Having been roundly defeated in the Court of Appeal, and with it now established beyond doubt that the UK knew that Binyam Mohammed was being tortured by the USA, Miliband has the massive effrontery to welcome the decision.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/feb/10/david-miliband-binyam-mohamed-statement
The truth about the government’s complicity in torture is becoming established beyond doubt. I am still shocked about the virtual media blackout on my own evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9spgagSHI
But am comforted that the forthcoming dramatisation of Murder in Samarkand with David Tennant will do more for popular understanding than dry evidence ever could.
We will never see justice, but I would strongly support the calls for a public inquiry into UK complicity with torture. Preferably of an inquisitorial kind; but even the cosy conversations of the Chilcot committee have thrown up some truth.
Oh, now you’re attacking Mr Robinson. Do you ever listen to anyone who would like to discuss things with you? I guess you can’t, otherwise you might have to change your agenda. So a bit of a sticky situation, I agree. I’m sorry.
And I would point out in warning that most extremist power-hungry racists end up dying alone and widely reviled, or, in Francis’ case, writing furious complaints to tv companies about the ‘miscegenation’ shown in adverts. Are there not better things you could be getting on with?
For the record, my definition of anarchy – which is that it posits that no-one needs anyone to tell them what to think, or do – is all my own. Not a dictionary definition. I did, you are right, also include a dictionary definition. Do you disagree with definitions, Mr Ratched?
I can’t imagine that you perfuddfle (see what I did there), so I’m still waiting for your definition of multiculturalism. I am beginning to suspect, though, that you do not want to define it, because that would reveal it to be harmless, if not actually rather positive. But surprise me.
Not much point listening to Mr Robinson if he’s confusing my and your argument.
He was actually making my case and arguing against yours, even though he thought he was doing the opposite.
I don’t think there’s much point defining things like Anarchy or Fascism for example. They’re notoriously difficult to define, quite simply because the complexity of human life and emotion and desire etc refuses definition. The best you can get is a reductive beginning for further research.
So the way you approach things like this is to look at how they function. How do they work? What do they do?
Same with multiculturalism.
And you have to take on board things that the likes of Sir Trev says. He’s not a racist and he recognises problems with multiculturalism.
So if someone posts something about multiculturalism, it’s not enough to let loose with a load of isms and claim you’ve won.
“Do you ever listen to anyone who would like to discuss things with you ?”
Doesn’t seem to have any repertoire at all, really, just the one song over and over. Not to worry, I have interesting things to do as well.
One of which is, I notice that the last couple of sentences of my previous point to an actual in-process-of-being-worked example of what’s being argued (perhaps, for some peoples’ definitions of) –
Namely, that this situation right here, whatever labels we like to use, is one where no-one has authority over another. And, some people are dealing with that as equals, some are ‘merely’ making chaos and mischief, and others are acting as though they believe that they can acquire authority by acting authoritarian.
Barring Craig, of course, his position is different. And, again, I note calls for The Man to sort things out by making the “bad” bits go away at the push of a button …
Mr Robinson
You hadn’t the foggiest what was being discussed, so much so that even though you thought you were taking technicolour’s part, you were actually making the point I was making.
It’s there in the post.
You really ought to be apologising.
OK, cross posting:
Anarchists formed alliances with Communists in both the Spanish Civil War and indeed in Weimar Germany.
That was because they were united in fighting against fascism. As Orwell makes clear, in Spain (digested read) the Soviet sponsored communists turned on the anarchists as a threat to their hierarchical state system and brutally suppressed them.
Some anarchists even became fascists.
And?
Hey Mr Robinson, I agree.
“OK, cross posting:
Anarchists formed alliances with Communists in both the Spanish Civil War and indeed in Weimar Germany.
That was because they were united in fighting against fascism. As Orwell makes clear, in Spain (digested read) the Soviet sponsored communists turned on the anarchists as a threat to their hierarchical state system and brutally suppressed them.
Some anarchists even became fascists.
And?”
The AND is that the reality undermines the definition. The purity described in your definition just doesn’t exist, other than in marks on a page.
I think, Nurse (interesting name to choose) that you mistake the idea of debate. No-one is on anyone’s side.
Still waiting for your definition of multiculturalism (see above)
technicolour wrote:
“Hey Mr Robinson, I agree.”
Really?
Do you agree with this bit?
“I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”
This is quite dull, now. My post from about three days back:
“Anarchy, from the greek ‘anarkos’ – ‘without a ruler’ – posits that we do not need other people to tell us what to think and do…Oddly, even some self-declared anarchists like to tell other people what to think and do, too.”
What you say you are is not what you are. I am quite prepared to believe, for example, that Nick Griffin is just saying he is a right wing racist extremist in order to get power and be popular among a small contingent, and to support his right wing parent. I feel for a person who has made a cage of their own making, in this way. And I feel for the society that has his views, and the views of his mad supporters, inflicted on them. But I feel for him, because how can he ever withdraw? Could Hitler ever have said ‘hold on, this is nonsense?’. Maybe, before he killed people.
“You really ought to be apologising.”
Feel free to hold your breath if you want to.
Nurse, I was rather hoping my attempt at diplomacy would be the start of an interesting discussion, not the continuation of a fraught one.
I said I didn’t know about your views on racial differences, but given that you may have cited a racist, it would be interesting to hear what your views actually are. Especially since technicolour is essentially asking the same, relevant, question :o)
It may be too late to ask everyone to play nicely, but the ad hominem really is unhelpful if you want other people to see your perspective.
Naughty, naughty, technicolour
This is what you posted, and is the subject of the dispute:
“Anarcho-tyranny: another way to bash the word anarchy, via a man (Samuel T Francis) who clearly had no idea what it means”
I simply pointed out that the man was using the term to indicate chaos or lawlessness, but you insisted he was using it wrongly, and you argued and argued and argued, so much so that poor Mr Robinson got all confused and supported me by saying:
“I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”
Precisely what I was arguing.
You may redeem yourself with an apology. Or not. As you wish.
I think the point about being hateful of other people and cultures is that hate is stupid (irrational, meaningless, self-destructive) , but it gives power: either a cold, icy power, or a fire-fuelled fury, but either way. Frost put it better:
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Dear Mr Ratched, I don’t think you are either. Do you really want destruction and death? From your presence on this board I don’t think so. All this stuff is interesting, isn’t it? Not a way to rabble rouse. But I think you may be using forces beyond your control. So what are you? Please define multiculturalism, by the way.
I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”
I agree with this. What are you on about?
@ Jon
I initially came to this through the post of another. Can’t remember who now, it’s all so long ago.
What I found interesting were his observations thus, excluding Americanisms.
“What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny?”the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.”
And technicolour became all pedantic over his use of the term “anarchy” which he’s been arguing about ever since.
So we haven’t really got round to anything I would call substantive.
“I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”
I agree with this. What are you on about?”
What I’m on about is that if you agree with this then you must also agree that the writer can use the term anarchy to indicate chaos or lawlessness without being WRONG.
la la la. Goodnight, nurse. I guess you will have to be happy with your core supporters, who don’t question meaning, or indeed the sources you use.
Btw being ‘wrong’ is fine. Refusing to expand your narrow definition of a term, in the teeth of all the evidence, is self-serving. But hey. You only wanted to post Francis to get some approval of an extremist racist hack who (I notice) met Mr Griffin, so that’s OK too. Sorry it didn’t wash.
@ technicolour
Hmmm. Well. I think la la la is about your mark.
You’ve contradicted yourself on the only point in dispute.
It’s obvious to everyone but an idiot that the writer can use the term anarchy to indicate chaos or lawlessness. It doesn’t matter that it’s used to describe a political philosophy too.
Even Mr Robinson eventually understood that.
“I agree with this”
*Everybody* agrees with this. Sweetness and light all round, isn’t that nice ?
Everybody* agrees with this. Sweetness and light all round, isn’t that nice ?
Yeah, fuckit. As I said, Francis used the word anarchy in his own self-serving way, with no appreciation of the context or philosophy or of the word’s multiple meanings.
Why anyone should even listen to Mr Ratchet, never mind be sweetness and light to him, is therefore a good question. There is no reality or tangible sense. Jon?
definition of multiculturalism, please, Mr Ratchet?
Oh, there are so many points in dispute. Forget ‘anarchy’; let’s deal with your views on ‘multicultural society’. See above. Define it, you coward.
“Yeah, fuckit. As I said, Francis used the word anarchy in his own self-serving way, with no appreciation of the context or philosophy or of the word’s multiple meanings.”
You didn’t say anything of the sort, but had you said that you’d still be a pedantic idiot.
People use the term anarchy everyday to describe absence of order, or chaos or lawlessness.
And the only reason you get upset about it is because you’re programmed to go off at the sight of certain key words.
No thinking adult would get upset about it. Grow up!
And then you think you can run around abusing people just because you don’t do thinking, eh.
The cheek of it!
I’ve explained the problematics of definitions a number of times now. To define is to limit. This is well accepted by everyone except yourself and Mr Robinson.
Amusing though that yourself and Mr Robinson seek to limit human experience.
This will give you an idea as to what’s at stake
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600791.stm
No no no Mr Ratchet. Answer the questions before you start calling people stuff. I will answer any question you care to put, or try to. So answer mine. What is your definition of multiculturalism?
yes yes yes miss technicolour.
The world is as it is. Words are as they are, and there is no definition that does justice to the complexity of multiculturalism.
That’s why these clever people on the BBC are saying things like:
“There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism.”
“Multiculturalism is sometimes taken to mean”
“To understand multiculturalism is to appreciate that it means many different things.”
In other words the kind of thing I’ve been saying all along.
So not only have you lost the “anarchy” word game. You also lost the useless definitions game.
Bet you wish you’d stayed in bed this morning, eh, with Mr Robinson perhaps?
No, Mr Ratched, I might be gay, or female, or anything, but I wish I could take your love truncheon and show it the meaning of sensitivity. I think it has some learning to do.
Anyway, never mind the ‘clever people’ at the BBC. Define multiculuralism, since you have a such a problem with it, please. Oh, you’re not going to? Argue away, then. Francis is discredited, no-one with a vocabulary can understand you, you remain in a blocked in minority, that’s fine.
technicolour: this is all getting a bit circular for me. I’m outta here: at least anno is a tiny bit more responsive! 😉
FWIW: “multiculturalism” is the concept that races can, and should, live side by side, as harmoniously as their differences will allow, since it is better in the long-term to understand other races and cultures than to develop the resentment that comes from segregation. It is, accordingly, also a study dedicated to improving the same.