Corbyn

[Nearly Sane]

That we treat them on the basis of whatever evidence there is and don't place "genuine feeling" (which seems to mean losing your rag) over it.

So why would you have argued that their being a minority made the claim in some way questionable? Youseem to be contradicting yourself.

And again no one has said, other than your misrepresentation, that being genuinely angry makes it more likely to be true.

[Shaker]

So why would you have argued that their being a minority made the claim in some way questionable? Youseem to be contradicting yourself.

No. The questionable bit was on my part - questioning that what is perceived to be bigoted/discriminatory actions or words always actually is. People can be hyper-sensitive and perceive slights where none are intended. People can be simply wrong. Unless you disagree with this, we're on the same page.

And again no one has said, other than your misrepresentation, that being genuinely angry makes it more likely to be true.

Why mention "genuine feeling" then? What's the relevance? Why bring it in at all?

[Rhiannon]

I certainly don't know her and haven't spoken to her, but there's nothing in the article that indicates that McDonnell had any personal involvement in the incident itself - unless you mean after the fact.

Aren't you relying on the internet when you surmise that Hodge's outburst was based on genuine feeling?

I don't know that it was; I have seen evidence to suggest that it was genuine, but really nothing to suggest that it wasn't.

You know that the Labour Shadow Chancellor wasn't in the House when Hodge confronted Corbyn? 

[Nearly Sane]

Why mention "genuine feeling" then? What's the relevance? Why bring it in at all?

Are you just deliberately ignoring the posts made on this point? No one other than you when you have continually misrepresented posts said anything about it making the accusation true, Rather repeatedly pointed out that it's about whether it was more likely to be a genuine statement of feelings as opposed to some deliberate shit stirring. Which is what the post you replied to originally with your misrepresentation stated.

[Shaker]

I don't know that it was; I have seen evidence to suggest that it was genuine, but really nothing to suggest that it wasn't.

So presumably the rational stance is to suspend judgement. Though I'm still confused as to exactly what relevance Hodge's rage at Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has to anything.

You know that the Labour Shadow Chancellor wasn't in the House when Hodge confronted Corbyn?

Apparently so.

[Rhiannon]

So presumably the rational stance is to suspend judgement. Though I'm still confused as to exactly what relevance Hodge's rage at Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has to anything.
Apparently so.

And yet he is still party to more information on it than you are.

[Nearly Sane]

No. The questionable bit was on my part - questioning that what is perceived to be bigoted/discriminatory actions or words always actually is. People can be hyper-sensitive and perceive slights where none are intended. People can be simply wrong. Unless you disagree with this, we're on the same page.
Why mention "genuine feeling" then? What's the relevance? Why bring it in at all?

We aren't on the same page because of your repeated misrepresentation of what has been said on the thread. And also because I don't think that thinking minorities to be hypersensitive to discrimination and bigotry is a useful way to judge bigotry.

[Nearly Sane]

So presumably the rational stance is to suspend judgement. Though I'm still confused as to exactly what relevance Hodge's rage at Corbyn being based on "genuine feeling" has to anything.
Apparently so.

You haven't suspended judgement on Hodge.

[Shaker]

Are you just deliberately ignoring the posts made on this point?

No. I'm not seeing anyone explain the relevance of "genuine feeling" to anything. I don't understand why it was brought into the conversation.

No one other than you when you have continually misrepresented posts said anything about it making the accusation true, Rather repeatedly pointed out that it's about whether it was more likely to be a genuine statement of feelings as opposed to some deliberate shit stirring.

... which is again an excluded middle fallacy in assuming that it can't be both.

[Shaker]

You haven't suspended judgement on Hodge.

How so?

[Nearly Sane]

No. I'm not seeing anyone explain the relevance of "genuine feeling" to anything. I don't understand why it was brought into the conversation.
... which is again an excluded middle fallacy in assuming that it can't be both.

Because as has been covered multiple times, your non suspended judgement on Hodge, that it was shit stirring works in this case as an excluded middle. It was you that excluded the middle in your post by judging it as shit stirring. No middle allowed.

[Nearly Sane]

How so?

Her and her 'cronies' shit stirring.

[Shaker]

Because as has been covered multiple times, your non suspended judgement on Hodge, that it was shit stirring works in this case as an excluded middle. It was you that excluded the middle in your post by judging it as shit stirring. No middle allowed.

Addressed in #111.

[Shaker]

Her and her 'cronies' shit stirring.

Addressed in #145.

What is it with people needing repetition today?

[Nearly Sane]

Addressed in #145.

What is it with people needing repetition today?

Perhaps because you say addressed by when it isn't. You made a judgement, you then stated we shouldn't judge.145 does nothing to cover your inconsistency.

[Nearly Sane]

Addressed in #111.

No, it really isn't. That's just more of you misrepresenting people.

[Shaker]

Perhaps because you say addressed by when it isn't.

It is addressed to my satisfaction.

Your satisfaction is no concern of mine.

[Shaker]

No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is.

That's just more of you misrepresenting people.

No, it really isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

It is addressed to my satisfaction.

Your satisfaction is no concern of mine.

If you are satisfied being wrong, there is very little that can be done about that. You made a judgement and then said judgements shouldn't be made. At the very least that is  inconsistency.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, it really is.No, it really isn't.

Well it is since to quote 111 no one has stated

 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.'


So stating that that is the position of either Rhiannon or I here is a misrepresentation

[Shaker]

If you are satisfied being wrong, there is very little that can be done about that. You made a judgement and then said judgements shouldn't be made. At the very least that is  inconsistency.

No, since the only time I said that suspending judgement being the rational choice was in relation to Hodge's outburst being based on "genuine feeling". The descriptions of her being furious (better still, genuinely furious ) and the words attributed to her come third-hand and merit the same scepticism as we would treat any third-hand account.

[Shaker]

Well it is since to quote 111 no one has stated

 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.'


So stating that that is the position of either Rhiannon or I here is a misrepresentation

I didn't say it was your position, so that's misrepresentation right there.

I definitely did say it was implied as soon as Rhiannon invoked "genuine feeling".

What's the relevance?

If it has none, why even raise it?

If it has some, what is it?

[Nearly Sane]

No, since the only time I said that suspending judgement being the rational choice was in relation to Hodge's outburst being based on "genuine feeling". The descriptions of her being furious (better still, genuinely furious ) and the words attributed to her come third-hand and merit the same scepticism as we would treat any third-hand account.

Except your judgment of shit stirring which you made with certainty, is made with the same absence of knowledge, whereas Rhiannon argued that it was more likely that genuine feeling might be involved because of the swearing - no certainty involved there, But you seem to want to state your opinion as a certainty and anyone else can be dismissed because they don't have enough knowledge somehow.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't say it was your position, so that's misrepresentation right there.

I definitely did say it was implied as soon as Rhiannon invoked "genuine feeling".

What's the relevance?

If it has none, why even raise it?

If it has some, what is it?

And again the reasoning for raising it has been covered many times including the post that raised it - why are you indulging in further misrepresentation by pretending it hasn't?

[Shaker]

Except your judgment of shit stirring which you made with certainty

Nope - that was what #145 was for (and a few others).

Rhiannon argued that it was more likely that genuine feeling might be involved because of the swearing - no certainty involved there

The swearing part being the one factor in all this that Hodge actually addressed. Allegedly calling the leader of her party a racist and anti-Semite was apparently OK but calling him a fucking racist was over the line.