I guess Labour and Jeremy Corbyn will part ways

[Timur]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61210585

[Fbarbarossa]

I was hesitant about saying this because I can't be bothered getting into another Jeremy Corbyn argument, so I'll say this and that's all I'll say on this thread:

It's a publicity stunt, Starmer has said before that for X reason he won't let Jeremy Corbyn back into the party. He's said it before, he's just saying it again for the media attention and to win over anti Corbyn voters who maybe didn't hear him say it the first time.

[Hestia]

3 hours ago, Fbarbarossa said:

I was hesitant about saying this because I can't be bothered getting into another Jeremy Corbyn argument, so I'll say this and that's all I'll say on this thread:

It's a publicity stunt, Starmer has said before that for X reason he won't let Jeremy Corbyn back into the party. He's said it before, he's just saying it again for the media attention and to win over anti Corbyn voters who maybe didn't hear him say it the first time.

I mean he was asked the question by the media, it's not like he was fishing for it.

[The Blood]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, a great and cynical ploy of astounding Machievellian masterfulness and cold, calculated House of Cards pragmatism to kill Social Democracy in a country is to get a moderate Conservative lite as leader of the main Social Democratic party and vilify the movement from within, creating an empty shell of a party and betraying their voter base. Nixon and Brezhnev would both salute the style of tactic, there... 😞 

Okay, I'm not a Keir Starmer fan really, but he's not a "Conservative lite", if we're being serious here. Obviously there was a very negative media environment surrounding Corbyn, but he still lost on his own terms. BoJo was the more popular candidate for voters, and Corbyn lost in an embarrassing defeat. So obviously Labour would prefer a more moderate leader after that, and Starmer did win the confidence of a majority of Labour members in his election as leader. Corbyn is radical, even for UK politics, and Keir Starmer is still left-of-center, he's not exactly a Blairite lol.

[Cenzonico]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

an extremist

In the eyes of conventional politics (and many english language dictionaries) it's difficult to argue against the use of the term really. I think many people would at least somewhat agree.

[Rezi]

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

I am a radical, but definitely not an extremist, and Corbyn and others are obviously the same. In fact, I took exceptional offense to @MrPotatoTed calling me an extremist on three separate occassions, because that term is completely out-of-line, intolerable, unacceptable, and repugnant toward my views. 

I felt the exact same when you called me "an enemy of justice for all, an enemy of accountability of Government, an enemy of the rule of law, an enemy of opposition to ALL abuses, atrocities, and crimes of state by ANY Government, an enemy of you Republic, Constitution, nation, and the principles it was founded, and - yes - an EXTREMIST"

[Cenzonico]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Blurring lines specifically make arbitrary and defamatory statements about people is a dangerous path - and one that should not be encouraged. Lest the point is gotten to again where completely ill-defined and arbitrary nothing terms like, "Counter-Revolutionary," Anti-Social," "Anharmonious," "Un-American," etc. once again rise as serious charges that can destroy reputations and lead to unwarranted punishment. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree with the sentiment, but the presentation of it assumes that you are innocent and Ted just threw out "extremist" just for the sake of throwing it out. Now no one here is any saint, but in this case the use of the word is justifiable because frankly plenty of the things you have previously said before can for sure fall under the perhaps vague specter of extremism. And plenty of things you say now also apply to that logic. We need to look at the wider picture here, and by all accounts you would be considered an extremist whether or not that's a label you choose to personally identify with or not.

[The Blood]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Radicalism becomes more and more a necessity in modern politics if the broken shambles of modern Western Government are to be fixed before one of several unthinkable fates happens. But not extremism. I am a radical, but definitely not an extremist, and Corbyn and others are obviously the same. In fact, I took exceptional offense to @MrPotatoTed calling me an extremist on three separate occassions, because that term is completely out-of-line, intolerable, unacceptable, and repugnant toward my views. Radical want major change, and feel it is the only way to fix an unworkable, broken, or compromised political scheme. Extremists, specifically, want to do it by violence, insurgency, assassination, terrorism, destruction of infrastructure, targeting the common people to suffer, etc. to force political change. Moderate and timid solutions are not enough to fix the rotten mess we're in nowadays. The shitheap needs a REAL cleanup and remodeling, I'm afraid. It's fallen too far, and become too reliant on failed and toxic ideologies and bad leadership perpetuating itself. This is what we've come to. And, don't mind the sub-rant about the difference between radicals and extremists - that was mostly to chasten and admonish @MrPotatoTed.

Look, I'm a fan of reform. I support ranked-choice voting and nonpartisan primaries as electoral reforms. I support a basic income to eradicate poverty. But I don't consider myself a radical. Because unlike you, I don't believe there's a fundamental rot at the heart of our society and democracy. I can criticize our institutions all day long, but I don't believe they've become inherently tyrannical or malicious. I recognize that to move the needle on necessary change, you have to meet voters and our institutions where they are. Simply screaming about how corrupt everything is doesn't bring anyone any good. Jeremy Corbyn is a radical. He doesn't believe you have to meet people where they are, and his version of politics is holding fast to a secure set of ideological values while criticizing the system as broken to little progress. Maybe even regression, since his leadership did give the Conservatives a mighty majority I might say. My point is, radicalism is a philosophy for failure. Declaring society corrupt and refusing to try for compromise and moving the needle on an issue means isolated pessimism. Isolated from both real power and from delivering positive results in our system. And that's just not my brand of politics. I don't like a lot about our current institutions. I'm concerned about Climate Change and increasing political polarization. But I'm not going to delude myself into believing everything is rigged and tyrannical, and resign myself to the label of "radical" simply because I don't want to accept earnest attempts at compromise and a gradual push for my beliefs. And besides, screaming about how corrupt and broken everything is and believing the system is rigged puts you in a camp with a lot of unsavory people, as Corbyn's long history of antisemitic actions and associations shows.

Edited April 29, 2022 by The Blood

[MrPotatoTed]

26 minutes ago, Patine said:

And, for I-don't-know-how-manyth time, I fully and publicly admitted that line was over the top and unacceptable (and now it has just become a recitation of idiocy and trolling when you, Kitten, Mark2, etc. spam it). But will @MrPotatoTed make the same admission about his use of, "extremist," I wonder.

I don’t even know what the topic of this thread is.

[MrPotatoTed]

The grand irony here is that I am the one who actually defends you, @Patine.  I am the closest thing you have here to a friend.  We almost never agree, and yet I’m the one who takes all the flak when I chide the trolls here to show you a little more humanity.  Because I think you need defending, some times.

 

But I can’t apologize for my sincerely held beliefs.  And I sincerely believe that many of your posts advocate for extremist viewpoints that I cannot take seriously.

[MrPotatoTed]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I will concede that. And the extremist term is the only thing you've levied on me that actually stings. Everything else I can easily brush off as if it were nothing. But saying I endorse violence and destruction to bring change about is the only thing that is hard to swallow. Everything else you have called me or accused me of has been like handprints in the mud.

If it helps, you completely made up the idea that I said you endorse violence and destruction.

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

That's what separates the terms radical from extremist, as I said above. I admit, I am a radical. I hold radical views. But so does Corbyn. So does Ron Paul. So do several members of the so-called, "squad." So does Alexei Navalny in the context of Putin's Russia. But they, and I, are not extremists, because, extremists ALSO endorse and push violence and destruction to force political change, instead. Do you see, now?

You don’t get to dictate the intended meaning of my words, though.  And given that I’ve already corrected and clarified your misinterpretation, it’s weird to remain fixated on it.

I didn’t call you a terrorist.  I called you an extremist.  Frankly, I don’t view the word “radical” to be less violent than “extremist” anyway.

 

You hold views that are so extremely divorced from reality that most people cannot possibly take them seriously.  This is what I mean when I say you are an extremist.

[The Blood]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

But so does Corbyn. So does Ron Paul. So do several members of the so-called, "squad."

Okay, I'm just gonna say it. They may not be extremists, and I like some members of the Squad more than others, but this not a crowd I would consider welcome company if you're serious about actually affecting politics in a positive and substantial way. Corbyn gave a landslide win to the Conservatives, Ron Paul's movement died as quickly as it appeared, and the Squad is more interested in bombastic tweets than effective legislating.

Edited April 29, 2022 by The Blood

[The Blood]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I didn't say they were extremists, I said they were radicals. I also didn't say they had much else in common, at all.

I know, I didn't claim you said they were extremists. I just said, "They may not be extremists" in reference to you pointing them out as radicals. And my point wasn't about ideological cohesion, it was about the disappointing track record of your three examples of prominent radicals.

Edited April 29, 2022 by The Blood

[The Blood]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

They were off the top of my head, and in no way, shape, or form meant to be nearly exhaustive. I am the one who recently condemned relying on anecdotal arguments, after all, and that wasn't the argument style I was going for. But, since it was addressed to MrPotatoTed, I also wanted examples he'd be immediately familiar with.

Well, I also wasn't saying you were using those examples as a near-complete list of radical politicians, and I made no comment on whether your argument was meant to be anecdotal. I was just using your examples to point out how radical politics is prone to being ineffective. It's really a simple reply which you're reading a lot into.

[The Blood]

Just now, Patine said:

Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mohandas Gandhi were called radical by the, "Establishments," they faced, too, in their day, even if they're generally not seen as such, retroactively, today.

Yeah, I'm not saying the course of history doesn't vindicate certain leaders who were considered to be radical, I'm just pointing out that as an electoral strategy, a vehicle for change, radicalism is oftentimes an unnecessary and improper course. Especially in the modern west, where I don't think the likes of AOC and Corbyn are comparable to figures like Mandela and MLK. There are injustices in our modern society, but I don't believe it's right or fair to past leaders to compare modern socialists to those who opposed segregation and Apartheid.  

[The Blood]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, I disagree with your view of firmly locking these ideals into pure nostalgia and putting the immense amounts of trust and confidence in most modern Western establishment political party leadership, or to highly understate the amount of reform and watchdogs on the abuse of political power, and fairness and representativeness of elections, and true choice, but it seems neither of us is going to convince the other at this time.

I actually don't have much confidence in the current political establishment, that's why I outlined earlier that I consider myself an advocate for reform. I just disagree with your ineffective, pessimistic, and unneeded brand of politics.  I do agree that we're unlikely to find common ground, however, so we can leave the conversation here.

[Sean F Kennedy]

I mean I wouldn’t say Corbyn  is anti-Semitic (even though I disagree with some of his statements via Israel) John Bercow even defended him of this claim more than members of his own party, many of whom completely abandoned him during the campaign, drawing a lot of parallels with George McGovern in 1972. A non united party almost can never win no matter what. Labour’s loss came down to multiple things in addition to Corbyn to their position to hold another vote on Brexit, that was pushed by Starmer similar members of the party, BoJo had much more antisemetic and Anti Muslim comments that are blatant and undeniable. I do think at the end of the day we all need to take a step back and we can agree the word radical is thrown around a little to much. Just my two cents and I’m not trying to make this lead to more arguments.

[Hestia]

11 minutes ago, Sean F Kennedy said:

I mean I wouldn’t say Corbyn  is anti-Semitic (even though I disagree with some of his statements via Israel) John Bercow even defended him of this claim more than members of his own party, many of whom completely abandoned him during the campaign, drawing a lot of parallels with George McGovern in 1972. A non united party almost can never win no matter what. Labour’s loss came down to multiple things in addition to Corbyn to their position to hold another vote on Brexit, that was pushed by Starmer similar members of the party, BoJo had much more antisemetic and Anti Muslim comments that are blatant and undeniable. I do think at the end of the day we all need to take a step back and we can agree the word radical is thrown around a little to much. Just my two cents and I’m not trying to make this lead to more arguments.

Oddly, Bercow is now a member of Labour haha. On the other hand, if you do look at the complaints process and the whistleblowers that came forward saying that complaints about anti-Semitism wasn't taken seriously, that should also matter. Saying one person is worse than another at it does not exonerate him. The instinct to protect politicians that "agree" with us is inexcusable. The fact that a Jewish Labour MP felt as though she wasn't supported by the leader of her own party enough that she had to leave the party is a condemnation in and of itself, after she faced a torrent of abuse. Saying that the allegations are just because Corbyn is "pro-Palestine" whitewashes the harm that's being done to another minority group in the UK. Many Labour MPs are pro-Palestine and haven't gotten accused of what Corbyn was. The Equality and Human Rights Commission even opened a case against Labour. It was later found guilty.

"

The watchdog found the party responsible for unlawful acts in three major areas: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failing to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints, and harassment.

There were 23 instances of “inappropriate involvement” by Corbyn’s office and others in the 70 files examined in the report, the EHRC said, with interference happening more frequently in complaints of anti-Semitism than other discrimination allegations."

https://www.ft.com/content/8b9772ea-40c7-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/uk-probe-finds-labour-guilty-of-anti-semitic-discrimination-illegal-acts/amp/

[The Blood]

1 hour ago, Sean F Kennedy said:

I do think at the end of the day we all need to take a step back and we can agree the word radical is thrown around a little to much.

Yeah, and I do just want to say that none of my comments here are meant to attack progressivism in general. I consider myself progressive, I'm just critiquing the specific, pessimistic, and harmful perspective which was expressed as "radicalism" in this thread. Some progressives are obviously better at avoiding that type of politics than others. I think Bernie, even if I can criticize him, is better than both the Squad and Corbyn at legislating and pushing his agenda to a wide audience, and I'm still earnest in my push for economic and socially progressive policies. I just think you can separate progressivism from an uncompromisingly ideological outlook which deems western society and democracy as inherently corrupted and totalitarian, and I don't consider myself a socialist or on the hard left of US politics.

[The Blood]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

As I told Pringles last night, I do not, despite you outright declaring I do, view this as outright being the case. Yet. But, that's the keyword. Democracy and Western values do need to be defended, and among their greatest enemies - outside of external totalitarianism and true extremism - are individuals, ideologues, and political movements posing as champions of Democracy and Western values, but slowly eroding them. It is not every single person of import in Government, nor do I honestly believe it's an Illuminati-style master plan. But it is a snowball effect, and abuses gotten by in the past with resistance have now become common ways of doing Government business, and that is unacceptable. Also, the utter resistance I've seen here, and other places, to those in high office being susceptible to justice and consequences for crimes committed in office, with no immunities or protections, is astounding. I am not saying, nor ever have, that, "western society and democracy as inherently corrupted and totalitarian," outright, or we live in a, "dystopia." But, if such a thing is to be averted, Western values and Democracy must be stood up for, even if not at the insurgent level. However, many people on this forum support a lot of political leaders and policies who are part of the problem, in the long-term, and are resistant to any but very moderate or timid reform, and this is worrisome. But, my point of view is NOT as absolutist as you, Pringles, MrPotatoTed, ShrotKing, or a few others, portray it.

Cool.

[Pringles]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

nor do I honestly believe it's an Illuminati-style master plan.

..............................................................

Bruh.

You believe everyone on this forum who make's fun of you is a conspiracy in and of itself. Which one is it flip floppin liberal wiener 

[The Blood]

5 hours ago, Patine said:

Well, a great and cynical ploy of astounding Machievellian masterfulness and cold, calculated House of Cards pragmatism to kill Social Democracy in a country is to get a moderate Conservative lite as leader of the main Social Democratic party and vilify the movement from within, creating an empty shell of a party and betraying their voter base. Nixon and Brezhnev would both salute the style of tactic, there... 😞 

Also, I just want to note that you said this earlier in this thread. You've argued that it's not an unreasonable claim that the French government would assassinate someone to affect the outcome of their election. You've said American liberty has suffered a, "death by a thousand cuts", and you've constantly ranted about the corruption of the duopoly ruling America. Your arguments, language, and attitude all have been apocalyptic, you've expressed nothing but disdain for the modern west's governments and democracies. Don't post an entire paragraph lying about what you've made your entire identity on this forum. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by The Blood

[The Blood]

31 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Death of a Thousand Cuts metaphor represents a continuous process of cutting Constitutional rights and protections through, "emergency and national security acts," that obviously hasn't created a full tyranny, nearly so, but the trend is a growing threat that should be called out and ended. That is why I used the analog I did. The French assassination thing, I specifically stated SEVERAL TIMES, I didn't necessarily believe it, at all, myself, but, given the JFK and MLK precedents, and attempted assassinations on Noam Chomsky and Gerry Adams, it shouldn't be ABSOLUTELY ruled out on the grounds of it being a First World Government in and itself. But, again, I did say I personally didn't necessarily believe it. And, indeed, the U.S. Duopoly does have a lot of dirty tricks it employs to keep all other parties and candidates non-competitive, even if I have conceded that it is not as bad as United Russia or ZANU-PF, for instance. These are the things I have said, that you may have misunderstood.

Had a long rant here, I'm just removing it due to personal attacks and because it was overly aggressive. Look, I've tried to reach out kindly, but it's just getting tiring with what I see as unserious, rude, and now dishonest behavior. Just, I'm done. Please Patine.

Edited April 30, 2022 by The Blood

[Timur]

I mean, there are suspicions when you have things like these:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43523445

https://www.jpost.com/international/67-percent-of-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-hold-at-least-one-antisemitic-view-poll-609653

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEB9PwKYmmA

And then there as his comments about Hezbollah and Hamas...