Ah shit, at the time they removed the paywall for it.
the boris johnson is at it again
shocked at the lack of attention this was given the other week:
Lovely they’re still not enabling comments on this absolute cretin’s columns. The only opinion columnist in their stable they do that with.
he’s the Russell Brand of government
He’s written 2000 words tackling a problem that only exists in his head. Again.
Ctrl+F “Orwell” “Milton” - Check. Again.
Then it gets really good:
most of the world’s suicide terrorists are Islamists and different ethnic groups commit violent crime at different rates.
Ethnicity isn’t destiny and the propensity of a group to commit crimes changes over time.
That’s race science. Taking raw data and offering it as proof that certain races are innately bad, without examining context, is race science. I don’t care if Pinker is the one doing it; this little shit clearly endorses it. Just because he doesn’t talk about skull shapes doesn’t change the fact that The Guardian just ran a fucking article defending eugenics.
I am losing my fucking mind right now. I AM LOSING MY FUCKING MIND.
Oh I get it now - this is all part of nick’s grand narrative, which he stole from Chris Hitchens, and which Hitchens partly cribbed from Orwell.
Nick was a good leftist, but his views of Iraq and Muslims were too damned logical and principled for his comrades, and so he was reluctantly driven to the right by pinko hypocrisy.
He was bringing those things up to show how easily they’re disproven. Except he does nothing but show exactly why those arguments should never be in the public discourse, because his ripostes appear mealy-mouthed and complicated next to those bold, common-sense statements. Fascism gets in by simply asking the question, and once it’s in it sets about destroying every other argument.
It’s fascinating that a man who identifies as Jewish doesn’t understand how this works. Except it’s not, because Nick Cohen is an absolute cretin. It should also be pointed out that what Virgin did isn’t censorship. Only an absolute cretin would think it was.
I’ve reread it and I’m not sure he does bring them up only to show how easily they’re disproven tbh. I understand that’s what he’s wanting us to think he’s doing, but…
Harvard’s Steven Pinker recently listed true but “politically incorrect” assertions that have driven American students rightwards when they discovered US campuses rarely discuss them. His unpalatable propositions included: capitalism is preferable to communism – no one would prefer to live in North rather than South Korea, after all; most of the world’s suicide terrorists are Islamists; and different ethnic groups commit violent crime at different rates.
Here he’s speaking through Pinker in a “this is science, fight me” kind of logic troll provocation to snowflakes like us. He’s conceding that of course people turn right-wing when they aren’t presented with a version of the world they like, and by implication admitting the alt-right or whatever have a point (which as you say, he doesn’t seem to realize means he lost the ‘argument’ immediately) before this…
Pinker said that if only universities had the courage to face awkward facts they could make perfectly good rejoinders against the apparent justifications for racism and anarcho-capitalism. The most successful capitalist societies have strong welfare states rather than unregulated markets, for instance. Most American terrorists are white supremacists. Ethnicity isn’t destiny and the propensity of a group to commit crimes changes over time.
So his first point is redundant cos no American universities promote communism.
The second point is totally stupid because of course fewer Americans are “Islamist” terrorists, the original argument was about global terrorism (which he knows, he just wanted to plant another “telling jibe” on Muslims, all of whom, I’m pretty sure, he assumes are terrorists in waiting). He’s answering a stupid and context-free argument with a deliberately stupid and context-free argument.
The third still accepts the framing of ethnicity being linked to innate characteristics anyway - his “the propensity of a group to commit crimes changes over time” basically means “they can eventually be civilized”.
He’s peddling the exact same “facts don’t care about your feelings” pedantry as the alt-right but trying to sweeten it with “good logic”.
And because I am inside that fucker’s head, I’m also pretty sure this is an indirect defense of Toby Young too.
jesus fucking christ
The thing I find unsettling about terfs is how coordinated they are on social media. As this tweet is a good example of, the second anyone posts so much as a moderately trans-supportive statement they’re on it like a swarm of killer bees, boosting each other’s replies and threatening them whichever way they can. You see comment bombing and astro-turfing elsewhere of course, but these people are downright militant about it.
Yeah the instances of collusion during the troubles are ridiculous especially when MPs call for an amnesty for soldiers who served in NI
The 3 Momentum candidates absolutely walked the NEC elections.
Heartbreak for Izzard. Yet again.
It’s surely a little bit suspect that he’s also still married whilst dating someone almost half his age?
The married and dating thing is really between the three of them. The dating someone half your age is a bit weird, yeah.
Yeah, I was a bit wary about coming off like a puritan but given the fact that UKIP have harped on about christian values before it seemed reasonable to hold them to the same standard.
Given that Farage’s affair, and using party funds to support it, was a fairly open secret, I think the elected members of the party are more flexible on the matter.