The idea that the sentence "antisemitism is residual in France" can mean that antisemitism is not residual in France, if other nearby sentences say other things on related topics, is absurdity.
EU election
- Thread starter Satinavian
- Start date
when speaking about some topic, it's often the case that generalized statements will have more specific intended meanings due to the context. it's untidy use of language, but that's not the charge. the charge is antisemitism. have you seriously never noticed this phenomenon? even analytic philosophy-a field basically invented to avoid such things- is prone to it at times.
also, residual is a relative term. it relates to what came before, which could be very serious indeed or a very long time ago. it means what is left after most of something is gone. it doesn't mean "not serious". residual antisemitism can still be very serious; we're talking about a European country after all, they're pretty well known for having very severe antisemitism problems. you can get rid of most of it and it'd still be serious. a more interesting question is what is Melenchon's thesis? What is the general thrust of his argument? But that would be treating his work charitably, not as a punching bag.
The charge against Melenchon, from me at least, has not been antisemitism. It has been repeatedly misrepresented as such, though.
I've noticed that when people are being imprecise with language, they can speak more generally than they mean to-- or (rarely) say something outright at odds with what they believe. On as important a topic as racism, on a blog he wrote (I.e. not speaking off the cuff), that would be a pretty enormous mistake, though not unfeasible.
Of course, if it was such a mistake, he could say so. But he doesn't seem terribly concerned.
A qualification that wouldn't matter one bit to you or me or anyone except insipid centrists and rightwingers if Macron had said racism against black people is residual in France.
Well it also isn't untidy use of language.
Why do you think so? Don't speak for me.
If you say "antisemitism is residual in France" without meaning that antisemitism is residual in France, then yes, that's some pretty damn clumsy language.
Well, because I've seen you rightly criticise centrists and right-wingers for stuff of similar calibre.
Well, in the UK General Election thread, you've posted that video of Keir Starmer in Yardley as evidence of Britain being "rancid". Starmer says "people coming from countries like Bangladesh are not being removed". It's mega shitty. He says this in the context of talking about illegal immigration.
Now, a reasonable person would note that he's skimmed over that qualification [that it's contextually about illegal immigration], to end up making a statement that sounds (on the face of it) broader, more sweeping, and prejudicial. I don't think either of us wouldn't extend the total benefit of the doubt to him, to argue what he's saying is technically correct or that people speak with language like this all the time and he doesn't mean the literal meaning of the words he said. You can recognise the undercurrent nastiness.
Last edited:
???
It's rancid if it's about 'illegal' immigration too. This is kind of the opposite situation in that the context makes it worse. "____ aren't being removed" by itself is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. The context is what makes it normative.
OK then. In the Ukraine thread you criticised those who talked about the murder of Alexei Navalny in a state-run slave camp as "liberals lionising an unrepentant racist". But when in this thread i mentioned that Corbyn gave much more vocal support to someone far worse-- Raed Salah-- you dismissed it as a "distraction".
Sure, that argument at least has some element of plausibility. Unfortunately, it's also very vague and speculative, with no quantitative data, and as a result I don't think it is a good argument. It feels a lot more like a convenient fob-off - attractive to put undue faith into because it's helpful to one's case despite it being transparently weak.
That's a deeply inappropriate use of quotation marks, given that I've not previously used the term "voting base" as far back as page 3 of this thread (or even the word "base"). It feels indicative of you paying little attention to what I have written in favour of your own confections.
Texts frequently have multiple contexts. So for instance, there may be an overarching context, within which are many, many others at varying levels. When we look at a sentence to interpret its meaning, we necessarily look at the sentences around it and associated with it to determine the most accurate meaning. Needless to say, this means that the overarching context of a whole text might not be the one that applies to any particular sentence within it.
So imagine you were to pick up a history book on the Spanish Civil War, and it has a one paragraph discussion about Stalin's penal policies in the USSR (because they were somehow relevant). You wouldn't argue that one sentence in that paragraph about Stalin's penal policies meant that it was the Spanish Republican faction sending people to Siberian gulags on the grounds that the top level context of the book was that it was on the Spanish Civil War. The more immediate context - Stalin / USSR - would obviously be the appropriate context.
I shouldn't even need to explain that to you, not least because I'm sure you already know. Obstinacy is a poor substitute for reason.
There is no problem with the context I applied to Melenchon's quote.
It seems to me that you want to believe the hard left is ideologically consistent and perfectly lovely as a magical, fantasy world of whiter-than-white heroes and blacker-than-black villains. You're supposed to learn that the world isn't truly like that when you grow up and become an adult. The reality is that some of them will happily roll the tanks into Prague, metaphorically speaking. And god knows, I've even met some of them.
The whole point being that the extent of a sudden rise in antisemitism is vague and murky, and certainly muddies where antisemitism is coming for.
No, you've just used the definition of voting base without saying the words and when receipts came about your claim of left leaning people committing certain acts you've tried hiding behind "well that's not what I really meant, obviously".
What left wing supporters have committed acts of antisemitism in France?
Let's just bring up right now that your hypothetical assumes a very sudden and drastic shift of topic. If Melanchon had been talking about antisemitism in Greece with that sentence, that would be more in line with your hypothetical. Melenchon's remark however fits perfectly within the throughline of the blog post, it's not some random detour. It is in the context of the blog post, not something to pull out alone.
No, I'm just not going to buy into your projection into their decision making parameters. You tried to bring a surface level reading "Melenchon marched against antisemitism in 2019 but not in 2023!" without considering why that might be other than rat brain political calculus, and not even considering there could be real significant and concrete good reasons apart from appeasing the voting bloc to make these decisions because the context behind both marches is entirely different. And when confronted with this idea, you resort to infantilization because actually engaging with this idea that maybe at least other people have morals and ethics hurts your cynical worldview. And the entire core of your argument here is the good 'ol right wing logic, "protesting Israel is inherently antisemitic".
No, stop there again. That wasn't the claim, as has been pointed out multiple times before. Stop trying to rewrite the opposing argument.
EU election
He's centre. He explicitly founded his party on that basis. Inasmuch as LREM may have drawn much of its support from the left, it tells you how many voting for the left aren't actually that left wing. The left as you want it doesn't win elections, demonstrated time after time after time. It can...
forums.escapistmagazine.com
The French far left counting on Nazi votes now?
Its certainly frustrating the center often prefers the right over the left, and that they sometimes even prefer the far right over the left.
Sometimes the leftist politicians don't help their case though. A lot of them seem eerily happy to parrot Russian propaganda which makes it easy to discredit them.
And no. I don't think the stance ''I support Russian aggression'' is any different from ''I hate the US and THEREFORE I support Russian aggression''. Its the same argument that would get the same result if implemented into policy.
Sometimes the leftist politicians don't help their case though. A lot of them seem eerily happy to parrot Russian propaganda which makes it easy to discredit them.
And no. I don't think the stance ''I support Russian aggression'' is any different from ''I hate the US and THEREFORE I support Russian aggression''. Its the same argument that would get the same result if implemented into policy.
I hadn't looked at all at who Raed Salah was before you mentioned him, but... how do you figure that Raed Salah is 'worse' than Alexei Navalny?
Salah is the leader of a group that is part of a national liberation movement and is accused of-- correct me if I'm wrong-- once(?) saying a blood libel in a sermon. And not in reference to events locally in Palestine, but about Europe awhile ago. And in very fanciful, non-specific terms such that it is hard to imagine it had much effect given the very real grievances Palestinians have against the group of Jews within arms reach, namely the Zionist colonizers. The other is an opportunist/nationalist politician who likened Muslims to cockroaches and was comfortable implying that they should be shot by depicting himself on video shooting with a pistol someone screaming "Allahu Akbar" after saying he "recommends a pistol" for the larger pests that a spray or fly swatter can't handle. Literal blatant verminization. And then he apparently tried to make a deal with MI6 through a lieutenant to get money to try to overthrow the Russian government, but that's not really relevant. Though on the other hand: state-run slave camp? You mean a prison? We have those all over the United States. And I'm pretty sure someone credibly accused of soliciting a million dollars from Chinese intelligence to overthrow the United States would swiftly find himself in there.
Anyway, what makes you think the former is worse than the latter? Guy who is a cleric at Al-Aqsa, which experiences continual harassment and violence by Jewish supremacists in a colonial apartheid state that legally discriminates against him in favor of Jewish people might be antisemitic. Seems like he used a trope. OK. If racism = prejudice + power, it is notable that Salah doesn't have much of the latter. And he disputes that he has any of the former, for what it's worth.
And then there is Navalny, a politician who verminizes a vulnerable group in Russia. Navalny is clearly on the "more like white nationalist than Irish nationalist" side of the nationalism spectrum and Raed Salah is the reverse of that. Or do you think the IRA is equivalent to the KKK? That might explain some things. The other apparent difference between Salah and Navalny is skin tone. Surely that can't explain your view, though, right? Or the fact that one targets Muslims and the other is Muslim? Or maybe it's just a matter of the one being villainized by the hegemonic narrative you are swimming in and the other being lionized, so you just accept the default assumption?
Oh, I know what you find so distasteful about Salah: he advises Arab Israelis not to participate in Israeli politics. Crime of the century.
Anyway, that's enough stupid distraction.
The tendency of Macron and other "centrists" to prefer the far right to anyone left of them and to make specious allegations about antisemitism against anyone who thinks Palestinians are worthy of solidarity.
I was under the impression that Macron and his party has always been considered right or center right anyway. So why the surprise ?
Initially, En Marche mostly cannibalised the centre left following its disintegration towards the end of the Hollande presidency, although it took a very substantial chunk of the centre right, too. Macron had origins with the Partie Socialiste in his early life. However, I do not think he was a member of PS when he served as a government minister under Hollande, and was certainly known to be centre given that the mainstream right offered him roles. I think his party dragged to the right when the mainstream right subsequently imploded, which then brought a larger chunk of right-leaning voters into En Marche.
"Base", in political terminology, refers to voters who can be relied on, election after election, to firmly support a specific candidate or party. However, we all know that parties tend to collect a great deal of other voters come an election beyond their base. These other voters are often pragmatic, or least worst option, or chance something different, or any number of other reasons for why voters with no fixed allegiance and potentially modest alignment with party values might vote for the party. The average party will triangulate, compromise, and design messaging to increase the number of these additional voters it pulls in, and over time it can decide to change which groups it wants to try to appeal to, the base usually remaining relatively fixed. This point, in much briefer terms, is already made in this thread.
Again, I am not sure I why need to explain what should be common knowledge.
That's fine, you're not required to. But then surely you also realise neither am I required to buy into your assumption of perfect moral cleanliness and ideological consistency. The hard left's political opponents definitely aren't required to buy into your assumption either.
You can get terribly upset that these political opponents say critical things about your side, but it's just pointless hysteria to scream at them that they're all supporting the Nazis. If you want to do that, your main accomplishment will be to have other people think you and yours are a bunch of sanctimonious, shrill pricks who are best ignored or opposed. (And therein lies a significant reason for why the hard left can be unpopular.)