Meanwhile in Scotland...

State of that.

almost

I just had an interesting experience with a friend on Facebook which seems relevant to this thread.

He'd made a jokey reference to Michael Howard being a vampire, so I gently (I'm always gentle with my left-wing friends as they're such delicate flowers) reminded him of the old stereotype about Jews and blood drinking. After he used the "I always call Tories vampires" excuse (previously known as the "I always call Democrats monkeys" excuse) and demanded clarification, I confirmed that yes, indeed, I did consider his original joke to be antisemitic.

Then I was told by private message that I'm "misguided" and that if I knew him as well as I should, blah blah blah.

I tried to reply to the effect of "it doesn't matter who says it, it's what is said that counts", but he's blocked me, so that's that.

This isn't the first time that something like this has happened with one of my left-wing friends on social media.

Meanwhile, I can argue with right-wing friends for hours and we always part on good company.

So, why is it that:

a) lefties are so blind to their own prejudice?

b) lefties are so good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it?

Without seeing a full transcript of the conversation, I can't comment on your former friend's behaviour. You are quite a slippery character to debate with because you mix up American and British political references that are not parallel or equivalent. This gives you an 'out' on many debates because you claim to have been misconstrued, whereas I see your use of language open to interpretation.

The remark regarding Michael Howard has long been a part of media culture, and many believe it was so detrimental to the public perception of him that it thwarted any further political ambitions, particularly as party leader.

The perception all stems from his Conservative party colleague, Ann Widdecombe's famous quote... "There is something of the night about him."... way back in 1997.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-using-it.html

All sectors of the media picked that line up and ran with it at every given opportunity, to the point where it's as ingrained in the public perception as Spitting Image puppets were in the 1980's. I still can't look at John Major without seeing a grey man pushing peas around his plate. In the same way, how many times have you heard an Old English Sheepdog called a Dulux dog?

You've made a serious and damning allegation and afront to a 'friend's' personality based on something ingrained in the public perception relating to one specific individual. You are the one who has made that comment about the religious persuasion of that individual based upon the centuries old prejudice towards people of that faith in certain parts of Eastern Europe.

Again...you've taken your friend's 20th Century cultural reference and linked it to a 18th Century cultural reference. You are the one whose made the connection. There's a very high possibility that your friend may have never made the connection if you hadn't used it as a stick to beat him with.

Quelle surprise!

I don't recall ever having complained about being misconstrued. I say what I say and if people get the wrong end of the stick, it's no skin off my nose.

The gentleman in question has a very detailed knowledge of history and folklore. I know for a fact that he knows all about the blood libel.

Returning to the title of this thread, the Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev said on 1st May
"You’ve had too many people on the progressive side of politics who have embraced Hamas and Hezbollah.

Both of them are anti-Semitic organisations, you just have to read Hamas’ charter and it’s like chapters straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I’d ask the following question: if you’re progressive, you’re embracing an organisation which is homophobic, which is misogynistic, which is openly anti-Semitic, what’s progressive about that?"

Are you insinuating that Corbyn is progressive? Really! That 70's throwback?

First, I really don't think that's true. Most people are able to, and do, think of more than just their immediate self-interest when they vote, even Labour voters. And to imply otherwise is condescending and patronising.

Second, that sort of faux-emotional, sanctimonious argument that attempts to conflate completely separate issues to make a political point is rather sickening, not to say silly: most people rely on their job to pay their rent. And how do you know that disabled person or librarian is not Jewish?

And how do you know that Labour politician or Peer isn't a Jew? From my knowledge of British politics, Jewish politicians have always been pretty evenly spread across the political landscape in the UK. Unlike many other countries in the West, being Jewish rarely been barrier to having a political career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sh_politicians

I only wonder if Bernie Sanders would have had more success in his Presidential campaign if he were not Jewish.

LOL. Cover my head in shame

"I still can't look at John Major without seeing a grey man pushing peas around his plate." I always see that grey man with the satellite dish tuned into Maggie

Eh?? Care to explain your leap of logic? My post was in response to MissWorwoo's inane suggestion that cutting community funding was worse than antisemitism to a voter. How you managed to get from that to Jewish MPs is beyond me.

Good point, most voters, even Labour voters, do think about more than themselves, so probably think about what effect the actions of the politicians have on their local, and wider community rather than a sound-bite that may or may not have been taken out of context.
On the one hand this politician has said something anti-Irseali state, on the other he actively helps people below the poverty line and voted against cuts in disability benefits. This other one has voted for extensive cuts, overseen the closing of local amminties and has a vested interest in the privatisation of the NHS but is anti-Palestinian state, so hmmmmm. my community or the Middle East....... Ahhhh, who needs jobs or food here anyway, blocking peace talks thousands of miles away is MUCH more important.

Wait, Michael Howard is Jewish? I did not know that.... Or maybe I did, but I didn't remember. I think that this probably shows more about your predudices than your friends, because it seems to me that aperson's religion is the first thing you think about, rather than their actions. And therefore any critism is, in your mind, purely directed at the religion that the person holds rather than the person themselves. Basically you group all Jewish people together as victims which is kinda prejudiced in my mind. But then again, I'm good at dishing it out....

Um, representing Jews as blood drinkers and vampires is one of the oldest stereotypes in the book.

You might not have been aware of this, but my friend certainly was.

The entire "Michael Howard is a vampire" thing is and always was thoroughly antisemitic, which is why there was such a fuss when Steve Bell drew his infamous cartoon.

The appeal to ignorance simply doesn't wash, I'm afraid.

Lovely friends that Mr Corbyn has
The Palestinian militant group Hamas is to carry out a string of public executions in the Gaza strip, the patch of territory it controls.

The executions were announced by Hamas’s attorney general in Gaza, Ismail Jaber. “Capital punishments will be implemented soon in Gaza,” he said. “I ask that they take place before a large crowd.”

Palestinian law allows the death penalty for collaborators, murderers and drug traffickers.
Collaborators are basically defined as people the Palestinian Authority does not like

Source

Labour just can't help themselves.

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/05/...party-meeting/

Totally reminds me of the thing going on in German media right now, calling the leaders of AfD "Rattenfänger".

Rattenfänger of course is a reference to the fairy tale of the Pied Piper of Hamlyn, who, if I recall correctly

1) looked foreign
2) wore different clothes from anybody else
3) was a skilled musician
4) could communicate with vermin, and could make rats vanish
5) would only save his fellow citizens from their destruction if they promised him money for it
6) stole children, possibly ate them.

Now if that isn't a medievil caricature of a Jew, I don't know what is.

Yet when I tell my German friends that I find it strange that they are trying to discredit a far-right party by insinuating that their leadership is Jewish. And that even if they are Jewish, what does it matter? And what about Germany's historic lesson that being antisemitic is bad, they look at me and refuse to see.

You're ignoring central parts of the story:

The piper offered to rid the city of all mice and rats, for a fee of course. Once the city notables had agreed, he played his tune upon which the mice and rats came to him. He walked into the Weser (a river) with the animals following him to their wet death. But the notables refused to pay, so he left the city angy and embittered. Some time later he returned in a different shape(body?) to play his pipe once again during church service time. Only this time the children came forward, and followed him out of town when he left. Nobody ever heard of them.

How is this antisemitic?

Because he says it is, and if you don't agree, or even don't understand the connection, then you yourself are just as antisemitic and spreading antisemitisism, probably because you are one of those evil people that believe all people are equal (no, I havn't figured that out either, but I'm left wing and therefore practically a Nazi so don't listen to me)