|
TinTower posted:Clegg, Miliband, Wood, Sturgeon, and Bennett: We absolutely cannot let UKIP's politics of racism and immigrant bashing to rule the day. As far as I can see it's good that they went to the event, engaged with him at first and then pointed out where his opinions were abhorrent. It would have been much worse in terms of optics if they'd all refused to attend, or if they'd kicked him out beforehand. If you think fascism can be defeated by trying to marginalise/criminalise it's figureheads you might want to study the rise of the NSDAP. Debate is a far more effective way of undermining that kind of idea than trying to force it underground, not least because the best and most articulate minds tend to already be against it.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:not least because the best and most articulate minds tend to already be against it. *sits on ivory tower* Heh, have you met the British voting public? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
"If Hindenburg had debated Hitler, the Holocaust would never have happened." When you get to the point of disorganised mass movements like the NSDAP and like what UKIP are attempting, trying to reduce it to a debate in a stuffy room is stupid; you counter-organise instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
It's probably worth differentiating between fascism as in the violent street level movement, which if left to run unopposed results in acts of street violence and right wing populism as in the political movement which serves to try and drag the Overton window to the right. I don't think anything would be gained by inviting Combat 18 to debates. Unless it was a debate on undercover policing tactics 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:If you think fascism can be defeated by trying to marginalise/criminalise it's figureheads you might want to study the rise of the NSDAP. Debate is a far more effective way of undermining that kind of idea than trying to force it underground, not least because the best and most articulate minds tend to already be against it. gently caress all that bourgeois liberal handwringy poo poo. The best way there ever was of loving up the nazis was the Roter Frontkämpferbund beating them to death.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
TinTower posted:"If Hindenburg had debated Hitler, the Holocaust would never have happened." Counter-organising is obviously necessarily, I just think it should include actually being at events where the opposition are, whether to protest, debate, whatever. Having a hissy fit that makes everyone laugh at you isn't counter-organising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Nick Clegg's debate versus Farage was a hilarious example of how it backfires to think talking reasonably will solve the problem. Clegg was making sensible points but it was boring and stuffy and then Farage just blurts out with "gently caress GYPSIES!" and the room bursts into applause.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's probably worth differentiating between fascism as in the violent street level movement, which if left to run unopposed results in acts of street violence and right wing populism as in the political movement which serves to try and drag the Overton window to the right. We all know that UKIP are fundamentally the former disguising themselves as the latter. There's a reason that UKIP are the only party that has to ban former BNP members from joining, in the same way that the BNP were the only party that had to ban NF members from joining: because it would make the mask slip otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
If only the Correct viewpoint could be articulated with a good amount of swearing and calling the other person an idiot. Basically I think we need Oberleutnant to debate people on telly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Nick Clegg's debate versus Farage was a hilarious example of how it backfires to think talking reasonably will solve the problem. Clegg was making sensible points but it was boring and stuffy and then Farage just blurts out with "gently caress GYPSIES!" and the room bursts into applause. ^^ efb e2: TinTower posted:We all know that UKIP are fundamentally the former disguising themselves as the latter. There's a reason that UKIP are the only party that has to ban former BNP members from joining, in the same way that the BNP were the only party that had to ban NF members from joining: because it would make the mask slip otherwise. One group had a contingent of almost Strasserist anti-capitalism twinned with social authoritarianism, the other is laissez faire capitalist and pro-deregulation. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Pretty much. It basically comes down to the fact that you can't counteract populism with infodumps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Basically I think we need Oberleutnant to debate people on telly.  Tesseraction posted:Nick Clegg's debate versus Farage was a hilarious example of how it backfires to think talking reasonably will solve the problem. Clegg was making sensible points but it was boring and stuffy and then Farage just blurts out with "gently caress GYPSIES!" and the room bursts into applause. But no, you see, Farage did a course so he knows all about the "Gypsy culture" and why "gypsy" isn't a slur. (This is a reference only you might get, Tesseraction)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
"Labour Shadow Minister for Culture responds to Tory cuts by telling opponent to 'get in the bin fukkboi'."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Why is that "truly special"? The reason given for not wanting to share a platform with him - that's he's actually a racist - is clear nonsense. So yeah yeah appear with who you like or not. That's not the part I was taking issue with. Sorry for not being clear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Namtab posted:If people weren't capable of changing their minds I'd be voting conservative in 2020 You actually voted for the Tories in 2015, knowing what they were and what they wanted to do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:You actually voted for the Tories in 2015, knowing what they were and what they wanted to do? 2010. I didn't vote in 2015.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:This is absolutely true, because it has happened before. There was a 150k signature petition for exactly the same thing, it got a ten minute 'debate' in an anteroom which concluded 'something something 7 day NHS gently caress you junior doctors' and went back to selling off the NHS. Signing petitions is all well and good, but at the end of the day they can and will ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Namtab posted:2010. I didn't vote in 2015. Why, out of curiosity? As a nurse it would seem.. a bit weird to me on the surface.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The correct way to deal with fascists is to beat the poo poo out of them and nothing else. This is absolutely correct. No platform for fascists except the gallows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why, out of curiosity? As a nurse it would seem.. a bit weird to me on the surface. In 2010 I was an accountancy graduate working in a shop (e: as a shop assistant, I mean), I've lived my life with conservative parents in conservative areas, I bought into austerity. I've only really gotten any kind of political interest since qualifying in 2014 and since seeing the effect of austerity on the learning disabled population I support, particularly the lack of access to health and social services. I didn't vote in 2015 cause all the parties were touting austerity. Also as with all sections of the community there are a lot of nurses who vote Tory. On the upside I actually decided to start paying my £3 today. Namtab fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
hit button posted:Who's reported that the NUS is "No platforming" him? It isn't implied in the Guardian article. It mentions no-platforming just enough (eg in the final paragraph, which (clarif/impl)ies that while the NUS isn't no platforming Tatchell she is, which she isn't because an individual can't no-platform someone) that (when looking on Twitter and elsewhere online), and I've seen it very often paraphrased as Tatchell being no-platformed by the NUS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:From the top of the page: She also appears to have suggested that he is racist and has supported violence against transgender peiple, which seems to me a bit more than just not thinking he's worthy of sharing a stage with her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:50
|
|
[/edit]
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It mentions no-platforming just enough (eg in the final paragraph, which (clarif/impl)ies that while the NUS isn't no platforming Tatchell she is, which she isn't because an individual can't no-platform someone) that (when looking on Twitter and elsewhere online), and I've seen it very often paraphrased as Tatchell being no-platformed by the NUS. The guardian article does have 'no-platforming' in the subheading which isn't very helpful
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Pretty much. It basically comes down to the fact that you can't counteract populism with infodumps. This is one of the reasons that the facts of the Junior Doctors Contract issue get so little traction. Because it take 3 seconds to say SEVEN DAY NHS and ten minutes to explain why it's dumb. It take 30 seconds to say 'MORE LIKELY TO DIE ON WEEKENDS' and ten minutes to explain that no, it doesn't, the studies have been excessively misrepresented and even if it does, it's not necessarily evidence of causative effects . A lie can go round the world before the truth has got its boots on, basically. And the current political climate doesn't give room for the reasoned viewpoint, though Corbyn's trying his best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
It only takes 5 seconds to say TORIES WANT TO SELL OFF THE NHS but less people want to listen to that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It only takes 5 seconds to say TORIES WANT TO SELL OFF THE NHS but less people want to listen to that one. Ah don't be stupid the Tories are Economically Responsible Sensible People. (Literally an argument I heard last week)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
What did they want the cake to say?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What did they want the cake to say? "Support Gay Marriage - Queerspace - born 1998" with a picture of two muppets off Sesame street. Queerspace being the group that the guy who made the order for the cake was from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:"Support Gay Marriage - Queerspace - born 1998" with a picture of two muppets off Sesame street. Queerspace being the group that the guy who made the order for the cake was from. Then I can understand where the bakery are coming from absolutely, I dont like it and feel they're homophobes but you shouldn't be obliged to make something with a political message you disagree with, its completely different to the B&B case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
I feel like we should no platform Liberal Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of (non-violent) political opinion in Northern Ireland. Ashers weren't just found guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexuality, they were also found guilty of discrimination on the basis of political opinion. You all should read the judgment in the case, it's rock solid. quote:I find, on the evidence before me, that the Defendants did have the knowledge or perception that the Plaintiff was gay and /or associated with others who are gay. The reasons for this finding are that the Defendants must have known that the Plaintiff supported gay marriage and/or associated with others who supported gay marriage as this was a cake for a special event the Plaintiff was attending; it was known to the 3rd Defendant that the Plaintiff was a member of a small volunteer group; he wanted his own graphics on the cake; those graphics included ‘support gay marriage’ together with a reference to ‘QueerSpace’ and the 3rd Defendant was aware of the ongoing debate on same-sex marriage. Furthermore, although from her own evidence she said that she didn’t think “perhaps we have to do it” [meaning complete the order], it is clear when she discussed the issue with her son on the Sunday, she mentioned that there may be litigation. quote:My finding is that the Defendants cancelled this order as they oppose same sex marriage for the reason that they regard it as sinful and contrary to their genuinely held religious beliefs. Same sex marriage is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation. The Plaintiff did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confines marriage to heterosexual orientation. quote:Have the Defendants directly discriminated against the Plaintiff on the ground of religious belief and/or political opinion contrary to Article 3(2) of the 1998 Order? I find that they have. Applying the reasoning in Gill v NICEM, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants disagreed with the religious belief and political opinion held by the Plaintiff with regard to a change in the law to permit gay marriage and, accordingly, by their refusal to provide the services sought, treated the Plaintiff less favourably contrary to the law. If the Plaintiff had chosen graphics which said “support heterosexual marriage” or “support marriage” or if a heterosexual had ordered a cake with graphics “support heterosexual marriage” I am satisfied that the Defendants would have completed the order and would have had every right to do so. It is for the reason that the Defendants objected to the word ‘gay’ as they are totally opposed to same-sex marriage which they regard as sinful that they refused the order.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Well if it's illegal then it must be wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
One of the key issues in the Ashers case is that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had a blanket ban on providing goods promoting political opinions - a blanket restriction that most likely would have been lawful - and in fact they did not argue that they had such a restriction in place. So it clearly falls afoul of the Northern Irish laws regarding the provision of services based on political opinion, legislation which those outside of NI may gawp at but which makes perfect sense in an NI context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of (non-violent) political opinion in Northern Ireland. for such an ardent supporter of anti-discrimination its a shame you made a racist post in one of these threads
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
While it's an understandable law in NI's case it's a dumb one otherwise and it shouldn't be implemented over here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of (non-violent) political opinion in Northern Ireland. Surely the Northern Ireland law is a response to the specific situation. It's there to stop people discriminating against people who come from a certain part of the community (eg Catholics or people who identify as Irish). It's to make sure nobody has an excuse for putting a sign on the door saying "No If you're not allowed to refuse to make a cake which calls on people to support the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act then I'd guess you also can't refuse to make a cake which calls on people to support repealing the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act which I know I would find a bit annoying if I was a cake maker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Yes I would like a cake that says happy birthday hitler with a swastika on the background. I just want to celebrate the birthday of a very important historical figure is all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
I think what makes it a bit of an awkward case is that the bakery seems to be a small family business.
distortion park fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Surely the Northern Ireland law is a response to the specific situation. It's there to stop people discriminating against people who come from a certain part of the community (eg Catholics or people who identify as Irish). It's to make sure nobody has an excuse for putting a sign on the door saying "No You can refuse to make any political cakes if you want. Just not only political cakes you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Who's ordering all these political cakes anyway? I can understand if printers had to be politically neutral in the paper products they print, although at the same time I can fully understand if a Muslim printer told me to gently caress off if I wanted 2000 'Halal is barbaric' flyers, but are people really using baked goods as a means of communicating a political message?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:22
|
|