basis of which to discriminate.

On the other hand, if M were a frummer and expected to be able to come to work in a silly hat and not work after dusk on a Friday, I would fully support your right not to employ him.

Of course, we might also acknowledge that even if he were a cowboy hat / ringlet sporting dude, such beliefs would be unlikely to prompt him to take out his co-workers with a bread knife.

Since all religions aren't the same, I don't see why we should treat them all the same.

[Burney]

Of course, we might also acknowledge that even if he were a cowboy hat / ringlet sporting dude, such beliefs would be unlikely to prompt him to take out his co-workers with a bread knife.

Since all religions aren't the same, I don't see why we should treat them all the same.

Of course, but as an employer, you should have the right to decide whether having such an outlandishly-attired fellow representing your company is what's best for your business. Equally, he must accept that his rightful choice to go around looking ridiculous for religious reasons may come with penalties.

[Peter]

No, since because he's an entirely secular (indeed atheist) Jew, he has no religion on the basis of which to discriminate.

On the other hand, if M were a frummer and expected to be able to come to work in a silly hat and not work after dusk on a Friday, I would fully support your right not to employ him.

Hmmm... ok....

[Monty92]

I can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread. So what is Monty's 'preferred policy' then? How is he going to 'vet' Muslim immigrants?

I don't think anyone should be vetted on their beliefs, for the reasons you state.

[Peter]

Your argument is wilfully obtuse in that you refuse to distinguish between judging someone on the basis of what they choose to believe and the ethnicity with which they happen to be born.
One is a rational judgement predicated on an understanding of another's openly-expressed ideas and motivations, while the other is a blind prejudice based on an absurd, arbitrary and scientifically-meaningless distinction. Until such time as you acknowledge the obvious fact that these two things are utterly dissimilar, there really is no point in arguing with you. You seem simply to want to explain any objection to Islam away as racism and are prepared to ignore logic in order to do so. :shrug:

I am not doing that, b. I have asked why it is ok to discriminate against one person on the grounds of religion but not another on the grounds of race. I am not trying to cast your anti-muslimism as racism.

[Burney]

I am not doing that, b. I have asked why it is ok to discriminate against one person on the grounds of religion but not another on the grounds of race. I am not trying to cast your anti-muslimism as racism.

Because religion is a set of beliefs one voluntarily adopts and espouses, while race is something over which one has no control.

I really can't state it more simply than that. :shrug:

[redgunamo]

Indeed. On the one hand we have: Self-ghettoised communities leading to massive social divides; an undermining of the education and legal systems; systemic discrimination against women and gays; a massive rise in anti-semitism; cousin marriage; honour killings; mass sexual exploitation of white, working class girls; FGM, radicalisation; electoral fraud; restriction of free speech through threat and home-grown terrorism.

On the other hand we have curry and a variety of kebabs.

Tricky one.

There you are then, you've only yourselves to blame. Insisting on "authentic" ethnic cuisine was always going to be the thin end of the wedge.

People will have supported most, probably even all, of that stuff at some point. Arguing that it is now a real problem simply because it's Islams doing it too is always going to be tricky.

[Burney]

There you are then, you've only yourselves to blame. Insisting on "authentic" ethnic cuisine was always going to be the thin end of the wedge.

People will have supported most, probably even all, of that stuff at some point. Arguing that it is now a real problem simply because it's Islams doing it too is always going to be tricky.

Oh, there's no disputing that it's all our doing - or at least that of our leaders. We as a society have been in the process of committing cultural suicide for most of my lifetime.

[World's End Stella]

I don't think anyone should be vetted on their beliefs, for the reasons you state.

Ah ok, I guess I misunderstood. So you don't want to vet Muslim immigrants in any way then?

Excellent. :thumbup:

[World's End Stella]

Oh, there's no disputing that it's all our doing - or at least that of our leaders. We as a society have been in the process of committing cultural suicide for most of my lifetime.

And yet the country seems like an awfully nice place to live. Which makes me think that many of your complaints are much ado about nothing? :rubchin:

[Peter]

Because religion is a set of beliefs one voluntarily adopts and espouses, while race is something over which one has no control.

I really can't state it more simply than that. :shrug:

That isnt really true though, is it. Someone is born muslim because their parents are muslim. Similarly one is born jewish because their parents are. What one does with that birthright is up to the individual.

It becomes even more muddled with the jews because they are both a race and a religion.

I am sorry, I just dont see the grand distinction.

[Burney]

And yet the country seems like an awfully nice place to live. Which makes me think that many of your complaints are much ado about nothing? :rubchin:

Bits of it are, certainly. Mostly the bits in which there hasn't been large-scale muslim immigration. Funny that.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you lived in - for instance - Rotherham, Rochdale, Bradford, Tower Hamlets, Leicester or Luton?

[Burney]

That isnt really true though, is it. Someone is born muslim because their parents are muslim. Similarly one is born jewish because their parents are. What one does with that birthright is up to the individual.

It becomes even more muddled with the jews because they are both a race and a religion.

I am sorry, I just dont see the grand distinction.

Because - regardless of upbringing - one still has agency over one's beliefs. One has no agency over one's ethnicity.

This really isn't that hard to get, p.

[Monty92]

Bits of it are, certainly. Mostly the bits in which there hasn't been large-scale muslim immigration. Funny that.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you lived in - for instance - Rotherham, Rochdale, Bradford, Tower Hamlets, Leicester or Luton?

Not once has my daughter been groomed by a Muslim rape gang - what’s the problem?

[Monty92]

Of course I do. Just not based on their beliefs because that is unworkable and also against our important principles of religious freedom.


Ah ok, I guess I misunderstood. So you don't want to vet Muslim immigrants in any way then?

Excellent. :thumbup:

[Monty92]

No-one is born as a person of religious faith, you thick ****.


That isnt really true though, is it. Someone is born muslim because their parents are muslim. Similarly one is born jewish because their parents are. What one does with that birthright is up to the individual.

It becomes even more muddled with the jews because they are both a race and a religion.

I am sorry, I just dont see the grand distinction.

[World's End Stella]

Bits of it are, certainly. Mostly the bits in which there hasn't been large-scale muslim immigration. Funny that.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you lived in - for instance - Rotherham, Rochdale, Bradford, Tower Hamlets, Leicester or Luton?

How long ago was it that the police couldn't even enter the East End? The country keeps getting better, I think, because as I have said many times, homo sapiens are actually pretty clever so over the course of time we eventually get it right.

But I'm quite happy with people raising these issues, don't get me wrong. It makes for interesting conversation, it's just important to maintain some perspective.

[Burney]

Not once has my daughter been groomed by a Muslim rape gang - what’s the problem?

It is a peculiar trait of the middle class liberal that they will do everything in their power to live, work and have their children schooled away from the problematic aspects of society and then use the fact that they don't experience these problems as evidence that they don't really exist.

[World's End Stella]

Of course I do. Just not based on their beliefs because that is unworkable and also against our important principles of religious freedom.

So, your vetting plan is what exactly? I think this is the third time I have directly or indirectly asked and have yet to see a response.

[Burney]

How long ago was it that the police couldn't even enter the East End? The country keeps getting better, I think, because as I have said many times, homo sapiens are actually pretty clever so over the course of time we eventually get it right.

But I'm quite happy with people raising these issues, don't get me wrong. It makes for interesting conversation, it's just important to maintain some perspective.

This has never been the case, I'm afraid. Until now, if you mean places like Tower Hamlets, of course.

[Monty92]

Who was it that made the east end a no go zone?

And who is it that makes parts of Blackburn and Luton no go zones?

What did we do to inproce the east end? What could we do do to improve Blackburn and Luton?


How long ago was it that the police couldn't even enter the East End? The country keeps getting better, I think, because as I have said many times, homo sapiens are actually pretty clever so over the course of time we eventually get it right.

But I'm quite happy with people raising these issues, don't get me wrong. It makes for interesting conversation, it's just important to maintain some perspective.

[redgunamo]

Oh, there's no disputing that it's all our doing - or at least that of our leaders. We as a society have been in the process of committing cultural suicide for most of my lifetime.

It was the War wot done it, imo. After all, who could continue to support and promote a culture that had led to that. Nothing mattered anymore.

So any and all the silly ideas that would ordinarily have been roundly rejected as the foolishnesses of youth and lunacy suddenly began to gain real traction and acceptance. The adults lost their *******s completely and simply couldn't preach good old-fashioned common sense anymore.

War is a good business but it's dirty and certainly not for everyone. You have to do it right.

[Monty92]

The one in place is probably not too far from being acceptable.

The problem is when you let so many in at once and vetting becomes impossible. Obviously this hasn’t been an issue specifically in the UK.



So, your vetting plan is what exactly? I think this is the third time I have directly or indirectly asked and have yet to see a response.

[redgunamo]

Because - regardless of upbringing - one still has agency over one's beliefs. One has no agency over one's ethnicity.

This really isn't that hard to get, p.

Oh, one certainly does, I reckon. After all, nobody would describe me as "black" if it were not for the colour of my skin.

[Peter]

Because - regardless of upbringing - one still has agency over one's beliefs. One has no agency over one's ethnicity.

This really isn't that hard to get, p.

You make it sound like changing your choice of tea bags.

A Muslim lad might reject all the traditions of his religion and come for a beer but he is still a Muslim. is he supposed to formally reject his cultural upbringing and his family, renounce his religion and declare himself devoid of god? Or is it ok to just be 'not very muslim' in his behaviour?

When I refused monty a job you discussed him being secular and effectively 'less jewish' than your full on ones. So you can be more or less jewish? Can you not see how that isn't a flat line, in or out?

[Burney]

It was the War wot done it, imo. After all, who could continue to support and promote a culture that had led to that. Nothing mattered anymore.

So any and all the silly ideas that would ordinarily have been roundly rejected as the foolishnesses of youth and lunacy suddenly began to gain real traction and acceptance. The adults lost their *******s completely and simply couldn't preach good old-fashioned common sense anymore.

War is a good business but it's dirty and certainly not for everyone. You have to do it right.

Certainly the war led to a collective loss of confidence in the superiority of our culture that has caused us to pretend other, manifestly inferior cultures should be given their head.
Utter madness, of course. Like the school genius suffering a breakdown that leads him to conclude that he should take instruction from the thickest kids in the remedial class.

[Burney]

You make it sound like changing your choice of tea bags.

A Muslim lad might reject all the traditions of his religion and come for a beer but he is still a Muslim. is he supposed to formally reject his cultural upbringing and his family, renounce his religion and declare himself devoid of god? Or is it ok to just be 'not very muslim' in his behaviour?

When I refused monty a job you discussed him being secular and effectively 'less jewish' than your full on ones. So you can be more or less jewish? Can you not see how that isn't a flat line, in or out?

I didn't say it was simple. But it's perfectly possible, there is no legal obstacle to it and - unlike race - is a matter over which you have choice. If you decide not to make that choice, that's fine. But you must accept that there may be negative consequences to that decision.

Besides, it's not this society's job to make it simple. It's the job of the individual to adapt to society, not the other way around. Thinking it is society's job to adapt is what has dropped us in the sh1t.

[Burney]

Oh, one certainly does, I reckon. After all, nobody would describe me as "black" if it were not for the colour of my skin.

Sure, but for some people, the colour of your skin will be enough for them to hate you.

[redgunamo]

Certainly the war led to a collective loss of confidence in the superiority of our culture that has caused us to pretend other, manifestly inferior cultures should be given their head.
Utter madness, of course. Like the school genius suffering a breakdown that leads him to conclude that he should take instruction from the thickest kids in the remedial class.

Interestingly, same for the winners and the losers alike. I suppose it's all very well marching off to the front for a jolly with the lads, but having done all that and seen all that, and then returning home to face your wife and family and friends, knowing what you have also made them see and do and see done is a different circle of hell altogether.

Frankly, we bottled it, couldn't look each other in the eye anymore. And basically, we've been hiding from each other ever since.

[redgunamo]

Sure, but for some people, the colour of your skin will be enough for them to hate you.

Right, but equally, if that's the best they can do, I win; that makes me a pretty good man.

[Burney]

Interestingly, same for the winners and the losers alike. I suppose it's all very well marching off to the front for a jolly with the lads, but having done all that and seen all that, and then returning home to face your wife and family and friends, knowing what you have also made them see and do and see done is a different circle of hell altogether.

Frankly, we bottled it, couldn't look each other in the eye anymore. And basically, we've been hiding from each other ever since.

And of course - and let us never, ever forget this - it is all entirely the fault of the fvcking Germans. They've basically fvcked everything. :furious:

Regards to your good lady wife.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

^^^^
:cry:
Beautiful

[Viva Prat Vegas]

(for Redgunamo)

[Peter]

I didn't say it was simple. But it's perfectly possible, there is no legal obstacle to it and - unlike race - is a matter over which you have choice. If you decide not to make that choice, that's fine. But you must accept that there may be negative consequences to that decision.

Besides, it's not this society's job to make it simple. It's the job of the individual to adapt to society, not the other way around. Thinking it is society's job to adapt is what has dropped us in the sh1t.

So Karl Marx was jewish, right? No matter how many times he renounced it, no matter how he identified. He remained jewish until he died?

I didnt want to make it societies job.

[Burney]

So Karl Marx was jewish, right? No matter how many times he renounced it, no matter how he identified. He remained jewish until he died?

I didnt want to make it societies job.

Of course not. He had Jewish blood, though - just as I have Irish blood. You can't renounce your ethnic heritage - no matter how embarrassing and however much one might like to.

[World's End Stella]

This has never been the case, I'm afraid. Until now, if you mean places like Tower Hamlets, of course.

It was a flippant comment based on something I saw on BBC once, but the point really was that London, and England and pretty much every country, were miles worse off in terms of poverty, health care, infant mortality etc etc a few hundred years ago.

Or do you pine for the days of the Inquisition or the glory years when life expectancy was ~ 40 years of age?

As I said, perspective is important otherwise we might forget how well we really have it.

[Peter]

Of course not. He had Jewish blood, though - just as I have Irish blood. You can't renounce your ethnic heritage - no matter how embarrassing and however much one might like to.

So he wasnt jewish but he was still a jew?

Why do you place such a store on ethnic heritage and so little on cultural, philosophical or spiritual? Why is outlook or belief socast away but technicalities of the blood so cherished? After all, we dont ask somebody their blood type before we decide whether we like them or not.

[Burney]

So he wasnt jewish but he was still a jew?

Why do you place such a store on ethnic heritage and so little on cultural, philosophical or spiritual? Why is outlook or belief socast away but technicalities of the blood so cherished? After all, we dont ask somebody their blood type before we decide whether we like them or not.

I don't place any store on it. :shrug: I've already said that most concepts of 'race' are scientifically meaningless. However, if we are to use it as a shorthand for certain physical characteristics related to particular geographical locations or tribes, it is undeniable that those things are simply a question of biological genetic inheritance and - as such - immutable. Culture and religious belief, on the other hand, are learned characteristics and relatively easily overcome.

Again, I do not see why you are struggling with this really simple distinction between something one cannot change and something one can. It's making you seem slightly unhinged.

[redgunamo]

So he wasnt jewish but he was still a jew?

Why do you place such a store on ethnic heritage and so little on cultural, philosophical or spiritual? Why is outlook or belief socast away but technicalities of the blood so cherished? After all, we dont ask somebody their blood type before we decide whether we like them or not.

That's simply because, certainly traditionally, most people have no idea what their blood group is.

[Peter]

I don't place any store on it. :shrug: I've already said that most concepts of 'race' are scientifically meaningless. However, if we are to use it as a shorthand for certain physical characteristics related to particular geographical locations or tribes, it is undeniable that those things are simply a question of biological genetic inheritance and - as such - immutable. Culture and religious belief, on the other hand, are learned characteristics and relatively easily overcome.

Again, I do not see why you are struggling with this really simple distinction between something one cannot change and something one can. It's making you seem slightly unhinged.

It is largely because you have already demonstrated that in this instance, the thing you cant change can actually be changed to a greater or lesser extent. It is confused by the fact that race that you refer to is bound together not by nation or region but principally by faith. Yes, I am struggling to understand how jewish somebody who has renounced or converted faith really is. For example, I think some of my dad's family were jewish. I dont know it, but I think it. It may be in my blood, it may not be. Am I jewish? Does Corbyn hate me?

What I am really struggling with is how you can possibly think this is straightforward...

[Peter]

That's simply because, certainly traditionally, most people have no idea what their blood group is.

Which muddies the water further.

[Peter]

There are very good reasons why a comment such as stating it would have been better had no Muslim ever come to the UK is highly stigmatised and comes with a huge social penalty.

They are much the same reasons why discussing scientifically proven IQ differences across races (blacks lower than whites, Southeast Asians higher than whites, etc) is so radioactive. Both ideas have a historical legacy that none of us should want to revisit - but there remain people who wish to use such ideas to do just that.

The problem, however, is that both ideas have a strong case for being objectively true (when it comes to IQ across races, this is not even open to debate as the science is clear).

Furthermore, both ideas are also highly relevant to hugely important conversations that need to be had either now or in the future about the kind of societies we want to foster.

Which is why it is not always helpful when someone like you comes along and bandies crude words like racism and prejudice around.

You know full well why Burney and I don’t take the same position against any other religious group. If we woke up tomorrow morning and found that it was all a dream and it was in fact fundamentalist Buddhists or Jains whose disgusting belief systems and cultures had pervaded British society, our ire would turn in a split second to them.

And this fact (which I assume you accept) MUST be enough to acquit us of any meaningful charge of inherent discrimination. It is proof that what we object to are ideas - whoever holds them.

Regarding your final point about outdated justifications for bigotry, it has always been a mystery to me why “some of my best friends are xxx” has never been a sufficient counter argument to charges of prejudice. To me there could be no better proof that your prejudice is against ideas not people. But you continue to insist that we are lying or concealing our true feelings And it is this kind of bad faith that means conversations like this are always a dead end .

Firstly, throughout this entire conversation I have not called either of you racist. I have consistently drawn a comparison between prejudice based on race (the anti semitism B accuses Labour of) and prejudice based on faith (the two of you and your muslim baiting). That should make it clearI am not calling you racist- I am however equating your faith-based prejudice with a race-based one. This isnt the same thing.

Secondly, your insistence that it is purely the faith that you despise is horse****. You admit yourself it is the behaviours you despise (the ghettos, therape gangs, etc). These are the behaviours of individuals. Throughout all of our conversations you have held the line that the religion itself, and alone, is responsible for these behaviours. this is the device you both use to justify your prejudice- I dont hate people, I hate their beliefs. It hinges on you proving that the religion is responsible for how these people behave, flagrantlydisregarding the fact that billions of Muslims around the globe believe the same thing and don't behave this way.

B ridicules the notion that anyone could hate judaism, and insists that they simply hate jews- it simply must be the case. they couldnt possibly hate Israel, they couldn't possibly have an issue with US-led zionism, they couldn't possibly have faith-based objections. It is purely andsimply the hatred of individuals based on race and is therefore unacceptable.

I get your objections, I understand why you both think the way you do. But you are applying a double standard here in chucking stones at othersand the distinction, and the argument that separates the individual from heir belief is almost unbearably tenuous.

[Burney]

Firstly, throughout this entire conversation I have not called either of you racist. I have consistently drawn a comparison between prejudice based on race (the anti semitism B accuses Labour of) and prejudice based on faith (the two of you and your muslim baiting). That should make it clearI am not calling you racist- I am however equating your faith-based prejudice with a race-based one. This isnt the same thing.

Secondly, your insistence that it is purely the faith that you despise is horse****. You admit yourself it is the behaviours you despise (the ghettos, therape gangs, etc). These are the behaviours of individuals. Throughout all of our conversations you have held the line that the religion itself, and alone, is responsible for these behaviours. this is the device you both use to justify your prejudice- I dont hate people, I hate their beliefs. It hinges on you proving that the religion is responsible for how these people behave, flagrantlydisregarding the fact that billions of Muslims around the globe believe the same thing and don't behave this way.

B ridicules the notion that anyone could hate judaism, and insists that they simply hate jews- it simply must be the case. they couldnt possibly hate Israel, they couldn't possibly have an issue with US-led zionism, they couldn't possibly have faith-based objections. It is purely andsimply the hatred of individuals based on race and is therefore unacceptable.

I get your objections, I understand why you both think the way you do. But you are applying a double standard here in chucking stones at othersand the distinction, and the argument that separates the individual from heir belief is almost unbearably tenuous.

You think that the desire for muslims to remain among muslims, marry among muslims and breed purely among muslims are nothing to do with Islam and its strictures regarding other faiths? Equally, you think that Islam's attitudes to women and infidel women in particular are nothing to do with Islam?

The direct links between Islam and ALL of these behaviours is blindingly obvious. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge them because the doing so makes you feel uncomfortable is entirely your problem.

[Peter]

You think that the desire for muslims to remain among muslims, marry among muslims and breed purely among muslims are nothing to do with Islam and its strictures regarding other faiths? Equally, you think that Islam's attitudes to women and infidel women in particular are nothing to do with Islam?

The direct links between Islam and ALL of these behaviours is blindingly obvious. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge them because the doing so makes you feel uncomfortable is entirely your problem.

Even if I acknowledge that it doesnt change the fact that what you hate is the behaviour, not the belief. why do you care what someone believes and what gives you the right to attack them for it?

[Burney]

Even if I acknowledge that it doesnt change the fact that what you hate is the behaviour, not the belief. why do you care what someone believes and what gives you the right to attack them for it?

If what they believe leads directly and undeniably to toxic behaviours - as Islam undoubtedly does - I will attack the cause rather than just bemoan the symptom.

[Monty92]

Firstly, throughout this entire conversation I have not called either of you racist. I have consistently drawn a comparison between prejudice based on race (the anti semitism B accuses Labour of) and prejudice based on faith (the two of you and your muslim baiting). That should make it clearI am not calling you racist- I am however equating your faith-based prejudice with a race-based one. This isnt the same thing.

Secondly, your insistence that it is purely the faith that you despise is horse****. You admit yourself it is the behaviours you despise (the ghettos, therape gangs, etc). These are the behaviours of individuals. Throughout all of our conversations you have held the line that the religion itself, and alone, is responsible for these behaviours. this is the device you both use to justify your prejudice- I dont hate people, I hate their beliefs. It hinges on you proving that the religion is responsible for how these people behave, flagrantlydisregarding the fact that billions of Muslims around the globe believe the same thing and don't behave this way.

B ridicules the notion that anyone could hate judaism, and insists that they simply hate jews- it simply must be the case. they couldnt possibly hate Israel, they couldn't possibly have an issue with US-led zionism, they couldn't possibly have faith-based objections. It is purely andsimply the hatred of individuals based on race and is therefore unacceptable.

I get your objections, I understand why you both think the way you do. But you are applying a double standard here in chucking stones at othersand the distinction, and the argument that separates the individual from heir belief is almost unbearably tenuous.

Firstly, you are wrong, I have never said that religion alone is responsible for all negative behaviour by Muslims. I could talk to you plenty about any number of contributing factors including the justifications of choice for most leftist apologists for acts of terrorism such as western foreign policy and mental illness (both of which I think can often be factors to some degree).

Secondly,I didn't say you accused us of being racist (how could I, when Islam is not a race?). But your accusation of us being inherently discriminatory towards Muslims as individuals is not much better and no more justified.

As I said, there is nothing intrinsically discriminatory about stating that things would have been better if no Muslim had ever come to the UK and it is only our ingrained sensitivity about matters of religion and race that makes it sound contentious to our ears (and i agree it certainly sounds contentious).

And no, I would certainly never casually say it to a Muslim because that would make me a giant c[U]nt. What I should be able to do, however, is say it in the spirit of open conversation without someone like you accusing me of judging every individual Muslim by the same standards as I do the worst kind of Muslim.

Let's be honest, if you had evidence that one Muslim refugee out of a million was going to murder you or your family, and had the choice of whether to let them all in, or none of them, you would soon find yourself being "discriminatory" too.

[Peter]

If what they believe leads directly and undeniably to toxic behaviours - as Islam undoubtedly does - I will attack the cause rather than just bemoan the symptom.

So it isnt their beliefs that you despise- it is their behaviours and YOUR belief that their beliefs are the cause of them.

[Peter]

Firstly, you are wrong, I have never said that religion alone is responsible for all negative behaviour by Muslims. I could talk to you plenty about any number of contributing factors including the justifications of choice for most leftist apologists for acts of terrorism such as western foreign policy and mental illness (both of which I think can often be factors to some degree).

Secondly,I didn't say you accused us of being racist (how could I, when Islam is not a race?). But your accusation of us being inherently discriminatory towards Muslims as individuals is not much better and no more justified.

As I said, there is nothing intrinsically discriminatory about stating that things would have been better if no Muslim had ever come to the UK and it is only our ingrained sensitivity about matters of religion and race that makes it sound contentious to our ears (and i agree it certainly sounds contentious).

And no, I would certainly never casually say it to a Muslim because that would make me a giant c[U]nt. What I should be able to do, however, is say it in the spirit of open conversation without someone like you accusing me of judging every individual Muslim by the same standards as I do the worst kind of Muslim.

Let's be honest, if you had evidence that one Muslim refugee out of a million was going to murder you or your family, and had the choice of whether to let them all in, or none of them, you would soon find yourself being "discriminatory" too.

I do apologise. when you said it was unhelpful that people like me bandyabout words like racism I thought you were suggesting I was, you know, bandying about words like racism. I must have misunderstood that- silly old me.

Nor have I said that either of you hate every muslim. My original point was a contrast between B's horror at anti-semitism and how he squared that with his own 'reservations' regarding muslims. I do take issue with the attempt to distance yourselves from actual muslim people by claiming it is merely the belief you dont like. As evidenced elsewhere in the thread, this is not the case. You yourself say above that it is the behaviours you despise and your belief that Islam is the cause of them. Above you also say it isn't the only cause (but curiously the only one you ever seem to attack).

I have never used the word inherent with regards to either of you. I have simply accused you of being anti-muslim. As you know, we agree entirely that the behaviours are unacceptable. Where we disagree is in our willingness to castigate the entire religion.

you yourself said recently that you didn't think the Labour Party was genuinely anti-semitic, down to actually hating individual jews. B doesnt seem to agree, hence this entire thread. For the record, I find it rather offensive and absurd that one form of prejudice is horrific and personal, the other thoroughly justified, acceptable and restricted to a mere belief system.

[Sir C]

I do apologise. when you said it was unhelpful that people like me bandyabout words like racism I thought you were suggesting I was, you know, bandying about words like racism. I must have misunderstood that- silly old me.

Nor have I said that either of you hate every muslim. My original point was a contrast between B's horror at anti-semitism and how he squared that with his own 'reservations' regarding muslims. I do take issue with the attempt to distance yourselves from actual muslim people by claiming it is merely the belief you dont like. As evidenced elsewhere in the thread, this is not the case. You yourself say above that it is the behaviours you despise and your belief that Islam is the cause of them. Above you also say it isn't the only cause (but curiously the only one you ever seem to attack).

I have never used the word inherent with regards to either of you. I have simply accused you of being anti-muslim. As you know, we agree entirely that the behaviours are unacceptable. Where we disagree is in our willingness to castigate the entire religion.

you yourself said recently that you didn't think the Labour Party was genuinely anti-semitic, down to actually hating individual jews. B doesnt seem to agree, hence this entire thread. For the record, I find it rather offensive and absurd that one form of prejudice is horrific and personal, the other thoroughly justified, acceptable and restricted to a mere belief system.

Yes, but what have you got against jews?

[Peter]

Yes, but what have you got against jews?

Individual jews? Nothing, I like them.

Its those ****ing Rothschild zionists I can't stand. Lizards, the lot of them.

Burney loves them.

[Sir C]

Individual jews? Nothing, I like them.

Its those ****ing Rothschild zionists I can't stand. Lizards, the lot of them.

Burney loves them.

They're conspirassing against Our Jeremy, you know.

[Peter]

They're conspirassing against Our Jeremy, you know.

Isnt everyone?

[Burney]

I do apologise. when you said it was unhelpful that people like me bandyabout words like racism I thought you were suggesting I was, you know, bandying about words like racism. I must have misunderstood that- silly old me.

Nor have I said that either of you hate every muslim. My original point was a contrast between B's horror at anti-semitism and how he squared that with his own 'reservations' regarding muslims. I do take issue with the attempt to distance yourselves from actual muslim people by claiming it is merely the belief you dont like. As evidenced elsewhere in the thread, this is not the case. You yourself say above that it is the behaviours you despise and your belief that Islam is the cause of them. Above you also say it isn't the only cause (but curiously the only one you ever seem to attack).

I have never used the word inherent with regards to either of you. I have simply accused you of being anti-muslim. As you know, we agree entirely that the behaviours are unacceptable. Where we disagree is in our willingness to castigate the entire religion.

you yourself said recently that you didn't think the Labour Party was genuinely anti-semitic, down to actually hating individual jews. B doesnt seem to agree, hence this entire thread. For the record, I find it rather offensive and absurd that one form of prejudice is horrific and personal, the other thoroughly justified, acceptable and restricted to a mere belief system.

Since when has anti-semitism been about hating individual Jews? 6 Million Jews didn't get chucked in the ovens because everyone hated Mrs Rothstein, ffs! 'The Jews' are an idea to anti-semites: a malign force that operates hidden levers of power and cause us all to pander to them. The modern left has adopted the sophistry of 'zionist', of course, but it's the same damn thing. And, as I said at the beginning of all this, the fact that the left gets so angry about Israel and not other examples of international injustice is nothing to do with feeling extra-sorry for the Palestinians and everything to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

[Peter]

Since when has anti-semitism been about hating individual Jews? 6 Million Jews didn't get chucked in the ovens because everyone hated Mrs Rothstein, ffs! 'The Jews' are an idea to anti-semites: a malign force that operates hidden levers of power and cause us all to pander to them. The modern left has adopted the sophistry of 'zionist', of course, but it's the same damn thing. And, as I said at the beginning of all this, the fact that the left gets so angry about Israel and not other examples of international injustice is nothing to do with feeling extra-sorry for the Palestinians and everything to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

I was referring to actually hating jewish people, rather than the idea or notion of 'the jew' as you put it. I wasn't attempting to blame the Labour Party's stance on somebody not liking Woody Allen.

Is it possible to be opposed the to the state of Israel without being anti-semitic? Or is this mere sophistry?

[Burney]

I was referring to actually hating jewish people, rather than the idea or notion of 'the jew' as you put it. I wasn't attempting to blame the Labour Party's stance on somebody not liking Woody Allen.

Is it possible to be opposed the to the state of Israel without being anti-semitic? Or is this mere sophistry?

Think about what it actually means to be ‘opposed to the state of Israel’. To oppose the very existence of a defensible homeland for a people who in living memory have suffered the deliberate near-extermination of their race from the European continent. That should give you your answer.

[Peter]

Think about what it actually means to be ‘opposed to the state of Israel’. To oppose the very existence of a defensible homeland for a people who in living memory have suffered the deliberate near-extermination of their race from the European continent. That should give you your answer.

So, anti-zionist means anti-semitic? What if one's opposition is to the current form and practices of the state of Israel rather than to the principle of its very existence?

[Burney]

So, anti-zionist means anti-semitic? What if one's opposition is to the current form and practices of the state of Israel rather than to the principle of its very existence?

In effect, yes. Anti-zionist = anti-semitic. Criticism of a state's behaviour is another matter and is generally perfectly legitimate. However, if such criticism comes from someone who has clear anti-zionist beliefs or sympathies, it's equally legitimate to be dubious about their motives.

[Peter]

In effect, yes. Anti-zionist = anti-semitic. Criticism of a state's behaviour is another matter and is generally perfectly legitimate. However, if such criticism comes from someone who has clear anti-zionist beliefs or sympathies, it's equally legitimate to be dubious about their motives.

Dubious is fine.

I am still not convinced that AZ=AS. It can and frequently does but I still dont believe it has to. If for no other reason than it tends to suggest that zionism and being jewish are the same thing. I know plenty of jewish people who are horrified by that suggestion.

[Burney]

Dubious is fine.

I am still not convinced that AZ=AS. It can and frequently does but I still dont believe it has to. If for no other reason than it tends to suggest that zionism and being jewish are the same thing. I know plenty of jewish people who are horrified by that suggestion.

:hehe: I knew the 'but there are anti-zionist Jews' thing was coming.

Oh, there are some highly-orthodox jews who are anti-zionist for batsh1t doctrinal reasons (or because they think Israel is too secular) and there are lefty Jews who hate Israel in just the same way that lefty goyim like Corbyn and McDonnell hate Britain.

The fact that there are people who are happy to hold their own people and their interests in contempt and ally with their enemies should not come as a surprise to someone of the British left, p.

[Peter]

:hehe: I knewOh, there are some highly-orthodox jews who are anti-zionist for batsh1t doctrinal reasons (or because they think Israel is too secular) and there are lefty Jews who hate Israel in just the same way that lefty goyim like Corbyn and McDonnell hate Britain.

The fact that there are people who are happy to hold their own people and their interests in contempt should not come as a surprise to someone of the left, p.

And you just did it there, again. If you are jewish then Israel represents 'your people' and 'your interests'.......

Surely your jewish man on the street is allowed to make up his own mind on that isnt he?

[Burney]

And you just did it there, again. If you are jewish then Israel represents 'your people' and 'your interests'.......

Surely your jewish man on the street is allowed to make up his own mind on that isnt he?

Well if as a modern European Jew you don't think it's in your interests that there exists a Jewish nation to which you can flee the next time your neighbours decide to start killing you, I'd say you're a fvcking idiot.

[Peter]

Well if as a modern European Jew you don't think it's in your interests that there exists a Jewish nation to which you can flee the next time your neighbours decide to start killing you, I'd say you're a fvcking idiot.

So now jews are idiots. Well, just the ones that disagree with what you think they should think......

I mean, what's wrong with New York? I know where I would rather be if it did all kick off.

[Burney]

So now jews are idiots. Well, just the ones that disagree with what you think they should think......

I mean, what's wrong with New York? I know where I would rather be if it did all kick off.

No, p. Some jews can be idiots. As can some everyone. And leftists are more prone to idiocy than most in my experience.

[Peter]

No, p. Some jews can be idiots. As can some everyone. And leftists are more prone to idiocy than most in my experience.

Again, just those that disagree with you. I am the lefty, it is supposed to be me shutting down debate.