Obliquely, perhaps Mosley is guilty of no more than having earned enough money to turn his fantasies into reality.
I think that is part of the interest in it all, certainly - that sort of decadence fits in quite well with all the formula one stuff. It's a bit James Bond playboy?
...
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age.
Are you saying:
A) That racism is inherited (itself an argument for eugenics), or
B) That facists don't love their children?
No to both! What I mean is that he grew up in a fascist environment and was active in fascist politics from an early age. And not just that, his parents were imprisoned for a few years for their Nazi sympathies shortly after he was born. He was refused entry to several schools. He was sent to boarding school. He was involved with street fighting protecting his dad. He spent his early years hanging out with some of Europe's scummiest fascist scumbags. He met his wife at a fascist meeting.
I mean, call me a liberal, but that isn't the sort of start in life I would like for anyone.
You liberal!
If his parents were hunt sabs, squatters or "good drug" (not crack) dealers you'd be praising them, and him.
Here is a man who has risen to the top of his profession. Here is a man that you likened to James Bond, and quite rightly. Like Bond James Bond, Mosley is an international jet-setter. (Unlike Bond, he isn't a misogynistic assassin, except perhaps when he is with professional consent-givers.) Here is a man who can, quite literally, take his dreams for reality.
So either you think
A. This is down to the great start in life that his loving jailbird fascist parents gave him, or
B. He has triumphed over adversity to get where he is today
Both admirable; neither objectionable; pick one, Liberal...
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Freedom as a transaction 3
TJI an off-topic thread on gamesfaqs.com (I've corrected some spelling):
While I definitely do not believe or follow the Christian religion, I do respect the right for others to believe in it, and I do not persecute them.
It is because that same right also gives other faiths, and non-faiths, the ability to express their viewpoints without fear of persecution as well (rather, protection from it.).
If someone Christian (or other faith) bashes me for not being Christian (or whatever faith they subscribe to), I judge and disrespect that individual, but not the religion or believers as a whole.
Is this view of freedom as a transaction:
A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.
A.
I think it's an OK starting point, certainly better than "death to all unbelievers!".
But there is a confusion there about expressing a different opinion and persecution. I reserve the right to criticise, examine and take the piss out of anyone's beliefs (and expect the same in return).
Of course the transactional approach falls down when some belief systems include inalienable and eternal "truths" which contradict other systems.
The trade there could be: I won't mention my inalienable truths that contradict your system, if you won't mention your inalienable truths that contradict my system. Or try these:
I won't make you uncomfortable if you don't make me uncomfortable, or
I won't say anything that you will feel forced to contradict, if you don't say anything that I will be forced to contradict
The topic could now be good manners, rather than freedom.
A transaction implies the existence of two (or more) parties, but the reverse is not true. The existence of two people does not imply a transaction between them. Two non-transacting people might each live within their own separate definitions of freedom. But their definitions would have to begin "I am free to do anything that does not involve a transaction with another person."
What actions would that definition allow? I suppose it would allow one person to have a sexual fantasy about the other, or a violent fantasy. But I digress...
The point I was eventually going to make is: defining freedom without reference to other people is useless. So any non-transactional definition of freedom is necessarily flawed.
While I definitely do not believe or follow the Christian religion, I do respect the right for others to believe in it, and I do not persecute them.
It is because that same right also gives other faiths, and non-faiths, the ability to express their viewpoints without fear of persecution as well (rather, protection from it.).
If someone Christian (or other faith) bashes me for not being Christian (or whatever faith they subscribe to), I judge and disrespect that individual, but not the religion or believers as a whole.
Is this view of freedom as a transaction:
A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.
A.
I think it's an OK starting point, certainly better than "death to all unbelievers!".
But there is a confusion there about expressing a different opinion and persecution. I reserve the right to criticise, examine and take the piss out of anyone's beliefs (and expect the same in return).
Of course the transactional approach falls down when some belief systems include inalienable and eternal "truths" which contradict other systems.
The trade there could be: I won't mention my inalienable truths that contradict your system, if you won't mention your inalienable truths that contradict my system. Or try these:
I won't make you uncomfortable if you don't make me uncomfortable, or
I won't say anything that you will feel forced to contradict, if you don't say anything that I will be forced to contradict
The topic could now be good manners, rather than freedom.
A transaction implies the existence of two (or more) parties, but the reverse is not true. The existence of two people does not imply a transaction between them. Two non-transacting people might each live within their own separate definitions of freedom. But their definitions would have to begin "I am free to do anything that does not involve a transaction with another person."
What actions would that definition allow? I suppose it would allow one person to have a sexual fantasy about the other, or a violent fantasy. But I digress...
The point I was eventually going to make is: defining freedom without reference to other people is useless. So any non-transactional definition of freedom is necessarily flawed.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Anti-semitism and the state of Israel 4
In the news today was a piece about there being more Anti-Semitic attacks lately
It would help if you provided a reference... where are the attacks and who is doing them?
Whom would it help? Certainly not anybody wanting dialogue instead of fact-checking
My point is that anti-semitism and racist attacks take different forms and are done for different reasons.
There could be all sorts of reasons for the attacks in the minds of the attackers which may or may not be the real reason for their actions. For example neo-nazis may attack jews because they believe that they are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy the white race.
I do not buy that anybody seriously believes that. The white race destruction conspiracy may be the story they tell themselves over and over until they're in their hate zone.
Well clearly some people do seriously believe that, which is why documents like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are still being circulated and why holocaust revisionism is still happening.
However their actual motivation may be that they are trying to compensate for psychological inadequacies.
Their inadequacies may be more basic. I can believe that what's going on there is "You may have more money and success than me but I can duff you up good." Pretty much straight envy.
I think most people experience envy, but most people do not translate this envy into violence. One of the reasons this might happen in some instances is psychological.
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Well different segments of the media are biased in different ways, so you would have to ask the attackers how they formed their views I think.
Yes, I'm sure the attackers would be willing and able to enter a well-formed discourse on the matter. They'd probably mention their psychological inadequacies.Then again, in not asking them I am perhaps falling into the same trap that they have. After all, racist bully-boys are humans too.
Indeed. I think talking to racists is only one factor in identifying the causes of racism and one has to be careful not to take everything they say at face value. I've just finished reading Michael Billig's "Fascists: The Social Psychology of the National Front" in which he interviews a number of NF members as well as analysing NF literature. Actually the interviews (and analysis thereof) were more interesting than you would think - people do often reveal a fair bit about themselves without realising it.
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
No, they are striking a blow for racism.
Specifically, racism towards Jewish people. If Israel wasn't (being reported as) oppressing Palestine, would they be striking a blow for racism towards somebody else?
Possibly. Maybe they would branch out into homophobic violence or wife-beating instead? There are many options available for the violently minded.
I wonder what the relative levels of racism are in Europe at present? It seems to me that anti-arab/asian racism (sometimes under the guise of Islamophobia) is greater than anti-semitism. Certainly the casual racism I witness seems directed more towards black people than Jewish people.
A Jewish guy living in England opens the newspaper one morning. The headline is about Israeli oppression in Palestine and he's all like, "thanks guys."By the end of the day he's had so much race-hate directed at him he wants to leave the country."Where can I go?" he asks himself.The same paper that has Israeli Oppression on the front page has the rise of European Antisemitism on the second page.Maybe this is why people move to Israel? And once they're there, somewhere has to be found for them to live. It's a feedback loop.
Maybe. Perhaps they'd be just as likely to move to Golders Green or New York, though?
It would help if you provided a reference... where are the attacks and who is doing them?
Whom would it help? Certainly not anybody wanting dialogue instead of fact-checking
My point is that anti-semitism and racist attacks take different forms and are done for different reasons.
There could be all sorts of reasons for the attacks in the minds of the attackers which may or may not be the real reason for their actions. For example neo-nazis may attack jews because they believe that they are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy the white race.
I do not buy that anybody seriously believes that. The white race destruction conspiracy may be the story they tell themselves over and over until they're in their hate zone.
Well clearly some people do seriously believe that, which is why documents like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are still being circulated and why holocaust revisionism is still happening.
However their actual motivation may be that they are trying to compensate for psychological inadequacies.
Their inadequacies may be more basic. I can believe that what's going on there is "You may have more money and success than me but I can duff you up good." Pretty much straight envy.
I think most people experience envy, but most people do not translate this envy into violence. One of the reasons this might happen in some instances is psychological.
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Well different segments of the media are biased in different ways, so you would have to ask the attackers how they formed their views I think.
Yes, I'm sure the attackers would be willing and able to enter a well-formed discourse on the matter. They'd probably mention their psychological inadequacies.Then again, in not asking them I am perhaps falling into the same trap that they have. After all, racist bully-boys are humans too.
Indeed. I think talking to racists is only one factor in identifying the causes of racism and one has to be careful not to take everything they say at face value. I've just finished reading Michael Billig's "Fascists: The Social Psychology of the National Front" in which he interviews a number of NF members as well as analysing NF literature. Actually the interviews (and analysis thereof) were more interesting than you would think - people do often reveal a fair bit about themselves without realising it.
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
No, they are striking a blow for racism.
Specifically, racism towards Jewish people. If Israel wasn't (being reported as) oppressing Palestine, would they be striking a blow for racism towards somebody else?
Possibly. Maybe they would branch out into homophobic violence or wife-beating instead? There are many options available for the violently minded.
I wonder what the relative levels of racism are in Europe at present? It seems to me that anti-arab/asian racism (sometimes under the guise of Islamophobia) is greater than anti-semitism. Certainly the casual racism I witness seems directed more towards black people than Jewish people.
A Jewish guy living in England opens the newspaper one morning. The headline is about Israeli oppression in Palestine and he's all like, "thanks guys."By the end of the day he's had so much race-hate directed at him he wants to leave the country."Where can I go?" he asks himself.The same paper that has Israeli Oppression on the front page has the rise of European Antisemitism on the second page.Maybe this is why people move to Israel? And once they're there, somewhere has to be found for them to live. It's a feedback loop.
Maybe. Perhaps they'd be just as likely to move to Golders Green or New York, though?
Freedom as a transaction 2
TJI an off-topic thread on gamesfaqs.com (I've corrected some spelling):
While I definitely do not believe or follow the Christian religion, I do respect the right for others to believe in it, and I do not persecute them.
It is because that same right also gives other faiths, and non-faiths, the ability to express their viewpoints without fear of persecution as well (rather, protection from it.).
If someone Christian (or other faith) bashes me for not being Christian (or whatever faith they subscribe to), I judge and disrespect that individual, but not the religion or believers as a whole.
Is this view of freedom as a transaction:
A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.
A.
I think it's an OK starting point, certainly better than "death to all unbelievers!".
But there is a confusion there about expressing a different opinion and persecution. I reserve the right to criticise, examine and take the piss out of anyone's beliefs (and expect the same in return).
Of course the transactional approach falls down when some belief systems include inalienable and eternal "truths" which contradict other systems.
While I definitely do not believe or follow the Christian religion, I do respect the right for others to believe in it, and I do not persecute them.
It is because that same right also gives other faiths, and non-faiths, the ability to express their viewpoints without fear of persecution as well (rather, protection from it.).
If someone Christian (or other faith) bashes me for not being Christian (or whatever faith they subscribe to), I judge and disrespect that individual, but not the religion or believers as a whole.
Is this view of freedom as a transaction:
A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.
A.
I think it's an OK starting point, certainly better than "death to all unbelievers!".
But there is a confusion there about expressing a different opinion and persecution. I reserve the right to criticise, examine and take the piss out of anyone's beliefs (and expect the same in return).
Of course the transactional approach falls down when some belief systems include inalienable and eternal "truths" which contradict other systems.
Mosley 4
Interestingly, I didn't mention the News of the World. Does this indicate a blind spot, i.e. that I have accepted the facts as presented? (Or is it because I'd rather discuss the concepts?)
Well I think the media likes to paint itself as impartial (just reporting "the facts") and therefore invisible/not worth commenting on.
What is it that's so sexy about pixellation? (That's a genuine question. I think it's hot.)
I think it's the same as wearing a mask (which can also be hot, depending on the mask I guess). I reckon the human brain likes to fill in the gaps and assumes that someone in a sexualised scenario (pixelated face + fishnets + story about spanking) will be sexy. For me it's about context - I don't think pixellated faces in tv documentaries about corporate fraud are sexy.
Another approach would have been to try to uncover evidence of Mosley's involvement in fascist organisations or associations with people on the far right. Or examples of racism in his day to day interactions.
That'd be intriguing, if he was racist day-to-day. I wonder if this question was asked in the trial? Not having looked at the pixellated ladies, I don't know if any of them were Jewish, black, gypsies or any other group oppressed by the Nazis. I believe the Nazis also sent homosexuals and the disabled to their camps.
Doubtful whether you'd get a straight answer to the question in this day and age. Obviously he was brought up in a racist family and there doesn't seem to be any "road to damascus" conversion to non-racism that I have seen. It is interesting like you say...
There could be a relationship between a person's daily life and the sexual scenarios that they construct. Some sequences of events that I guess may be typical:
A man is rejected by a blonde woman. The next evening he hires a blonde prostitute.
A second man sees the blonde woman, finds her attractive, but says nothing to her. The next evening he hires the same blonde prostitute as the first man.
A third man seduces the blonde woman, having met her in a bar. The next evening he hires the blonde prostitute to urinate on him.
Which if these men do you admire, despise or pity and why?
I'm not sure I admire or despise men who hire prostitutes, for whatever reason. I might pity them I guess. The third one seems to be having the most fun, maybe? :-)
Obliquely, perhaps Mosley is guilty of no more than having earned enough money to turn his fantasies into reality.
I think that is part of the interest in it all, certainly - that sort of decadence fits in quite well with all the formula one stuff. It's a bit James Bond playboy?
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age.
Are you saying:
A) That racism is inherited (itself an argument for eugenics), or
B) That facists don't love their children?
No to both! What I mean is that he grew up in a fascist environment and was active in fascist politics from an early age. And not just that, his parents were imprisoned for a few years for their nazi sympathies shortly after he was born. He was refused entry to several schools. He was sent to boarding school. He was involved with street fighting protecting his dad. He spent his early years hanging out with some of europes scummiest fascist scumbags. He met his wife at a fascist meeting.
I mean, call me a liberal, but that isn't the sort of start in life I would like for anyone.
One thing which seems to be completely absent from the recent coverage is information on his current political views.
How a person votes is, of course, confidential. Thank god we live in a free country.
Ha ha. He has spent a large chunk of his life as a political activist though, for the Union Movement and for the Conservatives. He's also made a number of statements about formula 1 having to "go green".
But if enjoyed s&m wouldn't you have told your partner at some point? Then again, Mosley may have been saying what he said that to keep his wife out of it. For all we know, she may have been just as bad.
It's possible that his wife doesn't enjoy s&m or that they are not able to discuss such things, it would seem that many people are not. She may have been off doing all sorts of things but there is no evidence for this so it seems reasonable to assume that he (like many men) was putting about and she wasn't.
How would you feel about a scenario with a disturbed schizophrenic?
I think there might be issues of consent there, so probably a no-no.
I think most people would not tell their partners that they were engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes, or indeed with anyone else.
What if their partner happened to say that they considered it quite alright to visit a prostitute? Would they then reveal it?
It would depend - I'm sure part of the thrill is the illicit nature of the act and the secrecy?
So I think my conclusion is that Mosley is clearly objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the News of the World.
I'm not buying product from either of them, so far as I know. (Well, I pay a TV license fee and a cable TV subscription so I'm probably contributing some money to F1 as a sport.)
Have the Screws lost circulation as a result of losing the case? Outraged of Aldershot writes "Dear Sir, Imagine my disappointment at discovering that a recent piece of investigative journalism was in fact an invasion of privacy. Although all other articles in your esteemed organ are investigative, and not invasive, I now feel too ashamed to purchase future numbers of the News and shall instead be giving my custom to the People."
I think the screw's reputation has diminishd in the minds of people who do not read it. But it's also probably attracted more readers who enjoy reading about this stuff.
Well I think the media likes to paint itself as impartial (just reporting "the facts") and therefore invisible/not worth commenting on.
What is it that's so sexy about pixellation? (That's a genuine question. I think it's hot.)
I think it's the same as wearing a mask (which can also be hot, depending on the mask I guess). I reckon the human brain likes to fill in the gaps and assumes that someone in a sexualised scenario (pixelated face + fishnets + story about spanking) will be sexy. For me it's about context - I don't think pixellated faces in tv documentaries about corporate fraud are sexy.
Another approach would have been to try to uncover evidence of Mosley's involvement in fascist organisations or associations with people on the far right. Or examples of racism in his day to day interactions.
That'd be intriguing, if he was racist day-to-day. I wonder if this question was asked in the trial? Not having looked at the pixellated ladies, I don't know if any of them were Jewish, black, gypsies or any other group oppressed by the Nazis. I believe the Nazis also sent homosexuals and the disabled to their camps.
Doubtful whether you'd get a straight answer to the question in this day and age. Obviously he was brought up in a racist family and there doesn't seem to be any "road to damascus" conversion to non-racism that I have seen. It is interesting like you say...
There could be a relationship between a person's daily life and the sexual scenarios that they construct. Some sequences of events that I guess may be typical:
A man is rejected by a blonde woman. The next evening he hires a blonde prostitute.
A second man sees the blonde woman, finds her attractive, but says nothing to her. The next evening he hires the same blonde prostitute as the first man.
A third man seduces the blonde woman, having met her in a bar. The next evening he hires the blonde prostitute to urinate on him.
Which if these men do you admire, despise or pity and why?
I'm not sure I admire or despise men who hire prostitutes, for whatever reason. I might pity them I guess. The third one seems to be having the most fun, maybe? :-)
Obliquely, perhaps Mosley is guilty of no more than having earned enough money to turn his fantasies into reality.
I think that is part of the interest in it all, certainly - that sort of decadence fits in quite well with all the formula one stuff. It's a bit James Bond playboy?
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age.
Are you saying:
A) That racism is inherited (itself an argument for eugenics), or
B) That facists don't love their children?
No to both! What I mean is that he grew up in a fascist environment and was active in fascist politics from an early age. And not just that, his parents were imprisoned for a few years for their nazi sympathies shortly after he was born. He was refused entry to several schools. He was sent to boarding school. He was involved with street fighting protecting his dad. He spent his early years hanging out with some of europes scummiest fascist scumbags. He met his wife at a fascist meeting.
I mean, call me a liberal, but that isn't the sort of start in life I would like for anyone.
One thing which seems to be completely absent from the recent coverage is information on his current political views.
How a person votes is, of course, confidential. Thank god we live in a free country.
Ha ha. He has spent a large chunk of his life as a political activist though, for the Union Movement and for the Conservatives. He's also made a number of statements about formula 1 having to "go green".
But if enjoyed s&m wouldn't you have told your partner at some point? Then again, Mosley may have been saying what he said that to keep his wife out of it. For all we know, she may have been just as bad.
It's possible that his wife doesn't enjoy s&m or that they are not able to discuss such things, it would seem that many people are not. She may have been off doing all sorts of things but there is no evidence for this so it seems reasonable to assume that he (like many men) was putting about and she wasn't.
How would you feel about a scenario with a disturbed schizophrenic?
I think there might be issues of consent there, so probably a no-no.
I think most people would not tell their partners that they were engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes, or indeed with anyone else.
What if their partner happened to say that they considered it quite alright to visit a prostitute? Would they then reveal it?
It would depend - I'm sure part of the thrill is the illicit nature of the act and the secrecy?
So I think my conclusion is that Mosley is clearly objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the News of the World.
I'm not buying product from either of them, so far as I know. (Well, I pay a TV license fee and a cable TV subscription so I'm probably contributing some money to F1 as a sport.)
Have the Screws lost circulation as a result of losing the case? Outraged of Aldershot writes "Dear Sir, Imagine my disappointment at discovering that a recent piece of investigative journalism was in fact an invasion of privacy. Although all other articles in your esteemed organ are investigative, and not invasive, I now feel too ashamed to purchase future numbers of the News and shall instead be giving my custom to the People."
I think the screw's reputation has diminishd in the minds of people who do not read it. But it's also probably attracted more readers who enjoy reading about this stuff.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Anti-semitism and the state of Israel 3
In the news today was a piece about there being more Anti-Semitic attacks lately
It would help if you provided a reference... where are the attacks and who is doing them?
Whom would it help? Certainly not anybody wanting dialogue instead of fact-checking
Are the actions of Israel responsible?
There could be all sorts of reasons for the attacks in the minds of the attackers which may or may not be the real reason for their actions. For example neo-nazis may attack jews because they believe that they are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy the white race.
I do not buy that anybody seriously believes that. Also Jews, if you insist on using that word, has a capital J like Jon and Jim. Personally, I prefer to talk about Jewish people. I did used to work with a Jewish guy, and he was quite happy to talk about Jews but I'm still not comfortable.
The white race destruction conspiracy may be the story they tell themselves over and over until they're in their hate zone.
However their actual motivation may be that they are trying to compensate for psychological inadequacies.
Their inadequacies may be more basic. I can believe that what's going on there is "You may have more money and success than me but I can duff you up good." Pretty much straight envy.
Having said that it seems pretty clear to me that many of the actions of the Israeli state are objectionable and unfortunately the worldwide outrage about this has enabled anti-semitism to creep in the back door in some instances.
Yes, the answer to "Who shall I hate today?" might be different without those objectionable actions.
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Well different segments of the media are biased in different ways, so you would have to ask the attackers how they formed their views I think.
Yes, I'm sure the attackers would be willing and able to enter a well-formed discourse on the matter. They'd probably mention their psychological inadequacies.
Then again, in not asking them I am perhaps falling into the same trap that they have. After all, racist bully-boys are humans too.
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
No, they are striking a blow for racism.
Specifically, racism towards Jewish people. If Israel wasn't (being reported as) oppressing Palestine, would they be striking a blow for racism towards somebody else?
A Jewish guy living in England opens the newspaper one morning. The headline is about Israeli oppression in Palestine and he's all like, "thanks guys."
By the end of the day he's had so much race-hate directed at him he wants to leave the country.
"Where can I go?" he asks himself.
The same paper that has Israeli Oppression on the front page has the rise of European Antisemitism on the second page.
Maybe this is why people move to Israel? And once they're there, somewhere has to be found for them to live. It's a feedback loop.
It would help if you provided a reference... where are the attacks and who is doing them?
Whom would it help? Certainly not anybody wanting dialogue instead of fact-checking
Are the actions of Israel responsible?
There could be all sorts of reasons for the attacks in the minds of the attackers which may or may not be the real reason for their actions. For example neo-nazis may attack jews because they believe that they are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy the white race.
I do not buy that anybody seriously believes that. Also Jews, if you insist on using that word, has a capital J like Jon and Jim. Personally, I prefer to talk about Jewish people. I did used to work with a Jewish guy, and he was quite happy to talk about Jews but I'm still not comfortable.
The white race destruction conspiracy may be the story they tell themselves over and over until they're in their hate zone.
However their actual motivation may be that they are trying to compensate for psychological inadequacies.
Their inadequacies may be more basic. I can believe that what's going on there is "You may have more money and success than me but I can duff you up good." Pretty much straight envy.
Having said that it seems pretty clear to me that many of the actions of the Israeli state are objectionable and unfortunately the worldwide outrage about this has enabled anti-semitism to creep in the back door in some instances.
Yes, the answer to "Who shall I hate today?" might be different without those objectionable actions.
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Well different segments of the media are biased in different ways, so you would have to ask the attackers how they formed their views I think.
Yes, I'm sure the attackers would be willing and able to enter a well-formed discourse on the matter. They'd probably mention their psychological inadequacies.
Then again, in not asking them I am perhaps falling into the same trap that they have. After all, racist bully-boys are humans too.
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
No, they are striking a blow for racism.
Specifically, racism towards Jewish people. If Israel wasn't (being reported as) oppressing Palestine, would they be striking a blow for racism towards somebody else?
A Jewish guy living in England opens the newspaper one morning. The headline is about Israeli oppression in Palestine and he's all like, "thanks guys."
By the end of the day he's had so much race-hate directed at him he wants to leave the country.
"Where can I go?" he asks himself.
The same paper that has Israeli Oppression on the front page has the rise of European Antisemitism on the second page.
Maybe this is why people move to Israel? And once they're there, somewhere has to be found for them to live. It's a feedback loop.
Freedom as a transaction
TJI an off-topic thread on gamesfaqs.com (I've corrected some spelling):
A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.
While I definitely do not believe or follow the Christian religion, I do respect the right for others to believe in it, and I do not persecute them. It is because that same right also gives other faiths, and non-faiths, the ability to express their viewpoints without fear of persecution as well (rather, protection from it.). If someone Christian (or other faith) bashes me for not being Christian (or whatever faith they subscribe to), I judge and disrespect that individual, but not the religion or believers as a whole.Is this view of freedom as a transaction:
A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.
Mosley 3
What about him and his militaristic although possibly not Nazi orgy with prostitutes?
First off, let's not call it an orgy when all participants except one are being paid for their services
Secondly, his counsel and he claim that his activities were not "sick". If he believes that, why did he keep it secret from his wife?
I think we need to be clear about motives here. It seems to me that the main objective of the News of the World was its usual agenda - to provide titillation under the guise of moral outrage.
Interestingly, I didn't mention the News of the World. Does this indicate a blind spot, i.e. that I have accepted the facts as presented? (Or is it because I'd rather discuss the concepts?)
The political "public interest" motive is secondary, which is why virtually all of the coverage went on about spanking and included photos of the female participants with pixilated faces.
You criticise the News of the Screws for being titillating but then mention spanking females and pixellated faces.
What is it that's so sexy about pixellation? (That's a genuine question. I think it's hot.)
Another approach would have been to try to uncover evidence of Mosley's involvement in fascist organisations or associations with people on the far right. Or examples of racism in his day to day interactions.
That'd be intriguing, if he was racist day-to-day. I wonder if this question was asked in the trial? Not having looked at the pixellated ladies, I don't know if any of them were Jewish, black, gypsies or any other group oppressed by the Nazis. I believe the Nazis also sent homosexuals and the disabled to their camps.
There could be a relationship between a person's daily life and the sexual scenarios that they construct. Some sequences of events that I guess may be typical:
Obliquely, perhaps Mosley is guilty of no more than having earned enough money to turn his fantasies into reality.
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age.
Are you saying:
A) That racism is inherited (itself an argument for eugenics), or
B) That facists don't love their children?
One thing which seems to be completely absent from the recent coverage is information on his current political views.
How a person votes is, of course, confidential. Thank god we live in a free country.
If we ignore all this for a second there are lots of people who enjoy s&m scenarios and there are lots of people who pay for sexual gratification. Personally miltaristic scenarios don't do it for me and find them distasteful but I'm not sure I would describe them as "sick".
But if enjoyed s&m wouldn't you have told your partner at some point? Then again, Mosley may have been saying what he said that to keep his wife out of it. For all we know, she may have been just as bad.
How would you feel about a scenario with a disturbed schizophrenic?
I think most people would not tell their partners that they were engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes, or indeed with anyone else.
What if their partner happened to say that they considered it quite alright to visit a prostitute? Would they then reveal it?
So I think my conclusion is that Mosley is clearly objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the News of the World.
I'm not buying product from either of them, so far as I know. (Well, I pay a TV license fee and a cable TV subscription so I'm probably contributing some money to F1 as a sport.)
Have the Screws lost circulation as a result of losing the case? Outraged of Aldershot writes "Dear Sir, Imagine my disappointment at discovering that a recent piece of investigative journalism was in fact an invasion of privacy. Although all other articles in your esteemed organ are investigative, and not invasive, I now feel too ashamed to purchase future numbers of the News and shall instead be giving my custom to the People."
First off, let's not call it an orgy when all participants except one are being paid for their services
Secondly, his counsel and he claim that his activities were not "sick". If he believes that, why did he keep it secret from his wife?
I think we need to be clear about motives here. It seems to me that the main objective of the News of the World was its usual agenda - to provide titillation under the guise of moral outrage.
Interestingly, I didn't mention the News of the World. Does this indicate a blind spot, i.e. that I have accepted the facts as presented? (Or is it because I'd rather discuss the concepts?)
The political "public interest" motive is secondary, which is why virtually all of the coverage went on about spanking and included photos of the female participants with pixilated faces.
You criticise the News of the Screws for being titillating but then mention spanking females and pixellated faces.
What is it that's so sexy about pixellation? (That's a genuine question. I think it's hot.)
Another approach would have been to try to uncover evidence of Mosley's involvement in fascist organisations or associations with people on the far right. Or examples of racism in his day to day interactions.
That'd be intriguing, if he was racist day-to-day. I wonder if this question was asked in the trial? Not having looked at the pixellated ladies, I don't know if any of them were Jewish, black, gypsies or any other group oppressed by the Nazis. I believe the Nazis also sent homosexuals and the disabled to their camps.
There could be a relationship between a person's daily life and the sexual scenarios that they construct. Some sequences of events that I guess may be typical:
- A man is rejected by a blonde woman. The next evening he hires a blonde prostitute.
- A second man sees the blonde woman, finds her attractive, but says nothing to her. The next evening he hires the same blonde prostitute as the first man.
- A third man seduces the blonde woman, having met her in a bar. The next evening he hires the blonde prostitute to urinate on him.
Obliquely, perhaps Mosley is guilty of no more than having earned enough money to turn his fantasies into reality.
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age.
Are you saying:
A) That racism is inherited (itself an argument for eugenics), or
B) That facists don't love their children?
One thing which seems to be completely absent from the recent coverage is information on his current political views.
How a person votes is, of course, confidential. Thank god we live in a free country.
If we ignore all this for a second there are lots of people who enjoy s&m scenarios and there are lots of people who pay for sexual gratification. Personally miltaristic scenarios don't do it for me and find them distasteful but I'm not sure I would describe them as "sick".
But if enjoyed s&m wouldn't you have told your partner at some point? Then again, Mosley may have been saying what he said that to keep his wife out of it. For all we know, she may have been just as bad.
How would you feel about a scenario with a disturbed schizophrenic?
I think most people would not tell their partners that they were engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes, or indeed with anyone else.
What if their partner happened to say that they considered it quite alright to visit a prostitute? Would they then reveal it?
So I think my conclusion is that Mosley is clearly objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the News of the World.
I'm not buying product from either of them, so far as I know. (Well, I pay a TV license fee and a cable TV subscription so I'm probably contributing some money to F1 as a sport.)
Have the Screws lost circulation as a result of losing the case? Outraged of Aldershot writes "Dear Sir, Imagine my disappointment at discovering that a recent piece of investigative journalism was in fact an invasion of privacy. Although all other articles in your esteemed organ are investigative, and not invasive, I now feel too ashamed to purchase future numbers of the News and shall instead be giving my custom to the People."
Anti-semitism and the state of Israel 2
In the news today was a piece about there being more Anti-Semitic attacks lately
It would help if you provided a reference... where are the attacks and who is doing them?
Are the actions of Israel responsible?
There could be all sorts of reasons for the attacks in the minds of the attackers which may or may not be the real reason for their actions. For example neo-nazis may attack jews because they believe that they are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy the white race. However their actual motivation may be that they are trying to compensate for psychological inadequacies.
Having said that it seems pretty clear to me that many of the actions of the Israeli state are objectionable and unfortunately the worldwide outrage about this has enabled anti-semitism to creep in the back door in some instances.
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Well different segments of the media are biased in different ways, so you would have to ask the attackers how they formed their views I think.
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
No, they are striking a blow for racism.
It would help if you provided a reference... where are the attacks and who is doing them?
Are the actions of Israel responsible?
There could be all sorts of reasons for the attacks in the minds of the attackers which may or may not be the real reason for their actions. For example neo-nazis may attack jews because they believe that they are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy the white race. However their actual motivation may be that they are trying to compensate for psychological inadequacies.
Having said that it seems pretty clear to me that many of the actions of the Israeli state are objectionable and unfortunately the worldwide outrage about this has enabled anti-semitism to creep in the back door in some instances.
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Well different segments of the media are biased in different ways, so you would have to ask the attackers how they formed their views I think.
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
No, they are striking a blow for racism.
Mosley 2
What about him and his militaristic although possibly not Nazi orgy with prostitutes?
First off, let's not call it an orgy when all participants except one are being paid for their services
Secondly, his counsel and he claim that his activities were not "sick". If he believes that, why did he keep it secret from his wife?
I think we need to be clear about motives here. It seems to me that the main objective of the News of the World was its usual agenda - to provide titillation under the guise of moral outrage.
The political "public interest" motive is secondary, which is why virtually all of the coverage went on about spanking and included photos of the female participants with pixilated faces. Another approach would have been to try to uncover evidence of Mosley's involvement in fascist organisations or associations with people on the far right. Or examples of racism in his day to day interactions.
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age. One thing which seems to be completely absent from the recent coverage is information on his current political views.
If we ignore all this for a second there are lots of people who enjoy s&m scenarios and there are lots of people who pay for sexual gratification. Personally miltaristic scenarios don't do it for me and find them distasteful but I'm not sure I would describe them as "sick".
I think most people would not tell their partners that they were engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes, or indeed with anyone else.
So I think my conclusion is that Mosley is clearly objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the News of the World.
First off, let's not call it an orgy when all participants except one are being paid for their services
Secondly, his counsel and he claim that his activities were not "sick". If he believes that, why did he keep it secret from his wife?
I think we need to be clear about motives here. It seems to me that the main objective of the News of the World was its usual agenda - to provide titillation under the guise of moral outrage.
The political "public interest" motive is secondary, which is why virtually all of the coverage went on about spanking and included photos of the female participants with pixilated faces. Another approach would have been to try to uncover evidence of Mosley's involvement in fascist organisations or associations with people on the far right. Or examples of racism in his day to day interactions.
It is a bit much to expect Mosley to be anything other than a fuck up. He is the son of one of the most famous UK fascists and was active in his father's Union Movement from an early age. One thing which seems to be completely absent from the recent coverage is information on his current political views.
If we ignore all this for a second there are lots of people who enjoy s&m scenarios and there are lots of people who pay for sexual gratification. Personally miltaristic scenarios don't do it for me and find them distasteful but I'm not sure I would describe them as "sick".
I think most people would not tell their partners that they were engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes, or indeed with anyone else.
So I think my conclusion is that Mosley is clearly objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the News of the World.
Anti-semitism and the state of Israel
In the news today was a piece about there being more Anti-Semitic attacks lately
Are the actions of Israel responsible?
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
Are the actions of Israel responsible?
What about the way in which those actions are reported by our biased media?
Are racists who attack Jewish people striking a blow for Palestinian liberation?
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Mosley
What about him and his militaristic although possibly not Nazi orgy with prostitutes?
First off, let's not call it an orgy when all participants except one are being paid for their services
Secondly, his counsel and he claim that his activities were not "sick". If he believes that, why did he keep it secret from his wife?
First off, let's not call it an orgy when all participants except one are being paid for their services
Secondly, his counsel and he claim that his activities were not "sick". If he believes that, why did he keep it secret from his wife?
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)