Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[sihhi]

just to recap her lies about starkeygate

I disagree with (Blairite, Blue (restrict immigrants' families) Labour fan) David Goodhart and (Thatcherite, anti-union new young breed economic historian at LSE) David Starkey. Laurie Penny was right to make the case against Starkey for xenophobia, but was mistaken over the tax evasion claim. Laurie Penny did not screw up the debate. I am also give to believe David Starkey was embellishing the truth about Laurie Penny's refusal on the grounds of not being paid enough - that is not Laurie Penny's style.
She is not money-obsessed, there's no evidence of that at all. Instead I get a sense of a desire to seen by others as a crucial part of the radical pyramid, and also to shock rich people at the same time - a new version of 'epater le bourgeois' what French drug-taking romantic poets of the 19th century called it.

I think it was later proved the Tom Paine Society basically agreed with her side of the story. David Starkey was pointing his finger, making an ultra-reactionary nonsense argument: 'I am David Starkey, I am so smart and fabulous - came from the bottom to get into an elite regional grammar school then Oxbridge, I will wag my finger in your face'. He had zero reason to do so, he could simply have stated 'I am domiciled in Britain' and spoken calmly about Laurie Penny's failure to attend an earlier debate.

But Laurie's tactics were mistaken in that the domicile question could have been brought in her own speaking time, not interrupting Starkey whilst he was speaking. What is anyone meant to do at a discussion of British 'nationhood' and its relevance etc - allow someone who believes in a Tebbit-like vision of nation-states - to speak without using the word xenophobia?

edited for clarity

 

[framed]

eta at framed
Oh for fucks sake just go back and read you own post

Nothing I said changes the implication of your post.

You think it was 'creepy' that someone 'dug up' an article about LP's past and that it might have 'freaked her out'.

Yeah, that is such a qualified statement from you... fucking hand wringer.

Fuck off enema...

 

[newbie]

No, he repeatedly and deliberately trolled a disability support and repeatedly broke the FAQs. That's why he was banned.

he was outed on this thread, over and again

 

[emanymton]

Here:



Digging up carries clear implications - which you go on to intensify with creepy. Can you really not see what you're saying here?

Urmmm, I think we have different interruptions of the phrase digging up someone was obviously researching her and found it hence it was dug up as far as I am concerned. Would you been happier if I had sound finding? I can go back and edit the post if you want.

 

[8ball]

Laurie Penny did not screw up the debate.

She bollocks-ed up the debate by starting with an unsubstantiated accusation and then following it up with accusations of racism.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yeah, got to say that taking Starkey's side would make me just as uncomfortable as, I dunno, a couple of right wing hacks taking my side against a messageboard full of genuine people with genuine pro-working class politics.

 

[emanymton]

Nothing I said changes the implication of your post.

You think it was 'creepy' that someone 'dug up' an article about LP's past and that it might have 'freaked her out'.

Yeah, that is such a qualified statement from you... fucking hand wringer.

Fuck off enema...

Fuck me your a dick. Butchers I have a lot of respect for, but you can just piss off

 

[sihhi]

is it just me who thinks this is fucking pathetic?

Yes, it is inappropriate.
Laurie Penny chose to legally change her name on feminist grounds away from her father's surname, and she is referred to as a generic male name because ... ...

 

[love detective]

I disagree with (Blairite, Blue (restrict immigrants' families) Labour fan) David Goodhart and (Thatcherite, anti-union new young breed economic historian at LSE) David Starkey. Laurie Penny was right to make the case against Starkey for xenophobia, but was mistaken over the tax evasion claim. Laurie Penny did not screw up the debate. I am also give to believe David Starkey was embellishing the truth about Laurie Penny's refusal on the grounds of not being paid enough - that is not Laurie Penny's style.
She is not money-obsessed, there's no evidence of that at all. Instead I get a sense of a desire to seen by others as a crucial part of the radical pyramid, and also to shock rich people at the same time - a new version of 'epater le bourgeois' what French drug-taking romantic poets of the 19th century called it.

I think it was later proved the Tom Paine Society basically agreed with her side of the story. David Starkey was pointing his finger, making an ultra-reactionary nonsense argument: 'I am David Starkey, I am so smart and fabulous - came from the bottom to get into an elite regional grammar school then Oxbridge, I will wag my finger in your face'. He had zero reason to do so, he could simply have stated 'I am domiciled in Britain' and spoken calmly about Laurie Penny's failure to attend an earlier debate.

But Laurie's tactics were mistaken in that the domicile question could have been brought in her own speaking time, not interrupting Starkey whilst he was speaking. What is anyone meant to do at a discussion of British 'nationhood' and its relevance etc - allow someone who believes in a Tebbit-like vision of nation-states - to speak with using the word xenophobia?

This from the Thomas Pain Society (my emphasis)

When Penny indicated in the second week of May that she might not be able to get back from the US in time, we tried to find a replacent but couldn’t. We offered to pay her airfare back. By the time she replied to our offer (with the request for an additional fee) however, time was too short to do adequate publicity and we cancelled the event.

so she did ask for a fee to do the event, something I'm sure she denied doing?

 

[butchersapron]

Urmmm, I think we have different interruptions of the phrase digging up someone was obviously researching her and found it hence it was dug up as far as I am concerned. Would you been happier if I had sound finding? I can go back and edit the post if you want.

What would be the point - one other very quick thing though which shows how that wording lends itself to the reading i put on it. Your post also appeared in the middle of a series of posts suggesting weird, stalkery or bullying type behaviour - in fact it was in response to one saying exactly that and can easily be seen as agreeing with those claims and indeed providing and example of just that behaviour in order to strengthen the case. I'm not going on with this strand now, i'm going to watch a film instead

 

[8ball]

so she did ask for a fee to do the event, something I'm sure she denied doing?

She said in the Starkey debate that she had asked for a fee - I've not been reading every page of this monster thread but I thought that was uncontroversial.

 

[framed]

Yes, it is inappropriate.
Laurie Penny chose to legally change her name on feminist grounds away from her father's surname, and she is referred to as a generic male name because ... ...

I already explained it. Go read. There was never any inference about her father or anything else.

 

[SpineyNorman]

is it just me who thinks this is fucking pathetic?

Gotta say I don't really get that either.

To be honest, and this is probably just the wet liberal in me coming out, I kind of feel bad for calling her Laura earlier in the thread. I certainly wouldn't call Mohammed Ali Cascius Clay (I get that this isn't quite on the level of slavery but I guess the principle is the same) and not just because he'd spark me the fuck out if I did either.

Fuck me I'm a soppy cunt, I'm kind of a little bit feeling sorry for the person who's got me having to answer questions about my 'racism'.

 

[love detective]

I'm sad to see LLETSA driven out by fellow posters. Repeatedly outed until the mods had to act because his opinions didn't fit.

I was thinking about this earlier, although i was frustruated with his constant whinging about us whinging on here, I called him LLETSA several times purely in the way you would say someone's name while talking/arguing with them, not for the purpose of outing him or getting him banned

I realised after that, that this meant he was brought to the attention of the mods which I wish hadn't happen, as pretty much agree with most of what he says and thought his original ban was completely unfair and unwarranted

 

[sihhi]

This from the Thomas Pain Society (my emphasis)

so she did ask for a fee to do the event, something I'm sure she denied doing?

But that fee request as I understood it was as a result of foregone earnings in place X, whereas the debate was to be in place Y.
The whole thing is weird, who leaked this request to Starkey, why it was imperative to have those two speakers at the start.

 

[stuff_it]

Im pretty sure gentleman of fortune is a euphemism for privateer.
It did make me think of trust funds though, like killer b

Trust funds = 'independent means'

 

[Firky]

Dave's a nickname, quite a pleasant one considering some of the other things she has been called.

 

[8ball]

Dave's a nickname, quite a pleasant one considering some of the other things she has been called.

If you PM her maybe she'll meet you half-way on 'Larry'.

 

[discokermit]

I already explained it. Go read. There was never any inference about her father or anything else.

your explaination is rubbish. referring to her as dave is inappropriate, unfunny and unhelpful.

 

[equationgirl]

Yeah, got to say that taking Starkey's side would make me just as uncomfortable as, I dunno, a couple of right wing hacks taking my side against a messageboard full of genuine people with genuine pro-working class politics.

Hey, I'm no fan of Starkey, but her 'debating' was deplorable.

 

[love detective]

But that fee request as I understood it was as a result of foregone earnings in place X, whereas the debate was to be in place Y.
The whole thing is weird, who leaked this request to Starkey, why it was imperative to have those two speakers at the start.

not sure if that was the case or not - even if it is though, it shows that she's happy to push her politics only if she's compensated for it, not exactly 'putting everything on the line for her politics' as she claimed on here earlier

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'll stick my oar in on LLESTA too - what he did on that disability thread was seriously out of order. But I like him as a poster - I often agree with him and even when I don't he always makes me think - he's far, far better at making you challenge your assumptions than any of the right wingers who post on here.

And I think sometimes the whole pessimist angle is done in a half joking way - like he's parodying himself.

 

[framed]

your explaination is rubbish. referring to her as dave is inappropriate, unfunny and unhelpful.

I have no sympathy for her on a political or personal level.

I've read posts here that certainly add to my understanding of where her politics have come from, but I really could not give a fuck about what upsets, freaks out or frightens her. She's an actress playing the part of 'journo activist'.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Hey, I'm no fan of Starkey, but her 'debating' was deplorable.

I agree completely. But Starkey was acting like a cock too and as I said, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable taking his side on anything. Be no better than palling up to Daniel Finkelstein on twatter.

 

[Firky]

Another for LLETSA. Cantankerous old twat at times but he was great asset to the boards. The ol' dawg got into too many fights in the end.

 

[discokermit]

I was thinking about this earlier, although i was frustruated with his constant whinging about us whinging on here, I called him LLETSA several times purely in the way you would say someone's name while talking/arguing with them, not for the purpose of outing him or getting him banned

I realised after that, that this meant he was brought to the attention of the mods which I wish hadn't happen, as pretty much agree with most of what he says and thought his original ban was completely unfair and unwarranted

c'mon though, it's not rocket science. people know what the result of naming him could be.
that's why, next time, people should just keep schtum.

 

[Fedayn]

your explaination is rubbish. referring to her as dave is inappropriate, unfunny and unhelpful.

 

[framed]

Some of us enjoyed it for a wee while.

Laurie is to be addressed as Laurie now, or would she prefer Ms Penny?

This is obviously the major issue to come out of the thread...

And she ain't even fucking here!

Sorry Dave...

 

[sihhi]

not sure if that was the case or not - even if it is though, it shows that she's happy to push her politics only if she's compensated for it, not exactly 'putting everything on the line for her politics' as she claimed on here earlier

This is true, but in the context of that debate the Laurie Penny demands mega-bucks attack by Starkey is one we can't really rely on.

 

[emanymton]

What would be the point - one other very quick thing though which shows how that wording lends itself to the reading i put on it. Your post also appeared in the middle of a series of posts suggesting weird, stalkery or bullying type behavior - in fact it was in response to one saying exactly that and can easily be seen as agreeing with those claims and indeed providing and example of just that behaviour in order to strengthen the case. I'm not going on with this strand now, i'm going to watch a film instead

Hope it's a good film
I see your point, my intention when replying to Ska's post was not so much to agree with all of it but to highlight the one thing that stand out to me as being (in my opinion) significantly across the the line of what is acceptable. I do have some sympathy with Ska's post which was why I quoted it, but I just find the level of interest shown on this thread a little odd for the most part.