Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Was there a trial and a verdict and I missed it, Tom?
-
Ben, I have to go to bed now so forgive me if I don't follow up further on what is really a minor aside.
I'm not saying YOU have a prejudice at all. I'm saying that it seems inconsistent to complain that the Herald is stressing Omar's Palestinian father on the one hand (presumably we're complaining about stereotyping) and on the other hand criticise them for getting it wrong (why does it matter who his dad is if we don't buy the stereotype). I admit a certain amount of squinting between the lines is required to construct the above series of posts like that - it just struck me as funny/weird.
-
Ben, Craig: I applaud having at the Herald. I just don't think we should buy into the very prejudice they play on.
-
Ben: I don't know. But I know that if someone were to libel me by saying "that Judd bastard, of course he's pushy and venal, his mother's Jewish you know", I don't want you to defend me by saying "oh no, his mother's not Jewish at all."
-
-
-
That's either hysteria or cynical politicking.
On the one hand, it's exaggerated. On the other, it seems a bit odd to criticise a political party for politicking... more a venal sin given their purpose, isn't it?
These are weird times. Chris Trotter is seeing anarchists under the bed, and Ross Meurant thinks the police need to be reined in.
-
“The state” is a social construct (i.e. an idea), not a physical entity. Talking about “smashing” it is a call to overcome one idea with a better one; it is not a call to violence. For example:
“smashing racists” = violent extremism;
“smashing racism” ≠ violent extremism, right?(in a much better temper now one is home and, er, refuelled)
But "smash" is a verb with violent connotations. To me if you say "smash the state" I assume you mean armed revolution. Honestly, that's my very first impression. If you have other things in mind I think "smash" is a very poor choice of word.
Likewise, someone upthread said "anarchism is more a challenge to the self-serving authority of elite groups than it is any kind of dogmatic belief."
Well, crikey, paint me black and call me an anarchist! Except that clearly there is a great deal more to the various flavours of anarchism than that. It's like saying Christianity is all about loving your neighbour. Yeah no.
I prefer it when people spontaneously organise themselves in ways that suit them, and I want a society where that happens as much as possible. But some people are spoilers and need curbing. That curbing function IS the state, with or without a formal constitution. You can't live in a world free of compromise and paradox if it's got actual people in it.
Sometimes I think anarchists' problem is they think too small. They have problems with the state as it is, and they can't conceive of how to change it practically, so they imagine just getting rid of it by magic. Incremental change somehow seems harder than the revolutionary convulsion that sorts it all out.
Note to Michael F: I have spoken to relatives of mine who remember the nobles being taken out in their white shirts to be shot. (White shirts are an important class signifier when everyone is really filthy poor). You know what? That didn't turn out so well in the end.
-
Andrew, if I sound cranky it's because I've spend the last couple of hours achieving very little, and my post-work drinkies have fallen through.
-
The evidence does seem to be compelling
A very controversial assertion.
hysteria
Sez you.
they percieved - for whatever reasons - as a serious threat.
Well, the accuracy of that perception is the critical point, isn't it?