Corbyn

[Rhiannon]

- which they wouldn't be, so this smacks of whataboutery -
It wouldn't change the point about perception of x not necessarily bearing any relationship in reality to x. In modern times accusing someone of being racist is among the worst slurs you can throw against anyone. It can be grounded in fact - i.e. when somebody actually is racist - or it can be a cynical ploy aimed at character assassination. Opportunism, as you put it.

You are sure that is what Hodge is doing? I'd have thought that someone Jewish is better placed to understand antisemitism than you or I; clearly you think differently.

[Rhiannon]

To be fair, there is a large amount of jewsplaining going on on both sides. Michael Rosen has been continually told he's a 'useful Jew' for defending Corbyn.

I ws quite happy to believe the 'Jeremy isn't antisemitic' line, even though I thought he was maybe a bit naive at times. Then I noticed that more and more Jewish people are disagreeing with that. I knew that my friends are frightened of him, and always have been. but they are old enough to remember the War. That liberal voices are increasingly speaking out is different.

That said, it's a concern anyway that a senior politician has conducted himself in such a manner that people are frightened and want to leave the country.

[Shaker]

You are sure that is what Hodge is doing?

I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.

Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.

Hodge referred to this alleged incident only to dispute/deny that she had used the word "fucking". She didn't want to be thought of as using swears but the rest was fine by her, apparently.

[Rhiannon]

I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.

Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.

Hodge referred to this alleged incident only to dispute/deny that she had used the word "fucking". She didn't want to be thought of as using swears but the rest was fine by her, apparently.

Could that be because she thinks he is antisemitic?

[Shaker]

Could that be because she thinks he is antisemitic?

Which you have already said (#93) and I have already responded to (#95; #97).

[Rhiannon]

Which you have already said (#93) and I have already responded to (#95; #97).

None of your responses actually address that though, do they?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.

Thoughtful, considered criticism would have been given a free pass, certainly by me. Calling Corbyn (it has been alleged) an "anti-Semite" and a "fucking racist" doesn't meet my criteria for thoughtful, considered criticism.

Hodge referred to this alleged incident only to dispute/deny that she had used the word "fucking". She didn't want to be thought of as using swears but the rest was fine by her, apparently.

Why would calmness be somehow more indicative of the truth of the feeling of the person which your post seems to imply ?

[Rhiannon]

Why would calmness be somehow more indicative of the truth of the feeling of the person which your post seems to imply ?

I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.

[Shaker]

I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.

Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.

[Rhiannon]

Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.

Which she denied. Although I find something very weaselly in the 'miss, she swore at me!' argument. I've seen its use first hand and it is a pathetic one when used by a supposed adult.

You can't have it both ways. Either this is calculated opportunism on her part or genuine but misplaced feeling. Which is it?

[Nearly Sane]

Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.

That's a non sequitur to the point in the post you were replying to.

[Shaker]

Which she denied.

To my knowledge the only bit she denied was the allegation that she used the F-word.

Although I find something very weaselly in the 'miss, she swore at me!' argument. I've seen its use first hand and it is a pathetic one when used by a supposed adult.

You can't have it both ways. Either this is calculated opportunism on her part or genuine but misplaced feeling. Which is it?

Actually you can have it both ways in this context. It could indeed very well be both in differing proportions.

I have no idea which as I'm not in a position to know; I'm refuting the excluded middle fallacy that says it has to be either this or that. Just because Hodge is Jewish doesn't mean that she has cornered the market on correctly and accurately identifying true anti-Semitism in every case. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.

[Shaker]

None of your responses actually address that though, do they?

As far as I'm concerned they do, yes. That's why I wrote them.

[Nearly Sane]

To my knowledge the only bit she denied was the allegation that she used the F-word.
Actually you can have it both ways in this context. It could indeed very well be both in differing proportions.

I have no idea which as I'm not in a position to know; I'm refuting the excluded middle fallacy that says it has to be either this or that. Just because Hodge is Jewish doesn't mean that she has cornered the market on correctly and accurately identifying true anti-Semitism in every case. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.

So you are saying anyone who is Jewish and is worried can be ignored by you because you are not Jewish? Really?

[Rhiannon]

In fact, it could reasonably be argued that while minority groups of whatever kind - religious/ethic/sexual or whatever - might be more alert to discriminatory actions and language, the discrimination radar might be so hyper-sensitive that it sees bigotry where none exists.

In which case she isn't merely an opportunist, is she?

[Shaker]

That's a non sequitur to the point in the post you were replying to.

Not in my view. Rhiannon thinks - for goodness only knows whatever reason - that reports of Hodge being "furious" somehow makes her feelings more likely to be true and accurate than if she had delivered her criticism in a reasonable manner with what she perceives to be evidence of anti-Semitism carefully marshalled:

I actually find the evidence from Labour MPs that she was 'furious' and acted in anger more likely to be indicative of genuine feeling on her part.

To me this is, frankly, horseshit. It elevates the feelings of the moment over evidence, perception over fact. In response I wrote:

Because effing and jeffing (or perhaps not; I wouldn't like to give the impression that she uses bad language or anything) in somebody's face is always indicative of a carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.

That was sarcasm, not a non sequitur.

[Shaker]

In which case she isn't merely an opportunist, is she?

I have no idea which as I'm not in a position to know; I'm refuting the excluded middle fallacy that says it has to be either this or that.

Thank goodness for copy and paste.

[Shaker]

So you are saying anyone who is Jewish and is worried can be ignored by you because you are not Jewish? Really?

No.

Question(s) of my own in return.

Is the perception of discriminatory language always and in every case matched in reality?

Is it possible that people sometimes see discriminatory language where no discrimination exists?

[Nearly Sane]

Not in my view. Rhiannon thinks - for goodness only knows whatever reason - that reports of Hodge being "furious" somehow makes her feelings more likely to be true and accurate than if she had delivered her criticism in a reasonable manner with what she perceives to be evidence of anti-Semitism carefully marshalled:

To me this is, frankly, horseshit. I wrote:
That was sarcasm, not a non sequitur.

it's a non sequitur because the case being argued wasn't that there was 'a  carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.' I didn't say that it wasn't sarcasm just that it was irrelevant sarcasm.

[Nearly Sane]

No.

Question(s) of my own in return.

Is the perception of discriminatory language always and in every case matched in reality?

Is it possible that people sometimes see discriminatory language where no discrimination exists?

Perfectly possible. But what I wouldn't suggest as any useful indicator as to whether that is correct is to suggest that because someone is of a monority, we look more askance their claim than not, which is what your post suggests.

[Rhiannon]

Absolutely true - which makes the shit-stirring of Hodge and her cronies all the more unforgivable.

You seem pretty sure here as to what Hodge's motives are.

Thank goodness for the quote facility.

[Shaker]

it's a non sequitur because the case being argued wasn't that there was 'a  carefully marshalled, thoughtful, evidence-based case.'

Exactly! There wasn't; there was only (allegedly) someone out of control throwing around slurs in the heat of the moment, and yet (allegedly) being furious and calling someone an anti-Semite and a fucking racist is somehow magically indicative of having the truth on your side.

I didn't say that it wasn't sarcasm just that it was irrelevant sarcasm.

I never find it irrelevant, but that's just me.

[Shaker]

Perfectly possible.

Grand.

In this case too, or only in others?

But what I wouldn't suggest as any useful indicator as to whether that is correct is to suggest that because someone is of a monority, we look more askance their claim than not, which is what your post suggests.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly! There wasn't; there was only (allegedly) someone out of control throwing around slurs in the heat of the moment, and yet (allegedly) being furious and calling someone an anti-Semite and a fucking racist is somehow magically indicative of having the truth on your side. I never find it irrelevant, but that's just me.

And no one has said that the truth is magically on their side by swearing. Just some misrepresentation to add to your non sequitur

[Shaker]

You seem pretty sure here as to what Hodge's motives are.

Thank goodness for the quote facility.

You are sure that is what Hodge is doing?

I'm sure that that's exactly what it looks like, yes.