1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

"A Snotty Islington Weirdo..."

Discussion in 'Personal' started by artboyusa, Dec 14, 2019.

  1. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    In a society there are always those who have and those who have not.No society has all folks on an equal level in terms of respect, wealth, earnings and savings. Attempts to regulate by taking away from one to give to another really do not work as those who have a dislike whatever they have being taken away.
    The ideal would be sharing out the wealth but even in collectivised and Socialist groups, this does not happen. China's elite are supposedly wealth beyond measure,Russia's leaders are also dipping fingers in the honey pot.in Africa, the wealth of a country seems to disappear into the chief or leaders of those countries private banks.
    This is not to say all leaders are corrupt but the temptation if not to acquire yourself a pot of cash is also to get the trimmings of a leader as part of leadership.
    Those who espouse equality in earnings are not the first to dispose of theirs as an example to others.
    One wonders if equality will ever be gained as in mankind there is a spirit or element of greed/Its easy to write and demand balance but it simply does not happen, Buddhist leaders forget the tenets of their faith to live simply, Christians forget that love means to love your neighbour as yourself..including the action which might come from out such a teaching. Churches are glittered with gold, whether God id happy we have not heard yet and one cannot ring god and ask!
    We value wealth obtained by toil and careful saving, but when does that wealth itself become a divisive factor in a country..are folks happy with that\In the words of the song. Everythings alright in America...if you are rich in America'. But in the Uk wealth is something folks desire because of our consumer culture demands you have this or that, be it a home, computer, clothes, food etc. So those who fail to get are deemed 'poor'.The reality is you are poor when you have nothing, of which relatively speaking there are few in the UK, although there are those who are poor to be able to buy specific items,and for whom poverty is the reality of struggling. One can overcome that if they are given the means to do so, and here the economics of distribution comes into effect.
    They pursue wealth growth means enabling th workers to gain more for their effort, whether by lower taxation, more value for thie wages, greater opportunities to work and earn a wage or any offer means of wealth creation.
     
  2. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Hilarious! Of course we can't change the result, just as the result of the so-called "will of the people" 2016 leave vote. But there are still facts that you cannot ignore. One is that the EU is certainly not going to aquiesce to everything Boris wants in a heartbeat, despite the mouthings of him and Gove. Judging this government is easy; they are the same one that was here previously, or don't you understand elections?
     
  3. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    That rather depends on what subjects you are thinking of and where your field of expertise lies. Mine is in technology and I'll tell you this for nothing. I am appalled by how poorly it is being taught these days.

    If there is one thing that is more important than anything in the modern world, it's technology, yet schools pay lip service to it. Schools don't want to fund it, don't want to retain skilled teachers of technology, have for a long time been focused solely on the aesthetics and now in many schools, it an adjunct of the art department.

    God help us if Boris decides to go to war and discovers the skill base to make the weapons has been decimated.
     
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    We are undertaking military actions at present in Syria, and possibly the surrounding, poorly defined area. I'll leave you to decide whether it's a war or not.
     
  5. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Many of the losers comments on this topic remind me of:
    “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”
     
    Kandahar likes this.
  6. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Did you do tech at school? I was talking more generally, you know the basics free and compulsory to all our young people should they wish to avail themselves... and there are still colleges available are there not for those who want something more specific.
     
  7. MAGAorMIGA

    MAGAorMIGA Star commenter

    https://www.theguardian.com/comment...6A9K0PaF1s-BGnKKEnnRzwP3iUtNKyYd_E_S6maoFuIS0

    I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it
    Kenneth Stern

    The ‘working definition of antisemitism’ was never intended to silence speech, but that’s what Trump’s executive order accomplished this week

    Fifteen years ago, as the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, I was the lead drafter of what was then called the “working definition of antisemitism”. It was created primarily so that European data collectors could know what to include and exclude. That way antisemitism could be monitored better over time and across borders.

    It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order accomplished this week. This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.

    The problem isn’t that the executive order affords protection to Jewish students under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Education made clear in 2010 that Jews, Sikhs and Muslims (as ethnicities) could complain about intimidation, harassment and discrimination under this provision. I supported this clarification and filed a successful complaint for Jewish high school students when they were bullied, even kicked (there was a “Kick a Jew Day”).

    But starting in 2010, rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases. While some allegations were about acts, mostly they complained about speakers, assigned texts and protests they said violated the definition. All these cases lost, so then these same groups asked the University of California to adopt the definition and apply it to its campuses. When that failed, they asked Congress, and when those efforts stalled, the president.

    As proponents of the executive order like the Zionist Organization of America make clear, they see the application of the definition as “cover[ing] many of the anti-Jewish outrages … frequently led by … Students for Justice in Palestine, including … calls for ‘intifada’ [and] demonizing Israel”. As much as I disagree with SJP, it has the right to make “calls”. That’s called free speech.

    If you think this isn’t about suppressing political speech, contemplate a parallel. There’s no definition of anti-black racism that has the force of law when evaluating a title VI case. If you were to craft one, would you include opposition to affirmative action? Opposing removal of Confederate statues?

    Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and special adviser, wrote in the New York Times that the definition “makes clear [that] Anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. I’m a Zionist. But on a college campus, where the purpose is to explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression. I suspect that if Kushner or I had been born into a Palestinian family displaced in 1948, we might have a different view of Zionism, and that need not be because we vilify Jews or think they conspire to harm humanity. Further, there’s a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don’t know if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the government is essentially defining the answer for us.

    The real purpose of the executive order isn’t to tip the scales in a few title VI cases, but rather the chilling effect. ZOA and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases. I’m worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. I’m worried that faculty, who can just as easily teach about Jewish life in 19th-century Poland or about modern Israel, will probably choose the former as safer. I’m worried that pro-Israel Jewish students and groups, who rightly complain when an occasional pro-Israel speaker is heckled, will get the reputation for using instruments of state to suppress their political opponents.


    Antisemitism is a real issue, but too often people, both on the political right and political left, give it a pass if a person has the “right” view on Israel. Historically, antisemitism thrives best when leaders stoke the human capacity to define an “us” and a “them”, and where the integrity of democratic institutions and norms (such as free speech) are under assault.

    Rather than champion the chilling of expressions that pro-Israel Jews find disturbing, or give the mildest criticism (if any) of a president who repeatedly uses antisemitic tropes, why weren’t those Jewish officials who were present when Trump signed the executive order reminding him that last year, when he demonized immigrants and called them “invaders”, Robert Bowers walked into a Pittsburgh synagogue because he believed Jews were behind this “invasion” of brown people as part of a plot to harm white people, and killed 11 of us?

     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  8. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

  9. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Why is this piece of nonsense even here? And why, again, do you bully people by posting the entire thing, as though we dare not miss one precious word ,instead of posting a link and giving them a choice?
     
  10. Skeoch

    Skeoch Star commenter

    Labour's defeat may well be even more serious. The Boundary Commission proposals for constituency changes, reducing the number of MPs and reflecting population changes, have been on hold for some time now. The government now has a sufficient majority to drive them through, and also an ulterior motive, as the changes would lead to fewer safe Labour seats.
     
    needabreak and harsh-but-fair like this.
  11. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

     
  12. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Another reason why Labour should have heeded concern over their unelectable doctrine and dogmatic leader... but would they listen and reflect when they should have? No they carried on their path to destruction, clearly the implications of that decision are far wider than one would at first imagine and JC has rather more to answer to but he won't admit it he is clearly always right even when he is wrong... with all the political ideals in the world a party that is not elected cannot enact their dream (I'm sick of posting about it), whether it be an economically sound dream or not... but there was no moving the far left and momentum oh no they just drive those that disagreed or suggested a different way out and carried on regardless, they get what they deserve for not being forward thinking enough in this regard.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  13. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    24 of those safe seats dissappeared last week without the change.
    They need to do the list again
     
  14. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    It seems to me that you are barking up the wrong tree. Carping about such a landslide election victory and trying to dissect the result into pigeon holes of blame is futile. Boris and the Conservative party won because they chose to honour the referendum result and because their leader (Boris) is credible when compared to JC. Labour blew it big time because they failed to understand a simple fact. The Labour voters who wanted Brexit had not changed their minds despite the media bias and Westminster doing its very best to defeat the referendum result.
    This government has not started yet and in a year or two we might all be in an informed position to judge. IMO.
     
    needabreak, Kandahar and nomad like this.
  15. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    I don't want to let this little smear job go unchallenged, so here goes...
    What's being referred to is the Executive Order Trump signed last week which specifies anti-Semitism as being prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, colour or national origin in any programme or activity where federal funds are provided. US colleges and universities are heavily funded by the Federal government. They have lately seen enormous spikes in anti-Semitic activity. Up 89% on college campuses since 2016, according to the ADL. The idea is to get institutions to better regulate what they allow to happen on campus or lose out financially.
    I don't really know if I think an EO is the best way to address anti-Semitism on campus but its an effort made in good faith. To accuse Trump of using "anti-Semitic tropes", as the author does, is not to act in good faith. And it would surprise Trump's Jewish daughter, his Jewish son in law and his Jewish grandchildren. It will certainly surprise everyone in Israel, where they're naming places and things after Trump and where his approval rating is about 96%. But it will surprise no one who has watched how the Left operates.
     
    Kandahar and lexus300 like this.
  16. MAGAorMIGA

    MAGAorMIGA Star commenter

    "why do you bully people?" Well, well. Artboy has turned into the ultimate snowflake.
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  17. MAGAorMIGA

    MAGAorMIGA Star commenter

    It's called gerrymandering. The result will be that Labour MUST support PR. It will be their only chance of being in power, and that as part of a coalition.
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  18. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Hey, aren't you the guy who was just lecturing everybody about ad hominem attacks and how low they are? Didn't you say "What's with the personal attacks? If you're resorting to ad hominems, you've lost the argument"...or was that someone else?
     
  19. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    artboyusa and Kandahar like this.
  20. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    What a load of twaddle...

    ALL antisemitism needs to be confronted. Not just the type that suits your ideological viewpoint.

    And the irony of someone with your user name trying to lecture on the nature of antisemitism...
     
    lexus300 likes this.

Share This Page