• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Lilbaz said:
Meanwhile in france.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

Bizarre clickbait headline to the video, given it isn't mentioned in any of the 6 minutes of actual content.

It seems the teacher was accidentally splashed with fuel as students tried to set a trash can on fire rather than being doused or targeted.
 
Rorschach said:
This is a good move. By all accounts, it is not even good software anyway.

Andy Burnham searches for UK alternative to Palantir​

Click to expand...

Looks like Planatir shall have to settle for buying Sweden…

fortune.com

Palantir CEO Alex Karp quietly purchased 37,000 acres of forests in Sweden—and locals found out when hunters lost leases to use the property | Fortune

Cladonia Skog AB, a newly registered company owned by Karp, said it would use the land for “forestry and other related activities.”
fortune.com fortune.com
 
Baleforce said:
WTF is going on in the Green Party?

Their "Zionism is racism" schtick is incredibly dangerous and divisive.
Click to expand...

Let’s remember that we are talking about a party led by a bloke who used to take money off women by claiming that being hypnotised by him could make their breasts grow bigger.

Once that’s in the forefront of your mind then anything they say or do is possible.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
She is just a horrible horrible cnut

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
Braverman is confusing being “English” with Heritage. You can be English in terms of your culture, identity and values but you may be of a different heritage to a white, black or East Asian person. What she is doing is using the same racist tropes that the far right have used for years which effectively define “Englishness” as only being of white heritage. For me, 2 things are important here, 1) Despite allegedly being intelligent she just doesn’t get that she is in fact using racist language and so by association is a racist herself irrespective of her heritage 2) She is a useful idiot for the far right. She and Zia Yusef ( whose views are even more astonishing given that he is both a person of colour and a Muslim) are giving legitimacy to the likes of Farage.
 
Robspur12 said:
Horrifically Ill judged and will only lead to more antisemitism.
Click to expand...

Playing Devil's Advocate here a little bit but why is it, factually, wrong? Favouring a group of people based on a characteristic (here faith) at the expense of others who do not have that characteristic is as much racism as using a characteristic to degrade someone who has it whilst promoting those who don't. The objectivity of racism is the same. The subjectivity of its application is what is being challenged here, no?

My understanding of Zionism is that a self-defined group of people are claiming they are different to other humans (i.e. a separate race) and as such should be allowed their own homeland, in a place where their faith has historic ties, and where their race is legally protected at the expense of others (a jewish state for jews).

What other 'race' or, in this case, religion, is entitled to this?

It will lead to more anti-semitism but that is because it is an excuse for anti-semitism rather than creating it. That already exists and this is just another avenue for that foulness to be aired.

All people have a right to be safe and protected, and this is where current (and historic society) has failed those of the jewish religion but no country has a right to exist and no community has the right to be promoted or protected at the expense of another. What is the difference between Tommy 10 names and the Faragist spiel of 'England for the English' and the Zionist 'Israel for the Jews'?

I do agree that the Green Party have screwed up here but this is also not Polanski or the leaders fault. This was a proposal from the floor, as per their party constitution, that got the votes to become policy and has not been supported by Polanski or the MPs. But if you have party rules that allow the members to set policy rather than the executive, then this is what can happen.
 
Lost Mango said:
Playing Devil's Advocate here a little bit but why is it, factually, wrong? Favouring a group of people based on a characteristic (here faith) at the expense of others who do not have that characteristic is as much racism as using a characteristic to degrade someone who has it whilst promoting those who don't. The objectivity of racism is the same. The subjectivity of its application is what is being challenged here, no?

My understanding of Zionism is that a self-defined group of people are claiming they are different to other humans (i.e. a separate race) and as such should be allowed their own homeland, in a place where their faith has historic ties, and where their race is legally protected at the expense of others (a jewish state for jews).

What other 'race' or, in this case, religion, is entitled to this?

It will lead to more anti-semitism but that is because it is an excuse for anti-semitism rather than creating it. That already exists and this is just another avenue for that foulness to be aired.

All people have a right to be safe and protected, and this is where current (and historic society) has failed those of the jewish religion but no country has a right to exist and no community has the right to be promoted or protected at the expense of another. What is the difference between Tommy 10 names and the Faragist spiel of 'England for the English' and the Zionist 'Israel for the Jews'?

I do agree that the Green Party have screwed up here but this is also not Polanski or the leaders fault. This was a proposal from the floor, as per their party constitution, that got the votes to become policy and has not been supported by Polanski or the MPs. But if you have party rules that allow the members to set policy rather than the executive, then this is what can happen.
Click to expand...
There isn’t one clear definition of Zionism, to many it’s as simple as Jewish people have the right to a recognized homeland.

Friday’s The Newsagents Podcast is worth a listen on this issue.
 
Baleforce said:
There isn’t one clear definition of Zionism, to many it’s as simple as Jewish people have the right to a recognized homeland.

Friday’s The Newsagents Podcast is worth a listen on this issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll try and get to that podcast later today.

Agree that there are many, many definitions and levels of Zionism and that in itself creates some of this issue. Do any people have the right to a recognised homeland though? Legally?

Do the Kurds? the Basques? The Rohingya? Tibetans? Sikhs?
 
Lost Mango said:
Thanks. I'll try and get to that podcast later today.

Agree that there are many, many definitions and levels of Zionism and that in itself creates some of this issue. Do any people have the right to a recognised homeland though? Legally?

Do the Kurds? the Basques? The Rohingya? Tibetans? Sikhs?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think everyone does, but it doesn’t have to be exclusive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back