advertisement


Roger Waters

I pray that I don’t turn into a reactionary right wing old git. Made it to 63 without converted, so fingers crossed.
 
Tony L said:
Blimey, how old are you?! Once you get beyond the state persecution of folk like Alan Turing, i.e. the WWII generation and before, few of whom are still with us, things became exponentially more liberal. Most ‘old’ people today are the ‘flower power’ generation and the real drivers of the civil rights movement.
>SNIP<
As such I never had anything to rebel against, I always knew which was the right side of this argument.
Click to expand...
I'm 74, and part of the "alternative society". Anti capitalism, consumerism, authoritarianism, racism, sexism, homophobia, absolutism, nuclear proliferation, intolerance*, etc.
As for "knowing" you are on the right side, see my post #14.
* The current crop of righteousness I tend to think of as intolerant tolerance. Tolerating everyone except those who don't believe as they do.
 
stevec67 said:
Oh dear. She should come to Bradford. Or ask any Indian what he thinks about Pakistanis. Then step back.
Click to expand...
She grew up in Manchester (see the attitude of Indians/Pakistanis there towards the West Indians) but is now a social worker. Her time at Uni (as an adult with 3 boys) changed her views. Fortunately the law doesn't agree with her.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
He's obviously on the wrong side of the argument on Russia, but I have some sympathy for his position on Israel. At the risk of reigniting old fires on here, being a vocal critic of the state of Israel, and the atrocities committed by Israelis against Palestinians, is not antisemitic. I think we'd established that. And from what that Guardian piece says, that's Waters' position.
Click to expand...
Personally I think "atrocities" is an exaggeration, unless one wants to also start discussing "atrocities" committed by Palestinian and other Arabs against Israelis. And I think neither of us want to start that all over again. Regarding Waters, from all the stuff I've read and seen he does appear to be enthusiastically anti-Jewish and to criticise the State of Israel in a ham fisted, stupid, wilfully offensive and obscene manner. I think Polly Samson's description fits perfectly.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
He's obviously on the wrong side of the argument on Russia, but I have some sympathy for his position on Israel. At the risk of reigniting old fires on here, being a vocal critic of the state of Israel, and the atrocities committed by Israelis against Palestinians, is not antisemitic. I think we'd established that. And from what that Guardian piece says, that's Waters' position.
Click to expand...

I think if you're being charitable comparing a Jewish state to Nazi Germany is, at best, clumsy.

Flying a pig shaped balloon at your concerts festooned with a dollar sign and the star of David doesn't seem too clever either.
 
awkwardbydesign said:
The current crop of righteousness I tend to think of as intolerant tolerance. Tolerating everyone except those who don't believe as they do.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the current CofE argument: we have to accommodate people who hate gays because it would be intolerant not to.

You are the Archbishop of Canterbury and I claim my £5.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
being a vocal critic of the state of Israel, and the atrocities committed by Israelis against Palestinians, is not antisemitic.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I tried to have a conversation with a jewish lawyer in Oakland, nr. San Francisco about the Palestinian vs. Israel situation. He was less than communicative about the subject, to the point of negativity. He was happy to show me the Glock handgun that he kept in a drawer in the dining room though. Queer situation that was.
 
paulfromcamden said:
I think if you're being charitable comparing a Jewish state to Nazi Germany is, at best, clumsy.

Flying a pig shaped balloon at your concerts festooned with a dollar sign and the star of David doesn't seem too clever either.
Click to expand...

Ah, I was only going off what I read in the Grauniad piece. I don't take an interest in his doings, as a rule.
 
paulfromcamden said:
This seems to be the current CofE argument: we have to accommodate people who hate gays because it would be intolerant not to.

You are the Archbishop of Canterbury and I claim my £5.
Click to expand...
Hardly, but understanding them might help. But that would mean a bit more thinking and a bit less reaction.
 
Chefren said:
It's because fascism doesn't fit in with the traditional left/right dichotomy, and is more syncretic.

Fascism is for example collectivist (the state should control the economy*), which is not at all a typical right-wing position. There is "us and them", not defined by class (workers vs. capitalists) but something else (race in Nazi Germany, religion and nationality in Fascist Italy etc.). It also tries to resolve the class struggle, by making it irrelevant rather than by shifting power towards the working class. Since it has positioned itself as a direct competitor to the left, it can work with the right but not with the left. And since it is populist in nature, it needs easy solutions to complex problems, which democracy does not provide, so that has to go too.

So it's not very surprising that sometimes its difficult to tell them apart. However in many things like social values, the left and fascists are polar opposites.

*) Example: Trump "ordering" US companies to move production from China to the US. Under fascism the captialists would have complied or fallen out of windows.
Click to expand...

Good post - except that the Trump tarriffs largely had the effect of moving production from China to Malaysia and Vietnam. Very little production returned to the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top