To what extent should Ken Livingstone be regarded as anti-semitic?

After reading the full transcript of everything Livingstone has said, while also observing the subsequent reaction, in particular John Manns comments. Should Ken Livingston really be branded as an anti semite or has he been heavily misquoted?

Interested to hear all your views.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1

EricPiphany

I'm a pro-syntax and anti-semantic.

Reply 2

M14B

Original post by EricPiphany

I'm a pro-syntax and anti-semantic.

What?
lol

Reply 3

Inazuma

Why have you phrased this like a school essay Q lol?

Also I think you mean anti-semitic... being anti-semantic is being against the definitions of words...

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 4

Good bloke

Original post by EricPiphany

I'm a pro-syntax and anti-semantic.

That was said with meaning, unlike the OP's thread title.

Reply 5

Good bloke

Original post by Baz1000

To what extent should Ken Livingston be regarded as anti-semantic?

Should Ken Livingston really be branded as an anti semanite or has he been heavily misquoted?

Semitic, semantic. Semen, seaman. Semanite, Samsonite. Who cares? Reading your posts is a laugh a minute.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 6

Baz1000

Original post by Good bloke

That was said with meaning, unlike the OP's thread title.

Apologies it was a typo. Anti-semite is the term for someone who is anti-semantic.

Reply 7

Good bloke

Original post by Baz1000

Apologies it was a typo. Anti-semite is the term for someone who is anti-semantic.

And there was me thinking anti-semite was the term for someone who is anti-semitic. You live and learn!

Who is Ken Livingston, by the way? I thought you meant Ken Livingstone for a minute but you obviously don't.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 8

EricPiphany

Original post by Baz1000

I just had a look at what's been going on out there. I don't think what he said implies he is an anti-semite. But he should be more careful what he says, given the fact lots of people think he is one.
If only he made the statements on TSR, the mods would make it disappear in a second.

Reply 9

Baz1000

Original post by Good bloke

Look, I have edited over the numerous typos. I was typing really quick at the time and I should have double-checked everything before I posted.

Anyway the situation at hand is a very controversial and interesting one. If you have any views on this topic, I would love to hear it? If not please don't sway the attention away to the wording of the thread (which has now been edited), it takes the focus completely away from the main point of this discussion.

Thanks.

Reply 10

KingBradly

On a scale of 0 - TheArtOfProtest, I'd say he's somewhere below George Galloway, but way above Nietzsche.

Reply 11

Good bloke

Original post by Mathemagicien

Perhaps he has a history of anti-Semitic comments, I would not be aware of them. Idk. But I am confused why making (what appear to be) neutral statements like this makes you a Nazi sympathiser.

He does have such a history, but the comment is hardly neutral. It is also not that of a Nazi sympathiser. Rather it is the comment of someone who wishes to imply the Jews are in tune with Hitler in wanting to live in Israel, while simultaneously belittling what he did to them.

Reply 12

Omen96

When Labour politicians are actually calling him anti-Semitic you should be listening

Reply 13

Omen96

Original post by Mathemagicien

Tbh, I don't see what is so outrageous about what he said. Perhaps I haven't heard everything he said, but all I heard him say was that "Hitler favoured moving European Jews to Israel, before he went mad" - which is true AFAIK. Or rather, he favoured moving European Jews to Israel, before Germany's military defeats made it nearly impossible to have such a huge transport operation.

Perhaps making comments like that is a sign of anti-Semiticism. Perhaps he has a history of anti-Semitic comments, I would not be aware of them. Idk. But I am confused why making (what appear to be) neutral statements like this makes you a Nazi sympathiser.

Hitler went mad? So you believe not even Hitler was capable of evil (like UKIP, Tories, bankers and the elite) but you attribute his actions to a mental illness making him mad so he needed liberal medicine and liberal rehabilitation to help him? This is why people know and think the left are anti-Semitic. They can't even say Hitler who was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews was evil but they can call Nigel Farage or Donald Trump evil.

You people really are weird, thank god you won't be in power again

Reply 14

Vinny1900

Original post by Baz1000

The Labour Party just want rid of him for not openly known reasons, there's a large faction of jewish descendants in the Labour Party.

Reply 15

Good bloke

Original post by Mathemagicien

It doesn't belittle what Hitler did, however.

I think it does: it makes it sound as if he really only advocated something the Jews would choose for themselves, and completely discounts the awful truth of his final solution.

Reply 16

Omen96

Original post by Mathemagicien

Are you saying that it wasn't mad to kill millions of Jews? o.O

He was pure evil. Why are you people willing to call trump evil but not hitler? Is it because hitler was responsible for the death of Jews (and 10s of millions more) while Trump made a childish statement about Muslims?