The Labour Thread

[HertsWolf]

I'm sure they're making some of these shadow cabinet posts up.

Shadow Secretary for Disabled People
Shadow Secretary for Women and Equalities
Shadow Secretary for Cheese

I think it includes all Dairy Produce, to be fair.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

It was a bit childish as well. It's just exasperation with everything and everyone being described as racist.

Agreed - justice for Diane!

Japes aside I am very much on the Britain is not a racist shithole side of the fence. There are a very many things that are unsatisfactory about the UK but it's a relatively tolerant country and we're very fortunate that we can type inane bullshit from its shores without fear of reprisal.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ Okay, I was going to let this go, but…

She attributed a nasty and negative character trait to entire race of people. That's racist. I don't see much potential for productive discussion with people who think it isn't, but let's give this a go.

Concerns about power and structural inequality are legitimate and would be relevant if we were discussing racist discrimination (understood as something practiced and something related but essentially demarcated from mere racist sentiment/opinion) and how that adversely affects different people to varying degrees depending on their circumstances. But we're not.

Racist discrimination is predicated on a more fundamental problem, which is the human weakness for stupidity and the error of racist thought. The latter precedes the former, and it's the latter that I think dear Diane was/is guilty of. Remarks like hers might not be systematically keeping whitey down and/or reinforcing some kind of subtle but insidious and repressive power structure, but that doesn't mean she hasn't fallen into the error of racist thought.

In some ways, this reminds me of the many tedious debates I've had about benefits fraud. Sooner or later, my opponent will start prattling on about how corporate fraud is more costly and deleterious. They're right, but the point is irrelevant. Some twat feigning disability to scam the welfare state out of a few hundred quid per month is still fraud. It's still dishonest. It's still wrong. The fact that corporate fraud is more costly and socially deleterious does not provide a sufficient justification for saying benefits fraud is not fraud.

Similarly, the fact that blacks are more likely to be affected (and more adversely affected) by racism than whites does not mean that anti-white racism isn't racism. It doesn't mean we shouldn't call a black woman racist when she clearly and publicly expresses an opinion that betrays a racist point of view.

P.S. The number of places nicer to live in than Britain can be counted on one hand, and at least three of them are part of the wider Anglosphere.

P.P.S. Amusing (in a dispiriting sorta way) to see that Corbyn's ambivalence toward the EU didn't survive his first week as Leader.

 

[Naitch]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...o-Tories-after-Corbyn-victory-poll-finds.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cs-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html

Interesting results. Thoughts?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Scumbag - I'm actually largely with you on this one. I don't think she's a racist though (did she fall into the error of racist thought or was her remark simply clumsy and unthinking? It's worth remembering the context for this was a twitter discussion - not really the best forum for any sort of nuanced conversation about race relations). Either way she was rightly reprimanded for it and made a public apology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...o-Tories-after-Corbyn-victory-poll-finds.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cs-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html

Interesting results. Thoughts?

I think it's too early to draw any meaningful conclusions from this sort of polling. It could spell trouble for Labour but it's difficult to tell at this very early stage. Certainly, that Independent headline is misleading. The fifth of Lab voters they refer to as being more likely to vote Tory are not "lost" voters - they may still be intending to vote Labour for all we know.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

^ Okay, I was going to let this go, but…

She attributed a nasty and negative character trait to entire race of people. That's racist. I don't see much potential for productive discussion with people who think it isn't, but let's give this a go.

Concerns about power and structural inequality are legitimate and would be relevant if we were discussing racist discrimination (understood as something practiced and something related but essentially demarcated from mere racist sentiment/opinion) and how that adversely affects different people to varying degrees depending on their circumstances. But we're not.

Racist discrimination is predicated on a more fundamental problem, which is the human weakness for stupidity and the error of racist thought. The latter precedes the former, and it's the latter that I think dear Diane was/is guilty of. Remarks like hers might not be systematically keeping whitey down and/or reinforcing some kind of subtle but insidious and repressive power structure, but that doesn't mean she hasn't fallen into the error of racist thought.

We need to move beyond this conception of racism of something that is a property of individuals or the things that they do or say.

Racism is a structural inequality that privileges white people over people of colour (and that privileges certain people of colour over others but that's complicated).

Generalisations aren't necessarily great, but often they are harmless and sometimes they are helpful. Postmen hate dogs might be an entirely harmless generalisation. ACAB (all cops are bastards) is a generalisation that is not true and not fair, but for anyone that regularly finds themselves in conflict with the police, it's a generalisation that it is necessary to rely on in order to survive.

When generalisations intersect with (and feed into) structural oppressions and inequalities that is bad and dangerous. But that doesn't mean that all generalisations based on race are necessarily bad or dangerous. Combating racism doesn't mean pretending race doesn't exist - it means critiquing whiteness/white supremacy and that inevitably involves generalisation about white people that are not totally accurate.

Generalisations about white people are also necessary for white people to critique our own racism. One that I find useful is "white men talk too much in radical meetings". That's something that is a generalisation (albeit a fairly accurate one - even without the last three words), but is useful in order to be aware of race/gender in how we interact with others.

Those generalisations are not racist (and, I would argue are actively anti-racist) because they cut against the already existing structural oppression.

I remember reading a blog a while back about the experience of a Muslim female football fan that included this line:

"For a Muslim woman of colour, finding safe spaces is a continuous and necessary activity but as a football fan, this means avoiding stadiums full of intoxicated white men..."

While white people can pretend that race doesn't exist (as a construct, rather than as a biological thing) - that's not possible for people of colour because they need these generalisations or prejudicial assumptions just to stay alive/safe.

So while I'm not sure what Diane Abbott was helpful, it certainly wasn't racist.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I sometimes wonder whether you're actually a far-right activist that only says these things to try and ridicule progressives.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I sometimes wonder whether you're actually a far-right activist that only says these things to try and ridicule progressives.

That's because you don't read what I write or lack the comprehension skills to accurately parse what I'm saying.

Was legit going to write at the end of the previous post "cue Ebeneezer Goode calling me a parody". Ta for being predictable as fuck.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

That's because you don't read what I write or lack the comprehension skills to accurately parse what I'm saying.

Of course, that's the other progressive trope that the right poke fun at, that progressives say everyone who disagrees is ignorant. I'm on to you Herr Wrexham.

(and i've already refuted that line of thinking earlier in the thread)

Was legit going to write at the end of the previous post "cue Ebeneezer Goode calling me a parody". Ta for being predictable as fuck.

I should really wait for a cultural appropriation post to be sure.

 

[mnb089mnb]

I think it's too early to draw any meaningful conclusions from this sort of polling.

Are we going to pay attention to Polls any more? After the whole election DEBACLE and Corbyn DEBACLE, I'm not so sure.

 

[Aber gas]

I was in Wigan on Saturday at a Antifa shindig and the opinion on Corbyn was mainly positive apart from a couple of class war nutters. Talking to locals as well as activists the mood is upbeat but cautious. Personally I've not felt as energised to get out and get votes for the Labour Party in years.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Privilege checking? Did I just log into Tumblr by mistake?

 

[Aber gas]

Privilege checking? Did I just log into Tumblr by mistake?

What's " privilege checking ) ?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

What's " privilege checking ) ?

I used it as short-hand for "being more aware of how race/gender come into play in your interactions with other people". Or "trying to ensure that radical spaces aren't dominated by white men".

 

[Aber gas]

I used it as short-hand for "being more aware of how race/gender come into play in your interactions with other people". Or "trying to ensure that radical spaces aren't dominated by white men".

Right , ok .i wasn't aware of that phrase. Seems a fair enough way to interact with other people.

 

[HertsWolf]

I sometimes wonder whether you're actually a far-right activist that only says these things to try and ridicule progressives.

An alternative, and plausible, explanation is that he can articulate his thoughts well. I think there are many here who might not fully agree with what he has written, but will respect his thought and genuine assessment. He has done this without resorting to childish and inflammatory qualifiers like "Not in a million years..." or "That's an absurd false equivalence...". You should try it..

 

[HertsWolf]

Are we going to pay attention to Polls any more? After the whole election DEBACLE and Corbyn DEBACLE, I'm not so sure.

This is a very interesting topic. This article is your starter for ten.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Corbyn needs to take advantage of the fact that he's got a lot of younger people interested and talking about politics.

He should also use the fact that he doesn't fuck dead pigs as a drawing factor.

Just saw that in a poll the majority of people like his ideas regarding renationalising railways. Also just saw that the Nasty Party are thinking about cutting free school meals for infants which is fucking disgraceful.

5 more years of the Tories trying to kill the poor off, for fucks sake.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Re-Nationalising the railways might be a nice idea, but Corbyn would need not one, but two terms as PM to get it done. Only 2 or 3 of the franchises actually come up for renewal before 2025 and so could theoretically be nationalised in the next term of government.

I don't understand why it's such a headline policy at the moment when it's going to be irrelevant for years. There's more achievable and bigger issues they could be focused on.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Right , ok .i wasn't aware of that phrase. Seems a fair enough way to interact with other people.

Actually, it's short hand for I'm an edgy 19 year old middle class white girl with a gender studies degree and a chip on my shoulder who lives in a fantasy world where privilege is a rigid structure defined entirely by specific traits and rarely on the context of the person's lived experience.

Or, you know, the other one

 

[smat]

Actually, it's short hand for I'm an edgy 19 year old middle class white girl with a gender studies degree and a chip on my shoulder who lives in a fantasy world where privilege is a rigid structure defined entirely by specific traits and rarely on the context of the person's lived experience.

Or, you know, the other one

Very unlikely she'd have a degree at 19, you fucking idiot.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Very unlikely she'd have a degree at 19, you fucking idiot.

 

[rudebwoyben]

Very unlikely she'd have a degree at 19, you fucking idiot.

Unless she was a child genius.
And these terms do come from experiences that people live in their lives as well.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Unless she was a child genius.
And these terms do come from experiences that people live in their lives as well.

The point was more arbitrarily deciding that a person who happens to be white, male, straight etc (or whatever other qualifier you want to use) is automatically more "privileged" without considering the specific context of their own personal experience and the wide variables of how different situations produce different outcomes in terms of who has advantages is erroneous.

 

[rudebwoyben]

The point was more arbitrarily deciding that a person who happens to be white, male, straight etc (or whatever other qualifier you want to use) is automatically more "privileged" without considering the specific context of their own personal experience and the wide variables of how different situations produce different outcomes in terms of who has advantages is erroneous.

The thing is that they (or we) really are. There are some significant differences within groups of people but everything else being equal, being a white, straight male puts you in a privileged position.

 

[TheMinsterman]

The thing is that they (or we) really are. There are some significant differences within groups of people but everything else being equal, being a white, straight male puts you in a privileged position.

Depends on the context and what circumstances you're talking about though. A white, straight, male born into a low income family working a minimum wage job is certainly a lot less privileged than an black, lesbian, female born into a upper-middle class family with connections and a secure 30k+ income. This is what I mean by context, there is a tendency to make tacit assumptions that white + male + straight = automatically privileged over x y and z. When applying for scholarships, as a male I actually had access to fewer scholarships, despite being now in the minority in terms of gender in my discipline, in that context it's actually women with "privilege" as they as more likely to get funded based solely on their gender, yet there's obviously countless other scenarios where actually as a male I'd be privileged over them. This is why I feel the whole concept is too rigid, who has "privilege" varies depending on the situation, whilst it's not unfair to make generalised observations like by and large x are more privileged than y the issue is a lot of people who use the terminology want to treat it as black and white instead of shades of grey.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

A white, straight, male born into a low income family working a minimum wage job is certainly a lot less privileged than an black, lesbian, female born into a upper-middle class family with connections and a secure 30k+ income.

He would be in an economic sense, but in other ways he'd enjoy greater privilege. I think the concept of privilege is basically designed to encourage an awareness of how experiences may differ based upon someone's relative privilege in a particular area. I can understand why some find it a somewhat flawed concept but I don't think it's intended to be as rigid a notion as you describe.

 

[TheMinsterman]

He would be in an economic sense, but in other ways he'd enjoy greater privilege. I think the concept of privilege is basically designed to encourage an awareness of how experiences may differ based upon someone's relative privilege in a particular area. I can understand why some find it a somewhat flawed concept but I don't think it's intended to be as rigid a notion as you describe.

He would, yes, but then that illustrates my point, that privileges are quite fluid and very much dependent on circumstances. In some he may have the advantage, in other's she would, but unfortunately only one of them would be described as "uniquely privileged" and assumed to be "better off overall" based primarily on his sex and race, despite the fact that if you weigh up numerous other factors he may not be more privileged. A lot of people don't utilise the concept as intended, rather as a means of shutting down conversation.

A light hearted quip about Tumblr seems to have gotten a little deeper

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Scumbag - I'm actually largely with you on this one. I don't think she's a racist though (did she fall into the error of racist thought or was her remark simply clumsy and unthinking? It's worth remembering the context for this was a twitter discussion - not really the best forum for any sort of nuanced conversation about race relations).

If you see it as a clumsy remark made in a medium that is particularly conducive to clumsy remarks, that's your prerogative. But at the risk of sounding petty and tribal (moi?), I think me seeing it that way would require a level of generosity one seldom (read, NEVER) encounters when the shoe is on the other foot, i.e. when the faux pas is by someone on the right.

The next time some no-mark arsehat from UKIP tweets something non-PC about women, muslims or gays, I don't imagine this forum's merry band of liberal 'progressives' will dismiss it as clumsy. I don't imagine they'll offer some kind of exculpatory 'contextualisation' by pointing out the limitations of the medium in which the offending remark was made. My money would be on hair-trigger sensitivity and easy demonisation. But we'll see…

A lot of people don't utilise the concept as intended, rather as a means of shutting down conversation.

Bingo. No problem with people telling me to check my privilege if they then proceed to offer a challenging counterargument, preferably one that contains points I couldn't see because my cossetted middle class white male existence blinded me to them.

But that's quite rare. It's usually used to express disapproval at the mere occurrence of me having an opinion about subject X – be it me (as a man) having an opinion on abortion, or me (as a white person) having a view on affirmative action, or me (as someone reasonably well off) having a view about state welfare.

So you're quite right to be sceptical. It could be used (and occasionally is) as a useful concept, one that encourages more thoughtful and open-minded debate. But more often than not, in my experience, it's wielded as a weapon, one used to shut people up and shut certain lines of enquiry down. Identity politics at its most reactionary, divisive and thoughtless.

A light hearted quip about Tumblr seems to have gotten a little deeper

You should try arguing that a black female lefty is racist. Response to Wrexham will follow in due course...

 

[HertsWolf]

The next time some no-mark arsehat from UKIP tweets something non-PC about women, muslims or gays, I don't imagine this forum's merry band of liberal 'progressives' will dismiss it as clumsy. I don't imagine they'll offer some kind of exculpatory 'contextualisation' by pointing out the limitations of the medium in which the offending remark was made. My money would be on hair-trigger sensitivity and easy demonisation. But we'll see.

Not all the liberal 'progressives' (not sure why scare quotes are needed) are ready to jump down the throats of people making clumsy mistakes or faux pas. Us liberal progressives tend to make far more clumsy mistakes or faux pas than most. Possibly because we just don't stop talking and tend to go on and on and on. And on and on and on and on...