NPR

Is it so corrupt and so debauched, and self interested that you can only get an understanding , if you are a right nasty bastard, and even then it will continue to surprise you.

Watched two videos today and my head is swirling. One was relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan. A murder that goes right to the top of British establishment, the media, the Met police and the seat of power in this country. Just staggering how much power the media and the Murdoch empire has, and frightening how Pritti Patel wants to ignore this and just concentrate on the Police Corruption aspect.




And the other was the about the establishing of Andrew Neil's new outfit (GB News) and outlines their sources of funding, that reveals that yes, they are exactly who you think they are.



Should point put the lady at the end of this video, who I have no doubt many of you hate, just nails it.
Some people just see through it all, and can communicate it brilliantly.


Good luck sleeping tonight.

Line6 HXFX wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:34 pm Is it so corrupt and so debauched, and self interested that you can only get an understanding , if you are a right nasty bastard, and even then it will continue to surprise you.

Watched two videos today and my head is swirling. One was relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan. A murder that goes right to the top of British establishment, the media, the Met police and the seat of power in this country. Just staggering how much power the media and the Murdoch empire has, and frightening how Pritti Patel wants to ignore this and just concentrate on the Police Corruption aspect.




And the other was the about the establishing of Andrew Neil's new outfit (GB News) and outlines their sources of funding, that reveals that yes, they are exactly who you think they are.



Should point put the lady at the end of this video, who I have no doubt many of you hate, just nails it.
Some people just see through it all, and can communicate it brilliantly.


Good luck sleeping tonight.

Yes, well, if you're going to uncritically accept every left-wing conspiracy theory posted online, I can see you might well have sleeping issues.

Leaving that aside, the second story is just scurrilous nonsense, while the first, although certainly serious if even remotely true, pales into insignificance compared to the historical and ongoing suppression of truth under left-wing governments wherever they've appeared.

the second story is just scurrilous nonsense

What "scurrilous nonsense", exactly, is contained in the second video?

It talked about the false premise in the opening monologue, then the hypocrisy in the second presenter given what Neil said. It talked about the anti-science agenda, and the the "anti-woke" as distraction.
It went on to identify where their funding comes from, and the history of those funders.

Finally it ripped the piss out of their abject amateurism.


Where did they go wrong?

I've watched a bit of GB news. According to Andrew Neil's monologue GB news will concentrate on stories that others are neglecting, and will never promote lies or conspiracy theories.From watching further highlights I've learned:

1 There were inserts put into the RNA of the virus that couldn't have occurred naturally so the virus must have been man made in a lab in Wuhan

2 the Royal family are a wonderful institution and the Queen is the greatest diplomat that has ever lived, has amazing energy, pretty much the best thing ever. Harry and meghan are bad and it's a disgrace they named their daughter Lilibet without asking the queen's permission first

3 sports and politics shouldn't mix and it is a big mistake for the football team to take the knee, that's why the ordinary fans are rebelling.

4all restrictions should have been lifted weeks and weeks ago, lockdowns don't t work, in fact they increase the spread of the virus

5 boris Johnson has either become woke or he let his wife write one of his speaches.

How can you critique something if you don't actually understand it?

ASMO wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:49 am How can you critique something if you don't actually understand it?

I read the Mail and the Telegraph online for that reason, I usually feel like I have to wipe my feet afterwards, but it has to be done.


Regarding the first video in the OP, those unreconstructed Commies at Good Morning Britain, hosted by Richard "Hasta La Victoria Siempre" Madeley, and Susanna "No Pasaran" Reid carried the same story.

Yes, otherwise we will never achieve the worker's revolution.

But what you have to understand is that corporations who position themselves as left wing (Nike, Pepsi, and many more) are actually right wing, using a progressive disguise. I feel sick every time I see potential comrades praising these corporations for some sort of activism. IT'S A DISTRACTION TACTIC!

Basically, the modern Left needs to forget the nonsense about identity politics, otherwise it will never win back the working class who have switched to the Right almost entirely for that reason.

Lemoentjie wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:56 am Yes, otherwise we will never achieve the worker's revolution.

But what you have to understand is that corporations who position themselves as left wing (Nike, Pepsi, and many more) are actually right wing, using a progressive disguise. I feel sick every time I see potential comrades praising these corporations for some sort of activism. IT'S A DISTRACTION TACTIC!

Basically, the modern Left needs to forget the nonsense about identity politics, otherwise it will never win back the working class who have switched to the Right almost entirely for that reason.

The right play identity politics just as much as the left. The UK government and right wing media - telegraph, sun, mail, GB News absolutely love talking about identity. They can't get enough of the culture wars.

I'd go so far as to say you understand the modern right by looking at identity politics. Look at the Daily Mail website - it's mostly identity politics. The identity they target being white, straight over 40s. The most powerful electoral group in Britain.

REFRY in “too lazy to try to understand something” non-shock.

Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I don't understand what is considered right or left wing anymore. It doesn't seem to mesh with my understanding of those terms. Some supposed progressives seem pretty fascist in their world views, when it comes to tolerance of others and socialistic principles; while some supposed right-wingers (as labelled) appear to be pushing those very socialistic principles (e.g. Covid funding). It's all confusing for this Bear of Little Brain.

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I don't agree that they are. People being treated equally is core to liberal thought. Identity politics is the protection of your group. Liberalism recognises that certain groups need a leg up and need to be protected - outside of their own groups. The key is protecting other people's rights where as identity politics can lead down a path where your own group is your priority, and strength in protecting the whole is forgotten

Biffer wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:39 am

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I don't agree that they are. People being treated equally is core to liberal thought. Identity politics is the protection of your group. Liberalism recognises that certain groups need a leg up and need to be protected - outside of their own groups. The key is protecting other people's rights where as identity politics can lead down a path where your own group is your priority, and strength in protecting the whole is forgotten

There are some interesting points on liberalism and identity politics here

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/iden ... beIdenPoli

Getting back to GBNews, apparently they read out messages from "Mike Hunt" and "Mike Oxlong"

Childish? Yes.

Funny? Very.

Biffer wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:39 am

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I don't agree that they are. People being treated equally is core to liberal thought. Identity politics is the protection of your group. Liberalism recognizes that certain groups need a leg up and need to be protected - outside of their own groups. The key is protecting other people's rights where as identity politics can lead down a path where your own group is your priority, and strength in protecting the whole is forgotten

Much agreed. which is how identity politics is manifesting itself today and frequently doesn't explain the biggest trends in the issues once social demographics are taken into account. Better solutions is to look at the issue of class, corporate power and influence and those situations where unfettered corporate capitalism runs rampart and ends up pulling the drawbridge up on social mobility or even suppresses it. That last point well explained using housing in these two videos:

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

That's because 'ending racism' is interpreted differently and has many different 'solutions'.

Equal rights and protections for all races in the constitution - not identity politics, since it doesn't focus on an identity.

US banks running special internship schemes for black students - identity politics, since it focuses on a particular group.

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I think the bit you miss is that the vast majority of right wingers agree with all three principles, they disagree on how to do it. Assuming your opponents are racist, stupid and atavistic is fine but it doesn't get you far as that's not how they perceive themselves and plenty of people think they're talking sense.
You might think their policies achieve negative outcomes but that's entirely different and that's exactly what the right thinks of the left.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:47 am

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I think the bit you miss is that the vast majority of right wingers agree with all three principles, they disagree on how to do it. Assuming your opponents are racist, stupid and atavistic is fine but it doesn't get you far as that's not how they perceive themselves and plenty of people think they're talking sense.
You might think their policies achieve negative outcomes but that's entirely different and that's exactly what the right thinks of the left.

I'd take issue with that, most of the arguments I see put up against these issues is that they are blown out of proportion and something else (usually financial circumstances or social class) is at play.

As an aside, I suspect the likes of GB News and Fox news etc are quite happy to invoke terms like Culture Wars, Identity Politics and Wokeism, it's an easy handle to grip.
Those terms are little more than an updated version of "political correctness", which was only really about people treating others how they would like to be treated themselves.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:35 am As an aside, I suspect the likes of GB News and Fox news etc are quite happy to invoke terms like Culture Wars, Identity Politics and Wokeism, it's an easy handle to grip.
Those terms are little more than an updated version of "political correctness", which was only really about people treating others how they would like to be treated themselves.

OK, but that is in itself a political statement whether you think it is or not. There are various ways of discussing the past, treating people with respect etc that don't all chime with what is orthodox on the left right now, and assuming people who disagree are doing so in bad faith is wrong and doesn't get us anywhere.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:20 am

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:35 am As an aside, I suspect the likes of GB News and Fox news etc are quite happy to invoke terms like Culture Wars, Identity Politics and Wokeism, it's an easy handle to grip.
Those terms are little more than an updated version of "political correctness", which was only really about people treating others how they would like to be treated themselves.

OK, but that is in itself a political statement whether you think it is or not.

Yes, it absolutely is a political statement, there are very few, if any, parts of our lives that do not have a political element or context to them, whether work, rest or play

There are various ways of discussing the past, treating people with respect etc that don't all chime with what is orthodox on the left right now,

The problem the left has faced forever is the schisms, I have no idea what a "Left Orthodoxy" would look like.

and assuming people who disagree are doing so in bad faith is wrong and doesn't get us anywhere.

"in bad faith" is either with "intent to deceive" or "refusal to confront facts or choices".

I think both are true of these right wing "news" broadcasters, you only have to go through a couple of posts on this thread to see the rank hypocrisy shown by Neil et al.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:23 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:47 am

Tichtheid wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:08 am Trying to end racism is identity politics. Women being treated equally in the workplace is identity politics. Fighting homophobia is identity politics.

Which of these is nonsense and should be disregarded?

I think the bit you miss is that the vast majority of right wingers agree with all three principles, they disagree on how to do it. Assuming your opponents are racist, stupid and atavistic is fine but it doesn't get you far as that's not how they perceive themselves and plenty of people think they're talking sense.
You might think their policies achieve negative outcomes but that's entirely different and that's exactly what the right thinks of the left.

I'd take issue with that, most of the arguments I see put up against these issues is that they are blown out of proportion and something else (usually financial circumstances or social class) is at play.

Very much this.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:35 am As an aside, I suspect the likes of GB News and Fox news etc are quite happy to invoke terms like Culture Wars, Identity Politics and Wokeism, it's an easy handle to grip.
Those terms are little more than an updated version of "political correctness", which was only really about people treating others how they would like to be treated themselves.

I think they involve them, but it is an ongoing issue for many in the social media age. I'd argue the issue with all of those is the aggressive illiberal push for a particular brand of identity politics in mob rule way under an umbrella of being virtuous.

Interestingly in a study done a few weeks ago about who who talks about the Culture Wars the most in the UK, The Guardian came out on top and brought it up double that of the the next couple of newspapers.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:49 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:20 am

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:35 am As an aside, I suspect the likes of GB News and Fox news etc are quite happy to invoke terms like Culture Wars, Identity Politics and Wokeism, it's an easy handle to grip.
Those terms are little more than an updated version of "political correctness", which was only really about people treating others how they would like to be treated themselves.

OK, but that is in itself a political statement whether you think it is or not.

Yes, it absolutely is a political statement, there are very few, if any, parts of our lives that do not have a political element or context to them, whether work, rest or play

There are various ways of discussing the past, treating people with respect etc that don't all chime with what is orthodox on the left right now,

The problem the left has faced forever is the schisms, I have no idea what a "Left Orthodoxy" would look like.

and assuming people who disagree are doing so in bad faith is wrong and doesn't get us anywhere.

"in bad faith" is either with "intent to deceive" or "refusal to confront facts or choices".

I think both are true of these right wing "news" broadcasters, you only have to go through a couple of posts on this thread to see the rank hypocrisy shown by Neil et al.

We are all hypocrites to a greater or lesser extent - none of us really live our values.

My point is that Conservatism in 2021 believes it is committed to anti-racism, equal opportunities etc. It just has different definitions and therefore policy positions to you.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:03 pm
My point is that Conservatism in 2021 believes it is committed to anti-racism, equal opportunities etc. It just has different definitions and therefore policy positions to you.

Eh?

Conservatism in 2021 says there is no such thing as institutional racism

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... 5&LangID=E

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:18 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:03 pm
My point is that Conservatism in 2021 believes it is committed to anti-racism, equal opportunities etc. It just has different definitions and therefore policy positions to you.

Eh?

Conservatism in 2021 says there is no such thing as institutional racism

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... 5&LangID=E

Not sure that's entirely true but it also misses the point and not sure we're going anywhere. I've made my case, you've made yours.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:18 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:03 pm
My point is that Conservatism in 2021 believes it is committed to anti-racism, equal opportunities etc. It just has different definitions and therefore policy positions to you.

Eh?

Conservatism in 2021 says there is no such thing as institutional racism

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... 5&LangID=E

Not sure that's entirely true but it also misses the point and not sure we're going anywhere. I've made my case, you've made yours.

Your point was that, quote, "Conservatism in 2021 believes it is committed to anti-racism".

It's an easy slogan, but it's bit more difficult to live up to when they deny its existence.

‘Institutional racism doesn’t exist,’ government’s race commission suggests in landmark report

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24605.html

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:26 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:22 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:18 pm


Eh?

Conservatism in 2021 says there is no such thing as institutional racism

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... 5&LangID=E

Not sure that's entirely true but it also misses the point and not sure we're going anywhere. I've made my case, you've made yours.

Your point was that, quote, "Conservatism in 2021 believes it is committed to anti-racism".

It's an easy slogan, but it's bit more difficult to live up to when they deny its existence.

‘Institutional racism doesn’t exist,’ government’s race commission suggests in landmark report

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24605.html

Which is an entirely different point to whether they believe they are committed to anti racism, your own definition notwithstanding.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:36 pm Which is an entirely different point to whether they believe they are committed to anti racism, your own definition notwithstanding.

It would be fair to make an accusation of "in bad faith", though, saying they are committed to anti-racism but denying it exists in a systemic way, despite the evidence, plus rigging a report to back their position doesn't help.

UK 'culture war' debate: public divide into four groups, not two warring tribes

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/uk-culture-w ... ing-tribes

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:36 pm Which is an entirely different point to whether they believe they are committed to anti racism, your own definition notwithstanding.

It would be fair to make an accusation of "in bad faith", though, saying they are committed to anti-racism but denying it exists in a systemic way, despite the evidence, plus rigging a report to back their position doesn't help.

Translation - they said something I disagree with.

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:50 pm UK 'culture war' debate: public divide into four groups, not two warring tribes

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/uk-culture-w ... ing-tribes

That's interesting to read.

Any idea what rights they're talking about when they say this about progressives?

Most likely of the groups to think the expansion of rights for historically less powerful groups – women, ethnic minorities, transgender people – has not gone far enough.

notfatcat wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:55 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:36 pm Which is an entirely different point to whether they believe they are committed to anti racism, your own definition notwithstanding.

It would be fair to make an accusation of "in bad faith", though, saying they are committed to anti-racism but denying it exists in a systemic way, despite the evidence, plus rigging a report to back their position doesn't help.

Translation - they said something I disagree with.

Nope.

But you can join the debate if you like.

Not much to debate when you say they rigged the report.

Mind you, I will say that the definition of systemic racism might be something on which people fundamentally disagree, which may then lead to people's entrenched positions from which they will never budge.

notfatcat wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:02 pm Not much to debate when you say they rigged the report.

That might be true if I was the only one saying it

British Medical Journal

The Sewell report risks turning the clock back on the fight against racism in the UK

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/12/th ... in-the-uk/


Joseph Rowntree Foundation
https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/sewell-repo ... ly-tell-us

The was a UN one I posted earlier

ach, there are loads, just google "responses to the sewel report"

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:13 pm

notfatcat wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:02 pm Not much to debate when you say they rigged the report.

That might be true if I was the only one saying it

British Medical Journal

The Sewell report risks turning the clock back on the fight against racism in the UK

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/12/th ... in-the-uk/


Joseph Rowntree Foundation
https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/sewell-repo ... ly-tell-us

The was a UN one I posted earlier

ach, there are loads, just google "responses to the sewel report"

Okay, fair enough. Reading that BMJ link meant I only had to go through the first couple of paragraphs to notice that the suspicions I outlined in my previous post were correct.

It appears that the BMJ classes systemic racism as the existence of disparities between races.

In medicine, racism starts in medical schools and percolates through the many layers of training and employment as we have previously reported. [4] The government’s own body, Public Health England, has demonstrated in a wide ranging review on covid-19 mortality that people of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, other Asian, Black Caribbean and other Black ethnicities had between 10 and 50% higher risk of death when compared to White British populations. [5]

If that's what systemic racism is then the whole world is systemically racist and it always has been and always will be, so we may as well talk about the football.

notfatcat wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:47 pm
Okay, fair enough. Reading that BMJ link meant I only had to go through the first couple of paragraphs to notice that the suspicions I outlined in my previous post were correct.

It appears that the BMJ classes systemic racism as the existence of disparities between races.

In medicine, racism starts in medical schools and percolates through the many layers of training and employment as we have previously reported. [4] The government’s own body, Public Health England, has demonstrated in a wide ranging review on covid-19 mortality that people of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, other Asian, Black Caribbean and other Black ethnicities had between 10 and 50% higher risk of death when compared to White British populations. [5]

If that's what systemic racism is then the whole world is systemically racist and it always has been and always will be, so we may as well talk about the football.

It might be worth looking at why there is a disparity of outcomes for Covid patients of different ethnic backgrounds, just for starters, before looking for more in depth explanations to other points made in the piece.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... update.pdf


edit, the relevant paragraph is

The relationship between ethnicity and health is complex and likely to be the result of a
combination of factors. Firstly, people of BAME communities are likely to be at
increased risk of acquiring the infection. This is because BAME people are more likely
to live in urban areas (18), in overcrowded households (19), in deprived areas (20), and
have jobs that expose them to higher risk (21). People of BAME groups are also more
likely than people of White British ethnicity to be born abroad (22), which means they
may face additional barriers in accessing services that are created by, for example,
cultural and language differences


This is systemic racism, it's not a skinheaded knuckle-dragger shouting epithets

More on what the BMJ article actually referred to when talking about racism in medicine

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/07/31/th ... h-lessons/

https://www.bmj.com/racism-in-medicine


There are tons of references and links in the articles, you just have to follow them

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:05 pm

notfatcat wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:47 pm
Okay, fair enough. Reading that BMJ link meant I only had to go through the first couple of paragraphs to notice that the suspicions I outlined in my previous post were correct.

It appears that the BMJ classes systemic racism as the existence of disparities between races.

In medicine, racism starts in medical schools and percolates through the many layers of training and employment as we have previously reported. [4] The government’s own body, Public Health England, has demonstrated in a wide ranging review on covid-19 mortality that people of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, other Asian, Black Caribbean and other Black ethnicities had between 10 and 50% higher risk of death when compared to White British populations. [5]

If that's what systemic racism is then the whole world is systemically racist and it always has been and always will be, so we may as well talk about the football.

It might be worth looking at why there is a disparity of outcomes for Covid patients of different ethnic backgrounds, just for starters, before looking for more in depth explanations to other points made in the piece.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... update.pdf


edit, the relevant paragraph is

The relationship between ethnicity and health is complex and likely to be the result of a
combination of factors. Firstly, people of BAME communities are likely to be at
increased risk of acquiring the infection. This is because BAME people are more likely
to live in urban areas (18), in overcrowded households (19), in deprived areas (20), and
have jobs that expose them to higher risk (21). People of BAME groups are also more
likely than people of White British ethnicity to be born abroad (22), which means they
may face additional barriers in accessing services that are created by, for example,
cultural and language differences


This is systemic racism, it's not a skinheaded knuckle-dragger shouting epithets

Yes, you are just confirming what I said.