#521
[account deactivated]
#522

Panopticon posted:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donor-takes-corbyn-to-court-over-ballot-rules-69x952l5k



so the guy bringing the court challenge is this guy
SwXJwfP9qKk&start;=480

#523
haha this is the creepiest article. the tortured passive constructions, the mysteriously silent video. its a masterpiece http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-29510317
#524
#525
no wait that's wrong, she didn't even attempt to catch it
#526

Panopticon posted:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx



https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jul/19/yes-jeremy-corbyn-has-suffered-a-bad-press-but-wheres-the-harm

In view of the results of our study, the British people also deserve a different kind of political journalism, critical yes, but also respectful of difference and civic.”

But I wonder if that really is what the British people want? Do they hunger for unbiased political coverage? Do they want politicians treated with respect?

I am not in the least bit surprised by the coverage of Corbyn. With something like 80% of his parliamentary party against him, would democracy benefit from a failure to reflect that reality?

I think we can presume that Labour MPs are not susceptible to press spin. Similarly, the fact that there is - according to that Times/YouGov poll - a healthy majority in favour of Corbyn among Labour members, they are not being influenced by the coverage. So where’s the proof of harm?

As for the readers of the eight titles, can anyone demonstrate that the negative coverage of Corbyn has unduly influenced their readerships?



Same exact response as liberals in America wrt Hillary's emails. haha you thought you didn't live in a dystopian corporate hell, what a noob. I already knew that thats why I embrace death <- smug liberals the world over

#527
https://medium.com/@casi_insurgente/pretending-to-be-someone-else-23ddcc767c23#.g03g5g1z0

Moreover, since we all know that ending the “madness” of Corbynism means pivoting back towards mostly middle-class swing voters, this makes it likely that the pitch is for the working class to be saved by middle-class people convincing other middle-class people that their grievances are real.

#528

If Keir Hardie and pals could make a party of left-wing parliamentary reform with pamphlets and handbills, surely it could be done in the era of smart phones, Snapchat and Whatsapp?

#529
im going to conduct all my revolutionary activity via snapchat since it self-deletes after 24 hours. better yet, perhaps Mark Cuban's Cyber Dust
#530
[account deactivated]
#531
[account deactivated]
#532
Nafeez Ahmed has done some interesting investigations into the quilliam foundation, it's a real honeypot

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733
#533
xipe thanks for your posts about the latest fuckers groups they're good.
#534
#535
#536
the labour party has just won a significant victory against the labour party
#537
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_symbols#2010s
#538

Panopticon posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_symbols#2010s


lol gaben is there too

#539

c_man posted:

Panopticon posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_symbols#2010s

lol gaben is there too




"We see you, reddit army. But it's FHM #100Sexiest Women. Your votes for Gabe Newell will sadly not be counted"

*cites anyway*

Edited by drwhat ()

#540
i got banned from teh labour subreddit for posting this

#541
that's kind of a crazy looking thing to post though imo.
#542
elie weisel died. we're all jews now
#543

Themselves posted:

elie weisel died. we're all jews now


i mean, hitler died, and we're all hitlers now, so the logic checks out.

#544
Quilliam foundation also receives a bunch of money from fake neuroscientist and White supremacist spoiled fascist rich kid Sam Harris. Harris is the inventor of the term "regressive left" also, so seeing a quillism creep use it shows how enmeshed the new athiest movement is with warmongering fascist cunts.

Btw I have about 3000 words on this topic that will soon be posted
#545
Yes please
#546
the labour party has won its appeal against the labour party, bad news for the labour party and a big win for the labour party
#547
"The court's ruling disenfranchises nearly 130,000 Labour members who joined the party since January and were explicitly told that they would have a vote in any leadership election."

He said there were "serious questions" over "why and how the NEC Procedures Committee brought this appeal".

"In doing so, it effectively risked new members' money on an attempt to disenfranchise them."

ooh yea, politics baby!!
#548
i cant follow this crap. like yesterday didn't they say the members would be allowed in? british politics seems incredibly arbitrary, especially for a people with such a boner for rules and procedure a Hassidim would tell them to smoke some weed
#549
the nec said no, some labour people took it to court, the court said yes, the nec appealed to a higher court, the higher court said no.

i think there's still the supreme court and the european court of human rights left so it's not quite driven into the ground yet
#550

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

i cant follow this crap. like yesterday didn't they say the members would be allowed in? british politics seems incredibly arbitrary, especially for a people with such a boner for rules and procedure a Hassidim would tell them to smoke some weed

it got appealed and immediately reversed. british politics is ran on tradition and ritual, not rules or laws fromw hat i can tell

like the longest-running freemason meeting but the conspiracy theories of pederasty and drugs are a matter of course.

e: oh and theya llow women obv

#551
the party told people who had registered they coudl vote but then made special rules to stop them because they realized they would vote for corbyn instead of warmongering blairite safe corporate yes-men. a court said that was no bueno. the party appealed the decision that would have allowed voting by people who joined recently and were told they could vote. the party won the appeal so now the people cant vote again unless they paid up UK$25 on those two days of open registration. it really is hilarious. like theyre so openly anti-democratic and evil there. i mean ive heard it said that it's not liek voting in a US presidential primary, that these memberships are supposed to be like serious meeting-attending members and not just a form of mass voting but still...
#552
American rule of law mendaciously claims to be based on fair and logical principles, whereas the British precedent system is completely open and honest about being a time honored tradition of feudal overlords shitting on you because they can. It is really just a matter of aesthetic preference.
#553
wait sam harris isnt actually a real neuroscientist? lmao
#554
wait sam harris isnt actually a real neuroscientist? lmao
#555

ilmdge posted:

i mean ive heard it said that it's not liek voting in a US presidential primary, that these memberships are supposed to be like serious meeting-attending members and not just a form of mass voting but still...

It's true that membership is supposed to mean participation and commitment rather than just simple registration but the issue is more complicated because it's a labour party. Like, it evolved from a tradition where the idea was to directly affiliate labour unions to a political party that represented their interests. So labour unions were supposed to have say in the direction of the party and the election of officers. You could also join as an independent member.

The central issue is that they had a rule that independent members had to pay 25 pounds (which is very high for a membership fee) or that if you joined through an affiliate (like a labour union or christian socialists or whatever) that you would pay the fee for that affiliate society. Then labour unions created a pathway where essentially you joined an affiliate for free. This wouldn't normally be a bad thing, because a labour party wants people to join unions and support the labour party. But yeah, it is a problem insofar as it allows random people to join for free to support a socialist, which is extremely dangerous for Blairites.

Personally, if you aren't willing to pay 25 pounds to support the glorious cause of socialist revolution, you ain't shit, and shouldn't be allowed to vote for reformist troll Jeremy Corbyn.

#556
The other problem is that the council is googling members and if they see that you were like "Fuck this, Miliband doesn't know how to eat a sandwich, I'm voting Green" in 2015, they will cancel your membership based on the principle that you're a supporter of another party. Which is an immoral decision but one that is rigorously upheld in the courts for the same basic reason that, like, the Catholic Church can't be taken to court to force it to offer communion to gays. This is actually the main reason this rule exists, too - it was developed as a sort of defensive weapon against Trotskyists, who would join en masse somewhere like Birmingham, take over the local Labour Party, and terrify all the people who wanted to win elections by embracing savage austerity. So they created 2 core rules which are replicated around the world in labour parties:

1. You can't be a member of a parallel political organization with a mandate separate from the interests of Labour Party as determined by national council.
2. You can't call for the creation of a new party while a member of the Labour Party, except through the statutes of the Labour Party.

This sound innocuous but are actually laser-targeted at Trotskyists and such, because Trotsky insisted on two core principles in relation to labour parties:

1. That revolutionary socialist organizations maintain their independence and not liquidate themselves into Labour Parties that they joined for tactical reasons.
2. To use work within Labour Parties to call for the creation of a new worker's party with a consistent socialist platform.

These rules were used to kick out large numbers of socialists, who eventually got the idea and jumped ship en masse in "open turns" into small parties that quickly faded into irrelevance. Meanwhile, people joined back up by saying they supported the two main rules by saying they weren't actually independent organizations (they organized around a paper called Socialist Appeal and such) and by saying they weren't calling for a new party (they said the Labour Party could become a revolutionary party), which is clever and also a lie.

In Canada, our social-democratic party has the same rules, although it hasn't used them too often recently, but there's a contested leadership race coming, so all bets are off. They did threaten to use them in a situation where our reformist youth party was overtaken by a Trotskyist group, but the situation was solved when the central party called for a quick second vote, which was then stacked by careerist types (the socialists couldn't afford to send everyone to a second rump c convention, obviously), ending the threat of relevance to the working class. The resolutions they put out in response to criticize the Trotskyists is worth posting here:

1. ONDY Commitments

Whereas the doctrines of Socialism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism run opposed to the NDP and CCF's principles of social democracy and co-operation;
...
And whereas much of the history of the party has been ordinary people fighting to define a social democracy outside of the confines of socialist rhetoric, socialist hierarchy and socialist thought control;

And whereas in many countries where the doctrine of Socialism is implemented, human rights are stomped, opposition is crushed and basic human dignity is impugned;

And whereas New Democrats support a co-operative commonwealth in Canada that cannot be accomplished through Socialist hierarchy, Socialist patronage, and Socialist idealogical orthodoxy;

And whereas New Democrats believe that a co-operative commonwealth in Canada can be built through the greater co-operation of peoples at the local level, elevating up in the form of co-operative and non-profit housing, banking institutions, farm production, stores and other units of the economy;

And whereas the doctrine of Socialism's centralization of power will ensure that a social democracy and locally built economy can never have happen;

Be it resolved that we in ONDY commit to the principles of social democracy, in solidarity with generations and generations of CCF/NDPers since the party and movement was founded;

Be it further resolved that we in ONDY condemn the doctrine of Socialism as generations of CCF/NDPers have and hopefully always will.

2. Trotskyism

Whereas it is longstanding tactic of Trotskyists ever since the 1930s to attempt to takeover and hijack social democratic organizations, a tactic called "entryism";
And whereas it is often the case that Trotskyists in ONDY vote as a block, having made their mind up on an issue before discussion occurs, to pursue their goals, where non-invading ONDYers may be more independent in their thoughts or choose to be in solidarity with the ONDY as a whole;

Whereas the tactic of "entryism" can be fatal to an organization, as was the case when the NDP of Australia was taken over and dismantled by the Trotskyists, as detailed in the article "How the Trots Destroyed the Nuclear Disarmament Party" by Peter Myers;

And whereas ONDY encourages the discussion of measures to implement social democratic principles, but does not entertain those that do not have those basic principles of social democracy and co-operation because those viewpoints are not humane and are foreign to the New Democratic Party and its predecessors;
And whereas the doctrines of Socialism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism run opposed to the NDP and CCF's principles of social democracy and co-operation;

And whereas there are many Communist political parties in Canada where Trotskyists can find a home;

Be it resolved that the Ontario New Democratic Youth approves and applauds the decision of the ONDY Executive to de-charter the Toronto Young New Democrats.
Be it further resolved that the Ontario New Democratic Youth will de-charter and dismember all Trotskyist blocks and organizations that may linger in ONDY, and actively prevent the takeover of ONDY conventions and councils.

3. Co-operative Exercises

Whereas we in ONDY believe the social democracy of our CCF/NDP is about local control, democracy, work and human dignity led by an individual sense of responsibility, solidarity and collective love;

And whereas we in ONDY believe this vision of Canada can only happen if citizens begin practicising more collective ways of living, working and playing;
Therefore be it resolved that ONDY conventions and councils include "co-operative" exercises where ONDYites participate and work together to achieve goals.

4. Committee of Social Democrats

Whereas the removal of the doctrine of Trotskyism from ONDY and its Communist centralization of power and poor treatment of people is a great stride toward the resurgence of social democracy and co-operation in ONDY that are the principles of New Democrats of the past, those greatest Canadians;

Whereas ONDYites are eager to explore co-operation and social democracy and to learn of how we can do this in our present society, soon:

Be it resolved that the ONDY convention form a committee of social democrats that will meet to learn about, research and actively do the principles of co-operation and social democracy that were articulated by the founders of the party and adapted over the years by New Democrats.

#557

aerdil posted:

wait sam harris isnt actually a real neuroscientist? lmao



he paid for other people do to his PhD for him. he founded a group called Project Reason with private money which in turn almost entirely funded his phd.

re: the PhD itself, Harris didn't actually do any of the experimental work which is staggering. anyway the phd probably only got accepted because he paid for it, and also it was doing dodgy pseudo-scientific fMRI localization stuff which was all the rage in the 00's so it got ushered through

#558
i mostly know sam harris from that one video he did (ted talks?) called "science can answer moral questions" where he handwaves the humean guillotine by saying that we don't care about rocks therefore morality must be objective
#559
yeah hes been trying for years to get published in philosophy journals but cant because he's a joke. he has nothing to say about moral philosophy at all, every argument he's ever made has already been thoroughly addressed 40 years previously in various places of Serious Discussion.
#560
I fuckin hate that guy!!!