- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
nm
Last edited:
Laurence Fox
- Thread starter Amplus
- Start date
It's just a propaganda technique, you call something a "populist party" with the intention of suggesting that it has no legitimate points and is just appealing to mass hysteria. It's this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemism
I'm not crediting stockhausen with doing this intentionally, it's just a learned behaviour
a dictionary said:
"Over many years it has become clear that our politicians have lost touch with the people they represent and govern. Moreover, our public institutions now work to an agenda beyond their main purpose." — it's literally the dictionary definition of populism.
It's entirely possible for a party to be both populist and left-wing.
It's hardly propaganda in this instance, it's a perfectly valid description.
You could apply that definition of populism to the Labour party just as easily ("For the many, not the few"), but most people wouldn't do that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,851
You could argue that time was a left wing party actively sought to be populist.
It's actually happened enough that the Labour party under Corbyn are a highlighted example of a UK populist party on Wikipedia.
I would say that Momentum absolutely is a populist wing of the Labour party. However, as a whole, Labour is far too 'establishment' to be classed as populist.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,851
Well the Labour parties founding purpose might be paraphrased as supporting/representing the common people over the elite. But there have been times recently when that has been a questionable proposition.
So your first post should have read "You could argue that, at one time, Labour was a left-wing party that actively sought to be populist"?
In which case, I entirely agree.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
nm
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,851
Surely tyranny of the majority suggests no checks and balances about net social harm and other thresholds. It does not equal populism. Populism can still produce just outcomes without tyranny of the majority. Or can only the elites save us? Sounds like aristocracy.
Also you do love that Women's Own quote and every time you misrepresent it.
Also you do love that Women's Own quote and every time you misrepresent it.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1314935151789563905?s=20
I actually find myself agreeing with Fox's comments. Having a black history month just serves to divide people rather than bringing us together. Doesn't that mean we need an Asian history month, Indian history month, Arabic history month, white history month, etc if this is genuinely about "equality"?
Why not just have a British history month we can all celebrate given that's what we all are rather than dividing everyone based on their skin colour and ethnicity!
To be blunt there's no such thing as "black" history in the same way there's no such thing as "white" history. To suggest your heritage and history is somehow purely related to the shade of your skin is ridiculous.
Countries, people, ethnicities, cultures, etc have histories. Skin colours do not.
#DontDivideUs
I actually find myself agreeing with Fox's comments. Having a black history month just serves to divide people rather than bringing us together. Doesn't that mean we need an Asian history month, Indian history month, Arabic history month, white history month, etc if this is genuinely about "equality"?
Why not just have a British history month we can all celebrate given that's what we all are rather than dividing everyone based on their skin colour and ethnicity!
To be blunt there's no such thing as "black" history in the same way there's no such thing as "white" history. To suggest your heritage and history is somehow purely related to the shade of your skin is ridiculous.
Countries, people, ethnicities, cultures, etc have histories. Skin colours do not.
#DontDivideUs
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
nm
Last edited:
Soldato
Love MF. He's spot on.
Well if God himself says it, it must be right!
It is absolutely ridiculous the nonsense flooding our media in these modern times. It has even infested CBEEBIES for crying out loud, not CBBC but cbeebies, the BBC channel for young children!
My 2 and 3 year old were sitting confused whilst the presenter spoke about Harriet Tubman and slavery(!!), another time confused when they discussed her elder sister being bullied because of the colour of her skin (not an issue for young children these days due to the levels of integration). They've been doing it everyday, speaking about their "heroes", in a completely inappropriate place to a completely inappropriate audience all because of... why?! Misplaced arrogance?
I've ranted about this previously, we all know every single race should be treated equally, don't shove it down my throat like I'm an oppressor - and definitely don't use your own insecurities and weak intelligence to corrupt my children.
In terms of Lawrence Fox - arrogant, shady, power-hungry with an already established donor money tree.... could only be good news for the people I'm sure
However, he does appear to have a brain on him, so wouldn't be worse than our current crop.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,301
It's quite weird seeing some of my left leaning friends have a meltdown over what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable polite man trying to have sensible discussions in an environment that is increasingly difficult to do so. It's becoming more and more apparent that the more people try to silence and berate normal opinions, the further to the extremes people will be pushed. But fine carry on and lets see where we end up.