Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I figured we could have one thread for the likes of The New Statesman, Jacobin, anything from the Fabians etc.

I'll start off with this explosive piece from Jacobin mag:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/04/tony ... inequality

Got a couple of paragraphs in and it repeats the moronic fallacy that Blair started the Iraq war rather than tagging along on Bush's coat tails. Pointless continuing after that.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:00 pm Got a couple of paragraphs in and it repeats the moronic fallacy that Blair started the Iraq war rather than tagging along on Bush's coat tails. Pointless continuing after that.

This grumpy git always saw Blair as clinging on to Bush's coat tails in that debacle in order to have his "Falklands Moment".

I don't know. I thought at the time that his real fear was that the US would go it alone anyway, and that would leave them dangerously isolated on the world stage. From this distance I think I may have been giving him a little too much credit, but it will be a while before the real truth comes out.

And religion. He was preparing to convert to Rome and Bush did the 'Christian Duty' thing on him. But it's good to restate that he was the follower, not the instigator.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:30 pm And religion. He was preparing to convert to Rome and Bush did the 'Christian Duty' thing on him. But it's good to restate that he was the follower, not the instigator.

Something that gets lost in the "Dodgy Dossier" noise, which doesn't help. Saying Blair was following Bush does him no favours with the far-left either but they'd only agree with the Sainted Jeremy's position anyway.

I thought Miliband called it right the last time, despite the amount of fire that drew.

This sums up my view of Jacobin.

Here's the Nation's contribution.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:02 pm Here's the Nation's contribution.

What a wrong ‘un seeking power instead of going on anti-Vietnam demos.

An institutionalist from the start, he (Biden) instead looked to electoral politics—not to bring the politics of his generation into the halls of power so much as to enter them himself.

Could have sworn there was a thread entitled "Round the Blogs", but I can't find the bloody thing, so posting this here. . Anyhoo, here is that rare thing, on a par with rocking horse shite, - a blog entry from "Another Angry Wank" that you can actually (mostly) agree with :

Yesterday I asked why these Just Stop Oil protesters attacked the snooker of all things, and the overwhelming response from their supporters was that it "created awareness" and "got people talking".

I'm far from convinced that publicity in its own right is sufficient reason to do things, because protests are a lot more effective when they have some kind of inherent logic*.

Would people be defending them on the grounds that "any publicity is good publicity" if they'd got themselves in the news for punching a baby, or throwing a puppy off a high rise building "to raise awareness"? (actions that make about as much sense as destroying a snooker table in the middle of the World Championship)

Yes, it "got people talking", but the vast majority of the conversations that were triggered have been extremely critical; centred on the incoherence of their actions; and contained absolutely no new information about the actual threat of climate change.

Most of the talk from my snooker friends has been that this kind of pointless disruption actively turns them against a cause that they're sympathetic to, which seems like a counter-productive type of conversation to be starting en masse.
Another of the conversations I've seen triggered by this action is the theory that it was so pointlessly disruptive and unpopular that maybe they're fifth columnists working on behalf of the government to popularise crackdowns on public protest.

Is it really such a success if you've got more people suspecting that you're part of a government conspiracy to de-legitimise peaceful protest than talking about the evidence of climate change?

For me this action is as incoherent and absurd as the time Extinction Rebellion disrupted London rail services in 2019. I mean don't they want people using buses and trains instead of cars? Isn't public transport the kind of thing climate protesters should be supporting rather than disrupting?

And then there's the fact that the Green Party just recently endorsed NATO, when they know perfectly well that the military-industrial complex is one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions on the planet (as well as other pollutants like carcinogens, forever chemicals, depleted uranium ...).

All in all this adds up to create a picture of environmentalists as deeply confused people who support military expansionism and all of the associated pollution, but attack public transport and a relatively harmless little sport like snooker.

Their attitude seems to be 'screw taking on the big polluters, that's too much like hard work. Let's go after easy targets like commuter trains and table sports'!

I'd argue that if you want people to take climate change seriously, you have to behave seriously, and demonstrate a bit more logic to your actions than attacking things purely to get yourself in the news.
There are a lot of very well-funded capitalist propaganda organisations with the purpose of minimising public concerns about environmental ruination, and making climate change activists look like shrill and annoying alarmists, so it's already extremely difficult to convince people to consider issues like climate change, plastic pollution, forever chemicals, etc, with the seriousness they deserve.

Under these circumstances I'd argue that it's actually dangerous and counter-productive for climate protesters to make themselves look like deeply unserious attention-seekers, with no action plan beyond pointless disruption, and turning lots of broadly sympathetic people against their cause.

But what do I know. I'm just the kind of idiot who thinks climate protesters would do themselves more favours by directly protesting the fossil fuel industries, their capitalist backers, other major polluters, corrupt and complacent politicians, and the military-industrial complex, rather than this kind of incoherent, unpopular, counter-productive, attention-seeking bollocks.

Can't really argue with that.

Their attitude seems to be 'screw taking on the big polluters, that's too much like hard work. Let's go after easy targets like commuter trains and table sports'!

In a nutshell. What's that old saying, that perfect is the enemy of possible?

You can't argue with that. xR, Just Stop Oil and all the other groups might have the most moral cause and the most unanswerable argument in history, but they're not going to get anywhere by pissing off the people whose support they need and reinforcing the prejudice that they're a bunch of pampered, middle-class, publicity-seeking student types with their heads in the clouds doing all this stuff to kill a bit of time before joining daddy's multi-national.

That quote in Aber's post above is pretty much what I said in the Climate Change thread some months ago. Only I wasn't quite so long-winded about it.

The trigger that time was Just Stop Thinking's threat to destroy irreplaceable paintings to "raise awareness".

This is Another Angry's second stopped-clock moment that I know of. The first was a diatribe about cycling infrastructure, and that was well over a decade ago.

Dave Spart points for this dig.

And then there's the fact that the Green Party just recently endorsed NATO, when they know perfectly well that the military-industrial complex is one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions on the planet (as well as other pollutants like carcinogens, forever chemicals, depleted uranium ...).

I grew up expecting leadership on climate change as the science was undeniable so expected there would transitional inconveniences to my life. A recycling bin and picking up dogshit are about the boldest challenges politicians have foisted on me. Wouldn’t be happy about more radical lifestyle changes but on balance it’s preferable to global catastrophe.

Yesterday I asked why these Just Stop Oil protesters attacked the snooker of all things, and the overwhelming response from their supporters was that it "created awareness" and "got people talking".

"Created awareness" & "got people talking" in this case is very much along the lines of "no such thing as bad publicity".

I don't think there's too much to argue that if you're seen appearing in court on charges of having hundreds of child pornography images on your laptop, then that is "bad publicity". Yes, it's a fairly extreme example, but it does punch a goatse-sized hole in that logic.

Sure, people have became aware of their actions at the Crucible and they are talking about it - it's just that those talking about them are describing those that soiled a snooker table and JSO by association as "dickheads".