Current Affairs GB News

[dead_soft]

What part is daft? Simply moaning about everything being 'rigged' isn't doing anything about it. You're essentially saying 'we can't win so sod it'.

Again it comes down to thinking short term. I'm talking long term - it isn't possible to win immediately, but it's possible to at least get on the field and compete.

The aim of the left should be to start throwing darts at the middle of the dartboard and hit something, rather than aim for treble 20 and hit nothing, because they're crap at darts.

If you're trying to get on to the field to play darts it may explain a lot.

 

[tsubaki]

What part is daft? Simply moaning about everything being 'rigged' isn't doing anything about it. You're essentially saying 'we can't win so sod it'.

Again it comes down to thinking short term. I'm talking long term - it isn't possible to win immediately, but it's possible to at least get on the field and compete.

The aim of the left should be to start throwing darts at the middle of the dartboard and hit something, rather than aim for treble 20 and hit nothing, because they're crap at darts.

... but do what different, though? I’d love to see some form of mass engagement of people at the local level, but no doubt we’d all be told about cults again.

 

[Tubey]

... but do what different, though? I’d love to see some form of mass engagement of people at the local level, but no doubt we’d all be told about cults again.

In a social media age, you can't mobilise as efficiently, as it's too fluid a platform.

However, you still have leaders who can structure the methodology.



^ if a load of notable people on the left adopted this message and logic, cancelling would become less of an appeal and people would 'cancel the cancellers' so to speak.

It's largely about having the ability to call out your own side. This is a critical point - the ability to say 'hang on, I agree with you on most things, but on this you're well off'.

Consider the right - when they see Tommy Robinson, they don't go all in and defend Tommy Robinson because he's ideologically similar. Or the BBC reporter attacked the other day, you won't see right wing media defending that act, at least not overtly.

But tear down a statue, burn a flag, deface a cenotaph, not accepting the definition of anti-semitism, not acknowledging the extent of anti-semitism in a political party etc. etc. etc. and the left desperately try to justify it, pinning their flag to the mast.

These things all add up. Individually they won't annoy all, but they'll annoy some and as such you lose the war for ideas over time. It's a trickle effect, like sand through an hourglass.

 

[dead_soft]

In a social media age, you can't mobilise as efficiently, as it's too fluid a platform.

However, you still have leaders who can structure the methodology.



^ if a load of notable people on the left adopted this message and logic, cancelling would become less of an appeal and people would 'cancel the cancellers' so to speak.

It's largely about having the ability to call out your own side. This is a critical point - the ability to say 'hang on, I agree with you on most things, but on this you're well off'.

Consider the right - when they see Tommy Robinson, they don't go all in and defend Tommy Robinson because he's ideologically similar. Or the BBC reporter attacked the other day, you won't see right wing media defending that act, at least not overtly.

But tear down a statue, burn a flag, deface a cenotaph, not accepting the definition of anti-semitism, not acknowledging the extent of anti-semitism in a political party etc. etc. etc. and the left desperately try to justify it, pinning their flag to the mast.

These things all add up. Individually they won't annoy all, but they'll annoy some and as such you lose the war for ideas over time. It's a trickle effect, like sand through an hourglass.

Tearing down a statue and burning a flag aren't big deals though and maybe even fine as a protest - they aren't losing the left elections. It doesn't work to say 'they don't defend Tommy Robinson' because they are not two sides of the same coin. People like Robinson - bad people trying to create violence and division because they see their race as better.
BLM - wanting to bring down the system of governance and power structures because they see them as unequal and designed to create issues. You may not agree with that but it doesn't work to say, 'well the right say Robinson is bad, so you should say BLM are bad'. The framing of this as two sides of the same coin is a classic trick used to try and create the 'the left can't compromise' nonsense and you keep trying to sell it.

The anti-semitism is a different thing - I've seen quite a few on the left saying that they agreed it needed done. I mean, the Labour Party itself created a enquiry and have thrown out party members over it.

 

[mill]

In a social media age, you can't mobilise as efficiently, as it's too fluid a platform.

However, you still have leaders who can structure the methodology.



^ if a load of notable people on the left adopted this message and logic, cancelling would become less of an appeal and people would 'cancel the cancellers' so to speak.

It's largely about having the ability to call out your own side. This is a critical point - the ability to say 'hang on, I agree with you on most things, but on this you're well off'.

Consider the right - when they see Tommy Robinson, they don't go all in and defend Tommy Robinson because he's ideologically similar. Or the BBC reporter attacked the other day, you won't see right wing media defending that act, at least not overtly.

But tear down a statue, burn a flag, deface a cenotaph, not accepting the definition of anti-semitism, not acknowledging the extent of anti-semitism in a political party etc. etc. etc. and the left desperately try to justify it, pinning their flag to the mast.

These things all add up. Individually they won't annoy all, but they'll annoy some and as such you lose the war for ideas over time. It's a trickle effect, like sand through an hourglass.

You seem to be saying that the rights’ silence on the extreme parts of their party is a good thing here.

Is that correct?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

They get advertisers to pull out.

Nah just capitalism working how it should, there should be no room for cronyism.

 

[Tubey]

You seem to be saying that the rights’ silence on the extreme parts of their party is a good thing here.

Is that correct?

It's not silence, it's simply not supporting it. It's streamlining their own narrative so it's harder to attack them and paint by association, and they do it instinctively. They know what "plays well" with the larger public.

It's smart. You might not like it, but it's smart.

 

[mill]

It's not silence, it's simply not supporting it. It's streamlining their own narrative so it's harder to attack them and paint by association, and they do it instinctively. They know what "plays well" with the larger public.

It's smart. You might not like it, but it's smart.

By the same token, you condemned the left for not calling out anti semitism.
That seems inconsistent to me.
In either case, standing by and doing nothing *is* supporting it. However, implicitly.

 

[Tubey]

Tearing down a statue and burning a flag aren't big deals though and maybe even fine as a protest - they aren't losing the left elections. It doesn't work to say 'they don't defend Tommy Robinson' because they are not two sides of the same coin. People like Robinson - bad people trying to create violence and division because they see their race as better.
BLM - wanting to bring down the system of governance and power structures because they see them as unequal and designed to create issues. You may not agree with that but it doesn't work to say, 'well the right say Robinson is bad, so you should say BLM are bad'. The framing of this as two sides of the same coin is a classic trick used to try and create the 'the left can't compromise' nonsense and you keep trying to sell it.

The anti-semitism is a different thing - I've seen quite a few on the left saying that they agreed it needed done. I mean, the Labour Party itself created a enquiry and have thrown out party members over it.

They're not big deals to you. To many others, they are. It's what they remember, the lasting impression. You don't believe me when I tell you Starmer/Rayner taking the knee utterly obliterated any chance of a Labour vote for swathes of people, because to you it sounds just too stupid to be true - but it is true. The public by and large go on the superficial. They see something they don't like, and it sticks, and if it doesn't stick first time, the right wing media are very good at banging the drum so it sticks eventually. They capitalise on unforced errors extremely well.

Compare to the Tories, who have people like Desmond Swayne denying votes in parliament on very obviously good issues 'just because' and it doesn't make a dent, because the Tories disown them and keep the narrative clear. It's not about false equivalence, it's saying what "plays" with the larger public. Labour/the left can't compete until they realise that they can't keep alienating large chunks of the public in the name of ideological purity. If something doesn't work, don't keep doing it, as there has to be a bigger picture in play.

As an FYI, I've just genuinely Googled this because I forgot his name and it worked.

 

[tsubaki]

In a social media age, you can't mobilise as efficiently, as it's too fluid a platform.

However, you still have leaders who can structure the methodology.



^ if a load of notable people on the left adopted this message and logic, cancelling would become less of an appeal and people would 'cancel the cancellers' so to speak.

It's largely about having the ability to call out your own side. This is a critical point - the ability to say 'hang on, I agree with you on most things, but on this you're well off'.

Consider the right - when they see Tommy Robinson, they don't go all in and defend Tommy Robinson because he's ideologically similar. Or the BBC reporter attacked the other day, you won't see right wing media defending that act, at least not overtly.

But tear down a statue, burn a flag, deface a cenotaph, not accepting the definition of anti-semitism, not acknowledging the extent of anti-semitism in a political party etc. etc. etc. and the left desperately try to justify it, pinning their flag to the mast.

These things all add up. Individually they won't annoy all, but they'll annoy some and as such you lose the war for ideas over time. It's a trickle effect, like sand through an hourglass.

You’ve just disproved your own point though - yes, having a good argument and logic on your side is great but it will only ever result in (to use Ross as an example) selective quoting and fabrication resulting in her case being accused of crazy stuff like hating white women, or how she is demanding the right of incarcerated criminals to have sex and babies in prison.

People (like you, sadly) will then associate that with her and anyone accused of being like her, as you’ve done here yourself when you conflate “the left” with desecrating war memorials or ignoring anti-semitism.

 

[Tubey]

By the same token, you condemned the left for not calling out anti semitism.
That seems inconsistent to me.
In either case, standing by and doing nothing *is* supporting it. However, implicitly.

Eh?

No, the right disown effectively by not condoning the extreme.

The left don't disown them because they try to defend it.

Therein is the difference. The left should have called out anti-semitism strongly, in the same way the Tories do with Islamophobia, even if in practice they do sod all actually about it, because all that matters is the superficial optics of it.

 

[Tubey]

You’ve just disproved your own point though - yes, having a good argument and logic on your side is great but it will only ever result in (to use Ross as an example) selective quoting and fabrication resulting in her case being accused of crazy stuff like hating white women, or how she is demanding the right of incarcerated criminals to have sex and babies in prison.

People (like you, sadly) will then associate that with her and anyone accused of being like her, as you’ve done here yourself when you conflate “the left” with desecrating war memorials or ignoring anti-semitism.

I've said several times that no strategy is perfect. Of course you'll always find holes. No one person is infallable. But something that is somewhat effective is better than something which is obviously counter-productive.

If you have the ability to call out your own, you refine your position over time and find fewer holes.

 

[mill]

Eh?

No, the right disown effectively by not condoning the extreme.

The left don't disown them because they try to defend it.

Therein is the difference. The left should have called out anti-semitism strongly, in the same way the Tories do with Islamophobia, even if in practice they do sod all actually about it, because all that matters is the superficial optics of it.

You think the right have come down strongly on islamophobia in a way that the left haven’t for anti semitism? And they’ve done that by completely ignoring Tommy Robinson.

I think you are tying yourself in knots to be honest.

I’ll leave it there.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

By the same token, you condemned the left for not calling out anti semitism.
That seems inconsistent to me.
In either case, standing by and doing nothing *is* supporting it. However, implicitly.

Trouble with the far right (permanent angry), is they ignore the vast amount of people who are in the centre. It's a lazy response from those in the permanent angry spectrum against anyone questioning them that we are all a bunch of Labour loving lefties woke types, which is very often not the case at all.

 

[Tubey]

You think the right have come down strongly on islamophobia in a way that the left haven’t for anti semitism? And they’ve done that by completely ignoring Tommy Robinson.

I think you are tying yourself in knots to be honest.

I’ll leave it there.

No, they appeared to to the public by disowning instances of it when it occurs. I've just said the reality is they've done sod all about it and Islamophobia is rife in the Tory party, but they handle it in such a way that it doesn't hit with the public.

Your desire to disagree with me no matter what is blinding you to the obvious - that the right are better at binning off anything that hurts them electorally than the left are. I'm not saying anything controversial here.