c4countdown

Neither Scrabble nor Focal have women's categories so it's not an issue. Whether they should or not could be debated, although personally I am not a fan!

In the past, Countdown have had a ladies' championship - I can see some merit in encouraging more women to play/apply, but it does send a message that "women can't compete with men" (the likes of Florence shows they clearly can!). Having said that, if there's another, then sign me up!

We used to have men v Ladies competitions in Scrabble and it was a fairly even affair given it wasn't a rated event so the elite players didn't always play.
It might be something worth considering for focal but it's probably not a popular idea.
Doing a bit of research I would say women are probably better than men at more graceful sports like gymnastics.
Also shooting competitions are quite even

On the pool thing, if it's just that fewer women play than men, then there's no need for a separate women's category on the basis of fairness, but there could still be interest/demand anyway, and I don't think it's necessarily too outrageous to have a women's category. In any case, while there might not be an obvious physical reason why women can't compete with men at the top level, human biology is complex and it's not ruled that that there might be non-obvious reasons why males tend to be better (and obviously vice versa in certain things). That being the case, if you are going to have a female category, it does make sense to base it on sex rather than gender identity.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 10:59 am On the pool thing, if it's just that fewer women play than men, then there's no need for a separate women's category on the basis of fairness, but there could still be interest/demand anyway, and I don't think it's necessarily too outrageous to have a women's category. In any case, while there might not be an obvious physical reason why women can't compete with men at the top level, human biology is complex and it's not ruled that that there might be non-obvious reasons why males tend to be better (and obviously vice versa in certain things). That being the case, if you are going to have a female category, it does make sense to base it on sex rather than gender identity.

I think the thought of a man being bested by a woman being a bit embarrassing is still a thing.
Im sure it was a reason why women's football in this country was not ratified by the FA for years.

Interestingly football is virtually a non contact sport nowadays and I can see the day when a men v women match might happen if only as a charity event

As well as being America's lapdog in joining in with the attacks on the Houthis, Rishi Sunak has spoken out against South Africa's case against Israel.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Mr Sunak believed South Africa's case was "completely unjustified and wrong."

"The UK government stands by Israel's clear right to defend itself within the framework of international law," he said.

He's going all in on this, but I think he's going to end up on the wrong side of history.

Edit - Plus he shouldn't really be commenting on ongoing court cases in such a manner. It's unprofessional.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 1:12 pm As well as being America's lapdog in joining in with the attacks on the Houthis, Rishi Sunak has spoken out against South Africa's case against Israel.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Mr Sunak believed South Africa's case was "completely unjustified and wrong."

"The UK government stands by Israel's clear right to defend itself within the framework of international law," he said.

He's going all in on this, but I think he's going to end up on the wrong side of history.

Edit - Plus he shouldn't really be commenting on ongoing court cases in such a manner. It's unprofessional.

Not sure how you can get every single word of a post as wrong as you have just done.

I typed out a long response to this, then realised it wasn’t worth it.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 2:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 1:12 pm As well as being America's lapdog in joining in with the attacks on the Houthis, Rishi Sunak has spoken out against South Africa's case against Israel.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Mr Sunak believed South Africa's case was "completely unjustified and wrong."

"The UK government stands by Israel's clear right to defend itself within the framework of international law," he said.

He's going all in on this, but I think he's going to end up on the wrong side of history.

Edit - Plus he shouldn't really be commenting on ongoing court cases in such a manner. It's unprofessional.

Not sure how you can get every single word of a post as wrong as you have just done.

I typed out a long response to this, then realised it wasn’t worth it.

But then you rendered your post pointless.

Just to add to the above, Sunak speaking out in that way suggests delusions of grandeur. His opinion is irrelevant. The ICJ is much bigger than him in this regard.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:16 pm Just to add to the above, Sunak speaking out in that way suggests delusions of grandeur. His opinion is irrelevant. The ICJ is much bigger than him in this regard.

This means nothing to me.
I have delusions of Midge Ure

This is a very good song by Biden and Netenyahu.

If anyone was still in any doubt over whether what Israel is doing is reasonable or not, even the Tories (specifically the guy off the street they recruited to be foreign secretary) are having doubts over the latest move to attack Rafah.

Edit - And Biden as well.

"I wasn't a vile antisemite, I just fell for an online hoax."

Well that's all right then, Mr Ali...

Well actually believing something about what the Israeli government might have done is not racist, and so not anti-Semitic. The same standards apply across the board. Criticising a government, even if not based in truth, does not make one a racist, whatever the country is. Israel does not have special status in this regard.

Having said that, it can come from a racist mindset but it doesn't have to.

Here's a thing. I think the term anti-Semitic (or antisemitic) is generally not a good one to use. If someone is racist against black people, they are racist. If they are racist against Asian people, they are racist. But if they are racist against Jewish people, they are anti-Semitic. Why does it matter? Well, it allows people to "weaponise" the term and sneakily import rules that wouldn't apply to racism in general, and that's what people do all the time. So just ask yourself when someone is using the term, would it make sense if they used the word "racist" instead.

You'd never get away with just shouting "Racist!" at someone for criticising a country's government. But somehow you can call them anti-Semitic and it sticks.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 6:26 pm Here's a thing. I think the term anti-Semitic (or antisemitic) is generally not a good one to use. If someone is racist against black people, they are racist. If they are racist against Asian people, they are racist. But if they are racist against Jewish people, they are anti-Semitic. Why does it matter? Well, it allows people to "weaponise" the term and sneakily import rules that wouldn't apply to racism in general, and that's what people do all the time. So just ask yourself when someone is using the term, would it make sense if they used the word "racist" instead.

You'd never get away with just shouting "Racist!" at someone for criticising a country's government. But somehow you can call them anti-Semitic and it sticks.

You can be anti zionist but not an anti semite
There is a Jews against Zionism group
The same as beeing anti Nazi and not anti German

You can be anti zionist but not an anti semite
There is a Jews against Zionism group
The same as beeing anti Nazi and not anti German

Anti Zionism nowadays is almost as meaningless as Zionism. And in both cases, it's usually just some term to hide behind some fascist, racist or just ignorant agendas.

Well actually believing something about what the Israeli government might have done is not racist

Yup, that's true, question is whether the will to believe and express this bull crap isn't rooted in racsim beyond just general stupidity and populism. Didn't know this Ali guy until this week, so no idea.

Here's a thing. I think the term anti-Semitic (or antisemitic) is generally not a good one to use.

Here I disagree. The fact that there's a certain term for a specific sub group of a more general group isn't a problem. The anti- prefix isn't reserved only for Jews, but many other groups, races, religions, so being specific isn't a problem here at all and doesn't imply that it's different from other forms of racism.
The only problem with the term is its inaccuracy. The Semitic peoples also include other races (including arabs). And in fact, the original use (mid 19th century) did refer it as hatred/superiority against Semitic peoples and not specifically Jews.

And about the ongoing war, I think people have to remember that one side is led by an insane narcissists, who doesn't seem to care about his own people or in conducting the war to some conclusion, knowing that if the war ends now, he's politically dead. So his actions are purely political, against the interest of his own people or ending the conflict. Placing his insane blind followers in key positions and giving power to Nazi terrorists.

And the other side is led by Sinwar.

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:30 am Here I disagree. The fact that there's a certain term for a specific sub group of a more general group isn't a problem. The anti- prefix isn't reserved only for Jews, but many other groups, races, religions, so being specific isn't a problem here at all and doesn't imply that it's different from other forms of racism.
The only problem with the term is its inaccuracy. The Semitic peoples also include other races (including arabs). And in fact, the original use (mid 19th century) did refer it as hatred/superiority against Semitic peoples and not specifically Jews.

I think part of the problem is not just that there is a separate term, but the name. There is also e.g. Islamophobia, but it hasn't gained the same traction as a way of attempting to discredit someone.

With antisemitism, as well as being inaccurate, it's quite opaque. Most people don't know what it means to be Semitic. So when someone is called antisemitic, that makes it harder to counter for someone who isn't necessarily well versed in things.

So a separate term like anti-Jewish, or anti-Jewish racist, would work better and be more transparent and possibly harder to weaponise.

I don't think the term antisemitism is a problem. It is literally inaccurate, but it has taken the known meaning of racism against Jews. So no problem and the term itself doesn't make it more weaponisable than any other term representing hate towards a certain group.

About antisemitism used to counter anti Israeli sentiments, I agree with you, and it's a way to dismiss valid points against the government of Israel.
But... it also works in the other direction, many people who claim to not be racist and only criticise Israel, actually express pure antisemite opinions. Recent example are some heads of Ivy League universities unable to say that calling for a genocide against Jews is a hate crime. Or just people on social media (even peace seeking nice people on my FB for example) having a valid post against Israeli war crimes in Gaza / occupation of the west bank, but then ending it with the "From the river to the sea" phrase which is basically a call for an ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel.

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 3:20 pm Or just people on social media (even peace seeking nice people on my FB for example) having a valid post against Israeli war crimes in Gaza / occupation of the west bank, but then ending it with the "From the river to the sea" phrase which is basically a call for an ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel.

This is controversial though. I don't think it's the case at all that everyone using the phrase is using it to mean this. However, given that it is taken by many to be an antisemitic phrase, it is probably best avoided anyway, because any point you're trying to make will likely get missed while you defend yourself against such accusations.

The Guardian discusses it here. And the New York Times. I think it's best described as complicated.

I think it's best described as a clear call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Either just a "soft" destruction of the regime, or outright ethnic cleansing, doesn't matter.

Making out new complicated meanings to defend idiots? I pass.

This is quite an interesting speech at the ICJ about Israel's crimes against Palestine over the years.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 4:38 pm This is quite an interesting speech at the ICJ about Israel's crimes against Palestine over the years.

I noticed he mentions 1967 but not it's significance.
Agreed that the attacks against Israel were not Palestinian but the reason was to create a fortress for Israel.
But it's time we had a Palestinian state

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 4:59 pm I think it's best described as a clear call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Either just a "soft" destruction of the regime, or outright ethnic cleansing, doesn't matter.

Making out new complicated meanings to defend idiots? I pass.

Would a single secular state in the region with freedom for current Israelis and Palestinians be such a bad idea?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:20 pm

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 4:59 pm I think it's best described as a clear call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Either just a "soft" destruction of the regime, or outright ethnic cleansing, doesn't matter.

Making out new complicated meanings to defend idiots? I pass.

Would a single secular state in the region with freedom for current Israelis and Palestinians be such a bad idea?

Wish it wasn't. But there are too many nationalistic and religious nuts for that. A two state solution is probably the only long term solution.

Look, I'm against the Israeli occupation with all my heart, it's a heinous war crime.

But I think I have a problem with your messages justifying the horrible people on the other side. Albeit downplaying the 7.10 massacre (earlier), or trying to justify calls for the extermination of Israel (From the river to the sea). Just because some idiots or outright horrible people are on your side (there are too many on either side), doesn't mean you need to justify them.

My intention has never been to downplay the Hamas terrorist attack on 7/10. I've just focused more on the Israeli response because it's ongoing, larger in scale, and has western support (so seen as acceptable by many people), and so is more of a political talking point in that respect. As for the "from the river to the sea" thing, it's just that I don't think it's always said with ill intent, and as far as egregious things are said and done against Jews, this is not one I would focus on.

I don't think we're probably in massive opposition with each other in general over this.

I get where you're coming from, we probably do agree on most stuff. But I just find some of your arguements way too one dimensional. Also, there are quite a lot reliable sources to justify your position, but you seem to go back time and time again to some demagogue who seems to extract his knowledge from internet talkbacks (yes, I mean Owen Jones)

I haven't mentioned Owen Jones for a while, and I don't rely on him. I just think he puts points across well sometimes. The last video I linked to was from the ICJ. My arguments aren't one-dimensional and I have in any case explained why I have focused more on criticising Israel.

You "play the man" too much and it's not a good argumentation technique.

In defence of Tal (not that he needs defending), he's affected by this shitshow very directly, where as the rest of us have the privilege of commentating from the sidelines.

I think if you were designing the solution from scratch you'd have one utopian democratic state where everyone lived happily, equally and harmoniously. But there is far too much history, hatred, prejudice and religion for that to happen in the foreseeable. It's a mess, with no obvious solution.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 8:57 pm In defence of Tal (not that he needs defending), he's affected by this shitshow very directly, where as the rest of us have the privilege of commentating from the sidelines.

I think if you were designing the solution from scratch you'd have one utopian democratic state where everyone lived happily, equally and harmoniously. But there is far too much history, hatred, prejudice and religion for that to happen in the foreseeable. It's a mess, with no obvious solution.

Although I wasn't directly affected by The Troubles in the 70s and 80s but a solution (compromise) was eventually reached so I live in hope for Israel/Palestine.
But probably not whilst Benni is still in charge

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 9:02 pm
But probably not whilst Benni is still in charge

He's an incurable disease. It's unbelievable how much Bibi just openly shows he cares much more about his political position than about the country he "leads" during crisis.

Main problem is that he has begun to genuinely believe the shit his cult of followers think about him. He really does believe that him remaining prime minister is far more important than whatever shit show is going on in Gaza and internally.
And as long as his last remaining allies are all religious loons and Neo Nazi Zionists, his policy will appease them.
This war brought him to an all time low in popularity. But in the almost three years left until the next elections, he can do so much more damage. And continue not giving a fuck.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 7:28 pm I haven't mentioned Owen Jones for a while, and I don't rely on him. I just think he puts points across well sometimes. The last video I linked to was from the ICJ. My arguments aren't one-dimensional and I have in any case explained why I have focused more on criticising Israel.

You "play the man" too much and it's not a good argumentation technique.

I get why you focus more on criticising Israel. I also focus more on criticising Israel.
I just say that not everybody who criticises Israel is of a sound mind and not with ill intentions.
And I gave OJ as an example, since he's the one you usually share (tried a couple of those, it's terrible), but this ICJ isn't much different, I listened to the first 10 minutes or so, and he just omits any part of that history that doesn't fit the speaker's opinion, and as a result putting many of his arguments out of context.
Look, you know my opinions by now. The the occupation must end, the Nakba displacement was to a large extend premeditated by the Jews of Palestine, Israel should seek a cease fire in Gaza, Israel does not do it more due to insane nationalists and politics than military goals, etc etc etc, much closer to you than to the average Israeli (not to mention the Bibi followers).
I just don't see the point, for example, in going back to that River to the sea discussion today, or the point in putting a half an hour out of context rant. Even if this guy has similar conclusions and a gorgeous robe.

Interested to see George Galloways speech on Gaza

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:46 pm I was having a play around with some HMRC numbers to see what the impact of a completely different income tax structure would be.

I'm calling this the Jono proposal and my idea is a 20k tax free allowance, then 10% on all earnings to 50k, then 75% on all earnings above that.

- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury

Obviously this will hurt those who earn 100k+. Those in the 100k-150k bracket will on average have their net monthly wage reduced to a measly £5,300 per month.

Would it fly? I doubt it. Partly (mostly?) because the 1m people who would lose out in this system have a louder voice than the 30m who would benefit.

As well as the above, Capital Gains Tax being 20% is an absolute joke. It should be at least double.

It could be argued that Capital Gains sometimes come in the form of risky investments (similar to gambling which is not taxed) so the tax on that should take into account the expected gains rather than just the actual gains. Though it would be very different for different investments so probably not workable.

I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:35 am I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

I stared at this for a while, but I'm still lost as to what it means.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:33 am Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:52 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:35 am I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

I stared at this for a while, but I'm still lost as to what it means.

He means the Taoiseach. But anyway it seems obvious you shouldn't be picking people because of their colour.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:53 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:33 am Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Because Nike have been marketing it (at a rip-off price too) as "look how woke we are", which is entirely self-defeating.

Now do that with the US or Saudi flags, Nike. I beg you.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:53 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:33 am Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Whenever something like this dominates the headlines, it's usually to distract from something else. Rishi and co drum up a lot of hype about a complete non-issue, to distract from their colossal failings and so they can put out a message of "putting British values before wokeism", which wins them a few votes from the idiots out there daft enough to lap up their crap. Keir Starmer has fallen in to the trap of giving his input on it when he should have just ignored it, which was probably what they intended.

Anyone who actually cares about this really needs to give their head a wobble. We've got millions in poverty and the thing politicians care about is a tiny flag on a football shirt.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:17 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:52 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:35 am I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

I stared at this for a while, but I'm still lost as to what it means.

He means the Taoiseach. But anyway it seems obvious you shouldn't be picking people because of their colour.

The most recent Taoiseach was multiracial and gay so I think the diversity box was well ticked.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:25 pm

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:53 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:33 am Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Whenever something like this dominates the headlines, it's usually to distract from something else. Rishi and co drum up a lot of hype about a complete non-issue, to distract from their colossal failings and so they can put out a message of "putting British values before wokeism", which wins them a few votes from the idiots out there daft enough to lap up their crap. Keir Starmer has fallen in to the trap of giving his input on it when he should have just ignored it, which was probably what they intended.

Anyone who actually cares about this really needs to give their head a wobble. We've got millions in poverty and the thing politicians care about is a tiny flag on a football shirt.

I wouldn't let Starmer off the hook by saying he's fallen into a trap. He's shown his colours many times. He's not a force for good

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:28 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 1:25 pm

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:53 am

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Whenever something like this dominates the headlines, it's usually to distract from something else. Rishi and co drum up a lot of hype about a complete non-issue, to distract from their colossal failings and so they can put out a message of "putting British values before wokeism", which wins them a few votes from the idiots out there daft enough to lap up their crap. Keir Starmer has fallen in to the trap of giving his input on it when he should have just ignored it, which was probably what they intended.

Anyone who actually cares about this really needs to give their head a wobble. We've got millions in poverty and the thing politicians care about is a tiny flag on a football shirt.

I wouldn't let Starmer off the hook by saying he's fallen into a trap. He's shown his colours many times. He's not a force for good

Oh for sure I don't think he's all roses. But from a strategic point of view, he'd have been far better off ignoring it.

Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

I was talking with a friend of mine a couple of days ago, following an argument we had (mostly him, I give up on idiots after one message) with other members of some Formula 1 Whatsapp group following Hamilton latest Gaza comments. He was considered there self hating, anti Israeli, disgusting etc, just for stating the obvious, that there is a lot of suffering in Gaza, many innocent victims, and that Israel uses excessive force on many occasions.

After he gave up, we switched to messaging privately, how we both get a lot of negative responses not only from Israelis who consider our opinions anti-Israeli, but also for stating the same opinions with people condemning Israel. The main problem in this discussion (and the reason I started commenting here a few weeks ago), is that most people choose a side, and completely disregard any complexity or facts that might undermine their strong opinion. It's very easy today since most people just choose their information sources based on their opinions, regardless of how reliable and complete the info they get.

This identity politics really ruins any chance of actual discussion, people think that if one agrees with 90% or 95% of opinions on one side, they must be ALL IN, all the time, and agree even with the lunacy and ignorance of the remaining 10%.

Regardless (just that this is the first time somebody commented here since I had this talk with that friend a week ago), the attack on the WCK is indefensible. It could (and probably is) be attributed to the fact that in any war in history there were such erroneous attacks, but the IDF in too many occasions is very trigger happy.

Sure, and I wonder if you include me in that "all in" thing based on things said earlier. But I absolutely do not support Hamas. I criticise Israel in particular because the UK and a lot of western countries support it and there is (though getting less so) disagreement and debate over whether their actions are acceptable. And obviously the extent of what they have done far outweighs Hamas's capabilities.

On identity politics more broadly, there are "left" views and "right" views on a multitude of seemingly unrelated topics, and quite often people do just seem to have the view of their tribe on each one.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:16 am Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

Never would defend Benni

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:29 pm Sure, and I wonder if you include me in that "all in" thing based on things said earlier. But I absolutely do not support Hamas. I criticise Israel in particular because the UK and a lot of western countries support it and there is (though getting less so) disagreement and debate over whether their actions are acceptable. And obviously the extent of what they have done far outweighs Hamas's capabilities.

On identity politics more broadly, there are "left" views and "right" views on a multitude of seemingly unrelated topics, and quite often people do just seem to have the view of their tribe on each one.

Yes Gavin, I absolutely include you here. I'll refrain from all the specific examples to not bring back old arguments.

But in general, I'm left (radical left, both socially/economically and on the Israeli political scale in relation to Palestine). And I'm well aware that the insane opinions resulting from identity politics are much more insane and much more damaging coming from the right.

But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

or how much of an idiot do you have to be to pop this question out of your mouth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4lzBS6saAs

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:16 am Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

Never would defend Benni

Until I got to this forum, I didn't know you gentiles refer to Bibi as Benni.

I just refer to him as "that insane guy who holds Israel hostage and will continue shitting everything up until he dies (hopefully tomorrow)". Name a bit long, but quite catchy.

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:56 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:29 pm Sure, and I wonder if you include me in that "all in" thing based on things said earlier.

Yes Gavin, I absolutely include you here. I'll refrain from all the specific examples to not bring back old arguments.

That's fine because I also consider you to simplistically put people into a category rather than addressing their points or attempting to understand where they are coming from, meaning that you often wildly miss the point. I will also refrain from all the specific examples to not bring back old arguments.

I think I addressed these points, and was quite specific what bothered me about them, otherwise you wouldn't have thought I was including you there. I understand where you're coming from also. I just think that some of your comments are outrageous while intentionally ignoring key facts.

And that's the problem here, because it's so easy to justifiably criticise Israel without them.

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:59 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:16 am Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

Never would defend Benni

Until I got to this forum, I didn't know you gentiles refer to Bibi as Benni.

I just refer to him as "that insane guy who holds Israel hostage and will continue shitting everything up until he dies (hopefully tomorrow)". Name a bit long, but quite catchy.

Well my mum was Jewish so I don't consider myself a gentile but a mudblood, Jew at best

I say Benni as I'm don't always spell his surname right

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 2:58 pm

Well my mum was Jewish so I don't consider myself a gentile but a mudblood, Jew at best

I say Benni as I'm don't always spell his surname right

Ignore the gentile thingie, was just wondering about the Benni name, considering everybody in Israel refers to him as Bibi, also in the US.
Just use the nickname Obama administration officials gave him (Chickenshit).

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:56 pm But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:57 pm

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:56 pm But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

How is any of this relevant to the fact that three Ivy League deans are too stupid to say that a call for genocide is hate speech?

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:33 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:57 pm

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:56 pm But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

How is any of this relevant to the fact that three Ivy League deans are too stupid to say that a call for genocide is hate speech?

The clip agrees with you. They acknowledge the deans' response was poor. But there's more to the clip that might interest people on this forum.

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 2:44 pm I think I addressed these points, and was quite specific what bothered me about them, otherwise you wouldn't have thought I was including you there. I understand where you're coming from also. I just think that some of your comments are outrageous while intentionally ignoring key facts.

And that's the problem here, because it's so easy to justifiably criticise Israel without them.

Well among other things, you posted this:

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 4:33 pm
But I think I have a problem with your messages justifying the horrible people on the other side. Albeit downplaying the 7.10 massacre (earlier), or trying to justify calls for the extermination of Israel (From the river to the sea). Just because some idiots or outright horrible people are on your side (there are too many on either side), doesn't mean you need to justify them.

Which is just bullshit.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:08 am

Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:33 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:57 pm

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

How is any of this relevant to the fact that three Ivy League deans are too stupid to say that a call for genocide is hate speech?

The clip agrees with you. They acknowledge the deans' response was poor. But there's more to the clip that might interest people on this forum.

It is weird that they didn't just condemn calls for a genocide of Jews. They could have just done that and dealt with any further questions about might what constitute a call for genocide as they came.

In the other news, Conservative Alan Duncan has gone rogue in an LBC interview, calling out members of the Conservative party for supporting Israel, and is now under investigation from the party.