Diddlydee comments on Labour suspends Diane Abbott for second time over racism comments

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Playing devil's advocate: is she wrong? I've seen plenty of racism based upon colour. Every day almost.

Most supposed anti-Semitism I see is anti-Zionism that the media purposely confuses for their agenda.

Having lived in multiple communities where gypsies and travellers are common, some of which are good friends, the hatred or dislike they experience is much lesser, and often is based on actual events such as stealing or providing services that are sub-par.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Noit@feddit.uk [S] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Let’s look at her actual words, shall we, satan?

Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.

It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.

She talks about sitting at the back of the bus. Rosa Parks took a stand in 1943. Concurrent to this event, Jewish people, of the Jewish race, were being exterminated in the holocaust. If Diane Abbott is more interested in arguing for a dictionary definition of racism that includes the suffering inflicted on black people but excludes the holocaust, than she is in trying to understand why this would be incredibly offensive to the Jewish community, she can get in the bin.

And if you’re more interested in watering down accusations of antisemitism to mere “anti-Zionism” then you too are more interested in playing with dictionary definitions than you are in calling out actual racism when it actually happens and you can do likewise.

Fortunately you’re just playing devil’s advocate, eh?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

It does feel like she's conflating colourism with racism. Some of the most abhorrent things I've heard people say are against travellers and it's hard not to call that racism. These were 'normal' people who genuinely think they're not racist. I feel like if black people felt so alienated from wider society that only 1/5-1/4 of them could read she would have no problem (rightly) calling this an issue of systemic racism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

No idea who this satan fella is. Fuck all to do with me. Seems like you're just throwing out insults in line one because I wrote a point that disagrees with you. Classy.

Yes, I am playing devil's advocate. It seems you can't grasp the concept of that. What you seem to want is unquestioning agreement, or you'll hurl insults and accuse people of racism. Again, very classy.

I did not deny the holocaust at any point but that was objectively not against a race. The Jewish people are not a race; you are using the Nazi's definition.

It can be both a religion and ethnicty- an ethnoreligion. A tribe. Judaism isn't genetic. You or I can become a Jew despite our genetic ancestry.

And, yes, the vast majority of supposed anti-Semitism I see is anti-Zionism (a virtue). The media does it daily and you are doing the exact same thing, just what the Labour party did to Jeremy Corbyn.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Noit@feddit.uk [S] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you’re playing devil’s advocate then they’re not your words, you are advocating for the worst version of an argument. So why would it be a problem for be to mention satan? Unless those are actually your views, in which case you aren’t playing devil’s advocate.

You didn’t deny the holocaust, but your argument is flawed. The nazis thought of the Jewish people as a race. They attempted a genocide on that basis. They were being racist. Proudly so.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Whose words would they be if I'm saying them? Are there words you'd like me to say?

I was playing Devil's Advocate, but you acted like a twat, so I doubled down and gave you some actual examples, only some of which I agree with and all of which you glossed over. Devil's advocate is not the worst possible version of an argument - that presumes your argument is the best possible version. Quite a presumption on your part. Devil's Advocate is a counter point to explore other perspectives.

What I got from your comment is 'I agree with the Nazi definition of Jews'. The Nazis labelling the Jewish tribe / people / ethnoreligion as race still doesn't make them a race, despite the view and intention of the Nazis.

Much like Judas, how is satan the bad guy when god gave him no free will? His role was preordained. Maybe that's how you see the concept of satan. I see it as free will, individualism, and a counterpoint to traditional religious based morality, which is largely immoral.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Noit@feddit.uk [S] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Maybe I’m argy because it’s a hot sweaty armpit of an evening. You can call me a twat but you are also now trying to paint me with “you agree with the Nazis” after I roiled against antisemitism so maybe introspect a little on that. To avoid shouting past each other, here are my beliefs on this matter and maybe you can tell me if there’s anything here you actually disagree with.

I believe constructing a hierarchy of discrimination is not just a waste of time but an entirely negative action. Discrimination takes many forms and arguing who has it worst doesn’t do anything to counter discrimination. Instead, it creates animosity between discriminated-against groups who could instead be comparing notes on better ways to counter discrimination in all forms.
I believe Dianne Abbott is more interested in playing with hierarchies of discrimination than she is in opposing discrimination in all forms. I believe this because she said that she thought black people had it worse than Jews, and when this upset Jewish people, she was not interested in understanding why (see: my point about animosity), she faked contrition, and she put out an apology that we can now all see as worthless because it was only there to allow her to stand again as a Labour politician. She has sown animosity between Jews and black people, and those of any other creed or culture who seek to oppose discrimination.

Your devil’s advocacy was for the question “is she wrong” and my answer is even if she’s right, she’s making things worse for everyone.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dude, your first recourse was to call me satan for offering a counterpoint, hence my ire. I rightly said you were 'acting like a twat'.

I'm sure you're not a twat and have good intentions. I'm Irish and many of my friends are travellers. We definitely do not experience the same irrational hatred and bigotry as people with more melanin. That hatred is something I see almost every day. I agree wholeheartedly with Diane on that, despite what I might think of her other views.

Re the Nazis, I'm simply saying your view of the Jews as a race is not so different to theirs. It doesn't make you a Nazi by any means, but it's a flawed view. They are not a race.

Very little of what you said in your last comment I actually disagree with. I concur that discrimination takes many forms, but racism, prejudice, and discrimination are different things in my eyes, and in the modern world, my experience is that people of colour have the short end of the straw with the rampant xenophobia and racism we see every day, mostly towards people who are not white rather than any religious or cultural group.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] manicdave@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

What she said is so obviously true that her comments biggest flaw is it's redundancy. She's talking about Tomiwa Owolade's words on racism in Britain. A copper isn't going to spot you from 50 yards away and stop you based on the fact that you're Irish or Jewish because they can't see that. Security isn't going to follow you around a shop and hurry you out the door because you're Irish or Jewish because they can't see that.

I hate identity politics and hierarchies of oppression and language pedantry and all that more than the next person. But when you pretend to not understand an argument which is so obvious and valid, it's hard to believe you're here with honest intent.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

She's talking about Tomiwa Owolade's words on racism in Britain.

She gives three, and only three, examples of racism to illustrate her point:

In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.

Pre-civil rights America, the American slave trade, and Apartheid South Africa are all explicitly not about racism in Britain.

Tomiwa Owolade's points may have been more focused (and more valid), but her own commentary takes it in a wildly unhelpful direction. And it's her commentary that's being criticised, not Owolade's.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Noit@feddit.uk [S] 5 points 1 year ago

I’m not here with honest intent? Abbott was suspended from the Labour Party for what she said. Multiple organisations called them disgraceful. She herself retracted her words, hamfistedly blaming them on a drafting error, and apologised for them. But I’mm, random internet man, am the one who’s arguing in bad faith?

Now she has said that she doesn’t regret that period and clearly her apology was not in any way genuine contrition. She offered empty platitudes to crawl back into the party she claims to love while not in any way actually reflecting on the things she’s said.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent