The Student Room Group

Livingston truther - political correctness is finally eating itself hahahahaha

I am so happy that this stupid, you can't say what you want - you can't tell the truth - you can't offend people political correctness is imploding in on itself with the former mayor of London now being labelled a thought criminal.

The joke is that anyone is labelled an extremist if they express certain opinions like any opinion about a group hahahaha yes any opinion about a group, or any counter to whitewashed history by Cameron's new ideas about extremism.

This country has become a joke. Someone says something true that is classed as offensive and they are hauled before a panel of self-righteous gits who don't even believe in what they are doing because they personally agree with what the person said but as its contrary to the ideology, they are punishing him. It's doublespeak.

When is this madness going to end? When we finally get the guts to face these "triggered" people or doublespeak mob rule people defaming and ruining people for saying something with basically invisible handcuffs. We need to tell these people with an issue, either a personal issue or official issue to shut the hell up, yes just shut up, just shut it, if you invade my natural rights to speak, I will bloody well invade yours.



Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Its funny how the left are all up in arms because of their anti-Semitic nature but the second anyone says any truth about Islam, about Muslims, about Muslim rape gangs, about all the crimes and atrocities rooted in Islam, they go crazy, they lose their minds. They all do the typical "Islam is actually peace", "I love Islam", "Not a real Muslim", "Islam promotes peace and tolerance" blah blah blah, but they go further than that, they promote the ideology and actively attack anyone who even criticises it. The left are a weird bunch.
Original post by Omen96
Its funny how the left are all up in arms because of their anti-Semitic nature but the second anyone says any truth about Islam, about Muslims, about Muslim rape gangs, about all the crimes and atrocities rooted in Islam, they go crazy, they lose their minds. They all do the typical "Islam is actually peace", "I love Islam", "Not a real Muslim", "Islam promotes peace and tolerance" blah blah blah, but they go further than that, they promote the ideology and actively attack anyone who even criticises it. The left are a weird bunch.


You know Margaret Thatcher protect ed kiddie fiddlers? Why are all right wingers nonces?

(I don't believe this i'm just highlighting how retarded the above a generalisation is)

Google regressive left- they are about as representative of the left as Britain First are of the right.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 3
The thread is about this country having gone mad. If a white middle class Christian male refers to the Havaraa agreement, a solid historical fact about Nazi Germany, all hell breaks loose. The worst thing is that the people doing the shouting know that they are shouting at people who are factually correct. This has turned into a compulsive liar country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement




Posted from TSR Mobile
Who's Livingston?
Reply 5
Original post by Serine Soul
Who's Livingston?


He's a Labour MP and ex Mayor of London who was suspended for citing the Haavara Agreement because other people are crazy.
Original post by Brillo100
He's a Labour MP and ex Mayor of London who was suspended for citing the Haavara Agreement because other people are crazy.


I think you meant Livingstone :tongue:
Reply 7
Original post by Serine Soul
I think you meant Livingstone :tongue:


That's the one 😂


Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not sure it's devouring itself, just moving hosts.

Just after WWII there was still some anti-Semitism in the mainstream in this country, and so the left opposed anti-Semitism as a way to oppose this country's mainstream, which is what they've always done.

Today, Jews are pretty widely accepted; if anything they've become a rightwing minority, but mostly just aren't thought of at all. There is very little hay to be made out of anti-Semitism today if your goal is to attack ordinary British people.

What is today being called anti-Semitism is not descended from pre-WWII European anti-Semitism. It is Muslim anti-Semitism. The left wants to ally with Muslims, as they are currently the strongest enemies of this country and our civilisation, and it's basically impossible to ally with Muslims without at least paying lip service to anti-Semitism.

Ken Livingstone does not talk about Jews killing Christ or owning too many businesses or being too successful in the professions, as European anti-Semites circa 1939 would have done. He talks about them winning wars against Arab Muslims and denying Muslims ownership of their holy sites.

The pro-Muslim left is not going to consent to its outlawry. Instead it is going to try to rehabilitate anti-Semitism, or make the distinction between European and Muslim anti-Semitism more pronounced with the former still illegal and the latter not. You can already see this in far left institutions like the NUS where there is a bid to turn Holocaust memorial events into "Holocausts" memorial events. The intent is to eliminate the peculiar social stigma that attaches to anti-Semitism but not to other murderous ideologies.
Original post by Observatory


Just after WWII there was still some anti-Semitism in the mainstream in this country, and so the left opposed anti-Semitism as a way to oppose this country's mainstream, which is what they've always done.


What is this mainstream you speak of?



What is today being called anti-Semitism is not descended from pre-WWII European anti-Semitism. It is Muslim anti-Semitism. The left wants to ally with Muslims, as they are currently the strongest enemies of this country and our civilisation, and it's basically impossible to ally with Muslims without at least paying lip service to anti-Semitism.


Let's not forget the person to first ally with the Islamists was that renowned leftist Reagan in his fight against the USSR. I agree that for there is a fringe element of ex Maoists who see Islamist as a potential workers vanguard but this is not mainstream left opinion. I don't believe Corbyn holds these views (though he admittedly associates with those who do) they have little power in the party as recent events have shown.

He talks about them winning wars against Arab Muslims and denying Muslims ownership of their holy sites.


That's not what I've heard. Livingstone is a piece of dirt but he usually refers to the appalling treatment of Palestinians (which is true- but doesn't take into account other factors)


You can already see this in far left institutions like the NUS where there is a bid to turn Holocaust memorial events into "Holocausts" memorial events. The intent is to eliminate the peculiar social stigma that attaches to anti-Semitism but not to other murderous ideologies.


Correct me if I'm wrong but genocide is genocide. The holpcaust is obviously the worst s d most well known example but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include the Armenian genocide or what's happening to the yasidis. Dont really have a problem with this.
Original post by Davij038
What is this mainstream you speak of?

Here is George Orwell describing the situation in 1945 - http://orwell.ru/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib

Although his point is that this sort of thing is basically nothing like German anti-Semitism, these quotes would be unimaginable (and certainly regarded as Hitlerian) in Britain today:

George Orwell
Middle-aged office employee: “I generally come to work by bus. It takes longer, but I don't care about using the Underground from Golders Green nowadays. There's too many of the Chosen Race travelling on that line.”
Tobacconist (woman): “No, I've got no matches for you. I should try the lady down the street. She's always got matches. One of the Chosen Race, you see.”
Young intellectual, Communist or near-Communist: “No, I do not like Jews. I've never made any secret of that. I can't stick them. Mind you, I'm not antisemitic, of course.”
Middle-class woman: “Well, no one could call me antisemitic, but I do think the way these Jews behave is too absolutely stinking. The way they push their way to the head of queues, and so on. They're so abominably selfish. I think they're responsible for a lot of what happens to them.”
Milk roundsman: “A Jew don't do no work, not the same as what an Englishman does. ’E's too clever. We work with this 'ere” (flexes his biceps). “They work with that there” (taps his forehead).
Chartered accountant, intelligent, left-wing in an undirected way: “These bloody Yids are all pro-German. They'd change sides tomorrow if the Nazis got here. I see a lot of them in my business. They admire Hitler at the bottom of their hearts. They'll always suck up to anyone who kicks them.”


Back then you could bully these people with charges of anti-Semitism; today you can only bully Muslims and the left has little interest in that.

Let's not forget the person to first ally with the Islamists was that renowned leftist Reagan in his fight against the USSR. I agree that for there is a fringe element of ex Maoists who see Islamist as a potential workers vanguard but this is not mainstream left opinion. I don't believe Corbyn holds these views (though he admittedly associates with those who do) they have little power in the party as recent events have shown.

Support for Islam and Muslim political movements is mainstream on the activist left. When someone wants more and more Muslims to immigrate to the country, they are invariably leftist. When someone wants concessions for Palestine or Iran, they are invariably leftist. When a borough (like Bradford West - Naz Shah won her seat from George Galloway) is contested principally on grounds of which candidate better represents Muslim interests, it is a contest between different branches of the left, not between left and rights.

That's not what I've heard. Livingstone is a piece of dirt but he usually refers to the appalling treatment of Palestinians (which is true- but doesn't take into account other factors)

I.e. he wants Palestinians to win their war with Israel, by making them immune to retaliation for use of dirty tactics in that war.

Correct me if I'm wrong but genocide is genocide. The holpcaust is obviously the worst s d most well known example but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include the Armenian genocide or what's happening to the yasidis. Dont really have a problem with this.

By no means an unreasonable argument. Also not an unreasonable argument in 1955. Note the sudden interest in this not unreasonable argument now that anti-Semitism no longer serves leftist propaganda purposes. Also note that these people reach for Armenia but not Ukraine or Cambodia.
It seems that certain people on this thread cannot differentiate between Muslims and Islamism, proving some leftists do have a point.
Original post by Observatory
Here is George Orwell describing the situation in 1945 - http://orwell.ru/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib

Although his point is that this sort of thing is basically nothing like German anti-Semitism, these quotes would be unimaginable (and certainly regarded as Hitlerian) in Britain today:


Sure I get that but those people weren't representative of the party as a whole - people like Attlee and Nevan were who were left wing AND opposed racism in all of its forms and weren't edgy extremists.


Back then you could bully these people with charges of anti-Semitism; today you can only bully Muslims and the left has little interest in that.


I should hope it doesn't want to bully Muslims - just the extremist elements found in all religions. There are many Muslims in left wing politics that are challenging the disgusting behaviour of a segment of britains Muslims- One of them is standing for mayor against an Islamophobic conservative campaign.

I should add that I would like to ban the burqa, outlaw circumcision and think Islam (like all religion) is dangerous superstitious nonsense.


Support for Islam and Muslim political movements is mainstream on the activist left.


But this can be (often rightly) be justified as reistsnce against dictators. And as I said, this was initially a cornerstone Reagan doctrine. Religion has little if anything to do with that.


When someone wants more and more Muslims to immigrate to the country, they are invariably leftist


No one on the left wants people to come from this country because they have to e.g through famine etc. but people on the left think broadly (wrongly or rightly ) that we should take them on out of common humanity not because they are Muslims and will bring on shariah.


. When someone wants concessions for Palestine or Iran, they are invariably leftist.


I don't particularly think there's a good side anywhere in the middle way with the exception of the Kurds and the domestic side of Israel. You could say the same about vicious dictators And the right wing.


When a borough (like Bradford West - Naz Shah won her seat from George Galloway) is contested principally on grounds of which candidate better represents Muslim interests, it is a contest between different branches of the left, not between left and rights.


Bit of a straw man; they're not going to vote for someone not in their interest too anyway? Besides Naz has rightly been suspended and hopefully she'll get sacked.


I.e. he wants Palestinians to win their war with Israel, by making them immune to retaliation for use of dirty tactics in that war.


Sometimes Israel is justified in its actions. Sometimes it isn't and usually the casualty ratio is something like 1 Israeli death for every 100 Palestinian and there has been a general escalation of OTT responses by Israell
Forces who are quite often as extremist as their opponents just with better equipment and training.


By no means an unreasonable argument. Also not an unreasonable argument in 1955. Note the sudden interest in this not unreasonable argument now that anti-Semitism no longer serves leftist propaganda purposes. Also note that these people reach for Armenia but not Ukraine or Cambodia.


1955 I don't get the reference?

First note: counter anti Semitic propaganda?

Second note: who do you mean by these people? Essentially student groups with no power and who will end up as an estate agent in twenty years time
Livingstone was not "speaking the truth", Hitler signing an agreement to get rid of the Jews to Israel as a short-term fix does not mean he was "Zionist". That is a ridiculous interpretation. And why on earth did he bring it up? What relevance does this agreement have with anything, unless he was very intentionally trying to make some kind of comparison between Zionism and Nazism? To make these kinds of statements, particularly just before the London mayoral elections and at a time when the Labour party is already being accused of being antisemitic, is just stupid. I don't think he's an antisemite but these comments are offensive enough to warrant a suspension at the very least.
Original post by Davij038
Sure I get that but those people weren't representative of the party as a whole - people like Attlee and Nevan were who were left wing AND opposed racism in all of its forms and weren't edgy extremists.

Neither my point nor his point is that the left at that time was guilty of casual anti-semitism (a disproportionate number of those examples are leftists, but probably because Orwell's social circle was disproportionately leftist) but that it was commonplace in the general population.

I should hope it doesn't want to bully Muslims - just the extremist elements found in all religions. There are many Muslims in left wing politics that are challenging the disgusting behaviour of a segment of britains Muslims- One of them is standing for mayor against an Islamophobic conservative campaign.

Anti-semitism is a characteristic of Muslims, not only Islamists. A large proportion of British Muslims believe that Mossad murdered Princess Diana and that Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks for instance. Casual anti-Semitism is endemic among Muslims and no more unusual than in 1945 a middle class woman saying "Jews push to the front of queues".

Now one can argue that "Jews push to the front of queues" is just a comment about queue-jumpers and not Jews per se, and that no doubt some Jews are queue jumpers who rightly deserve our disapproval. Or one can say that this is a trivial dislike of no political significance. However our judgement has been that this sort of comment should be viewed and punished as anti-Semitic and potentially dangerous. If you apply the same standards to Muslim comments on Jews and Israel, you find that a huge number Muslims, and probably most political Muslims, have said something that "goes too far".

This is the bind Labour is in: they want to ally with Muslims politically, but this means that they must either endorse or at least no object to anti-Semitic views that come with those Muslims. Naz Shah was suspended for a Twitter discussion about deporting Israeli Jews to America before she became an MP. No doubt she regarded that as a private exchange of uncontroversial views. In her own social context, it probably was. In the social context of Britain as a whole, her comments weren't acceptable.

So either Labour has to screen out candidates like Naz Shah, in which case they probably can't win constituencies like Bradford, or they have to endorse or tacitly endorse that sort of statement. So far they have chosen the latter course.

1955 I don't get the reference?

The Armenian genocide took place during the First World War. It has been known about for longer than the Holocaust has been a part of history. Yet we are hearing demands to teach about it only now. These demands are politically motivated, intended to dilute outrage about the Holocaust, not motivated by fairness concerns.

First note: counter anti Semitic propaganda?

Second note: who do you mean by these people? Essentially student groups with no power and who will end up as an estate agent in twenty years time

No, they are the future leftwing career politicians.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
x


A question: you disapprove of the "Jews push to the front of the queue" stereotype but have no problem stating that "Muslims are anti-Semitic", do you not find that to be at all ironic?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by WBZ144
A question: you disapprove of the "Jews push to the front of the cue" stereotype but have no problem stating that "Muslims are anti-Semitic", do you not find that to be at all ironic?

I didn't express approval or disapproval of that opinion; I observed that our society doesn't consider it an acceptable opinion, and I observed that it (perhaps for that reason) is no longer a commonly held opinion.

Here are some observations of British Muslims' opinions concerning Jews from Populus:


Agree that the Muslim community should boycott Holocaust Memorial Day: 56 percent.
Believe that Jews in Britain have too much influence over British foreign policy: 53 percent.
Believe that Jews in Britain are in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics: 46 percent.
Believe that Jews in Britain are "legitimate targets as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East": 37 percent.
Agree that the state of Israel has the no right to exist: 30 percent. (52 percent say has the right to exist. )
Agree that suicide bombings can be justified in Israel: 16 percent. (Among 18 to 24-year-olds: 21 percent.)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
I didn't express approval or disapproval of that opinion; I observed that our society doesn't consider it an acceptable opinion, and I observed that it (perhaps for that reason) is no longer a commonly held opinion.

Here are some observations of British Muslims' opinions concerning Jews from Populus:


Agree that the Muslim community should boycott Holocaust Memorial Day: 56 percent.
Believe that Jews in Britain have too much influence over British foreign policy: 53 percent.
Believe that Jews in Britain are in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics: 46 percent.
Believe that Jews in Britain are "legitimate targets as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East": 37 percent.
Agree that the state of Israel has the no right to exist: 30 percent. (52 percent say has the right to exist. )
Agree that suicide bombings can be justified in Israel: 16 percent. (Among 18 to 24-year-olds: 21 percent.)


1) Not all of the things mentioned relate to anti-Semitism.
2) In the case of those which do, a significant percentage agree with the opposite. So saying "Muslims are anti-Semitic" is just as stereotypical as "Jews jump to the front of the queue".
3) I can produce evidence of similarly controversial groups widely held among people in pretty much every society, certainly in Israel as well. That does not justify the demonisation of entire groups.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by WBZ144
1) Not all of the things mentioned relate to anti-Semitism.
2) In the case of those which do, a significant percentage agree with the opposite. So saying "Muslims are anti-Semitic" is just as stereotypical as "Jews jump to the front of the cue".
3) I can produce evidence similarly controversial groups held among people in pretty much every society, certainly in Israel as well. That does not justify the demonisation of entire groups.

You cannot find evidence of anti-Semitic views such as those being widespread in any other large section of British society.
Original post by Observatory
You cannot find evidence of anti-Semitic views such as those being widespread in any other large section of British society.


Not anti-Semitic per se but equally controversial/prejudice views held in nearly every society.

Quick Reply