Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

Afaik none of the pro-Corbyn groups are officially associated with anything, which is kind of the point when it comes to understanding the vagaries of political activism on social media. Any schmuck can set up a page and if the title and the first couple hundred posts hit the mark hey presto, 10,000 followers who you've never met, there for reasons unknown beyond possibly general sentiment and who have no incentive to behave themselves. And there's you, scrambling to find a couple of other people (who you've probably never met in real life but at least they're active on threads) to help you mod out the crazy a bit. Tough gig for a professional let alone an enthusiastic amateur sneaking it in on their phone at lunchtime - and that's assuming the group leader isn't also a total loonspud.
 
Hell Urban75 has a large, experienced mod and admin team who aren't shy with the thread lock and a fairly stable, large community of people who enforce a culture of making bigots feel unwelcome, but it still has its moments. If you took a few months to go through its back catalogue for dodgy comments you could find all sorts of quotes.
well, if 4 is large.

But could you find much serious on here? in order to make a point I used the term 'financial class' upthread and was immediate pounced upon and am probably now on various lists. The point was not about big fish moderating racists away, but that the pond is filled with little fish who may be letting this stuff pass. Do the ordinary posters in your group leave it all to you?
 
Plus the very real possibility of politically motivated trolling in such a group.
for years it's been a given that in any online group there are people pretending to be what they're not in order to cause trouble and disaffection, and these days we have to reckon there's at least some chance that there genuinely are paid agents of foreign powers posting. That's not conspiraloonacy, is it?
 
Wonder how easy it would be to play that sort of stuff back at the right? It's not like the Blairites/Tories lack for bigots and hateful shouty people online.

Do you actually need a bunch of old style media and pressure groups like the ones we've been talking about in this thread to pull it off?

ETA: or is the key difference that Labour activists might actually be concerned at having racist loons in their party (and hence be less active) whereas for Tories that’s just normal?
 
Last edited:
could you find much serious on here?

Less than a week ago Laurie Penny was picking out examples of people calling for her death and painting Urban as a misogynist hate site, and as I say, that's running a relatively tight ship.

Do the ordinary posters in your group leave it all to you?

Pretty much yeah, people will hit the report button once in a while but who reads argument threads other than the two or three people actually having the argument?
 
these days we have to reckon there's at least some chance that there genuinely are paid agents of foreign powers posting. That's not conspiraloonacy, is it?

It's not conspiraloonacy, States will always try to manipulate things, but it is overblown imo. It's simply not very plausible for Russia to be hiring people to make shit comments on pro-Corbyn Facebook pages.
 
It's not conspiraloonacy, States will always try to manipulate things, but it is overblown imo. It's simply not very plausible for Russia to be hiring people to make shit comments on pro-Corbyn Facebook pages.
Do I move further up the lists by observing that Russia is less interested in neutralising anti Zionism than the Israeli state?
 
I'm not condoning the author of this or his ideas about anything at all but here's some of what probably made up the raw material for the times article. It's about one facebook group which seems to have had a problem from the start because the people who were mods / founding members were not well placed to spot there being anything wrong.
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part1_FINAL.pdf
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part2_FINAL.pdf
 
I'm not condoning the author of this or his ideas about anything at all but here's some of what probably made up the raw material for the times article. It's about one facebook group which seems to have had a problem from the start because the people who were mods / founding members were not well placed to spot there being anything wrong.
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part1_FINAL.pdf
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part2_FINAL.pdf

I don't quite get where everyone is on this. Do people think Corbyn can ever sufficiently put this behind him (which includes taking the robust action necessary) to take the next step to no 10 or do people think as long as the members back him and the party is transformed, that will have to do?
 
In all honesty I think while public sentiment towards anti-semitism is mostly to condemn it, that probably won't convert to significant lost votes in these circumstances. The logic of parliamentary politics is "which is the best option of the two at hand," which imposes a choice of Party 1: Not very good at dealing with anti-semitism, left-wing policies or Party 2: Infamous racist history and a known slate of xenophobic tossers who actively say so in Parliament, right wing policies. within a broader framework of "which slate of policies do I most agree with overall."

The only real stand that can be taken is to not vote at all. Which may happen to some degree, but we're not in a situation where the logic lends itself to that if you have faith in parliamentary democracy as an important player in shaping the future, as unlike in the Blair era there's a clear view that the outcomes of Labour economics and Tory economics are likely to be materially very different.
 
Last edited:
Afaik none of the pro-Corbyn groups are officially associated with anything, which is kind of the point when it comes to understanding the vagaries of political activism on social media. Any schmuck can set up a page and if the title and the first couple hundred posts hit the mark hey presto, 10,000 followers who you've never met, there for reasons unknown beyond possibly general sentiment and who have no incentive to behave themselves. And there's you, scrambling to find a couple of other people (who you've probably never met in real life but at least they're active on threads) to help you mod out the crazy a bit. Tough gig for a professional let alone an enthusiastic amateur sneaking it in on their phone at lunchtime - and that's assuming the group leader isn't also a total loonspud.

<Potentially derailing comparison with mod policy on a different type of site deleted>

What might some sort of collective responsibility for dealing with toxic gibberish look like in a socialist party? (assuming for the sake of argument that Labour were one)

How do you make it work in places like Facebook groups that you don't actually control but that still get associated with you closely enough that you're more or less obliged to be responsible for them?

Maybe they need something like this ... ?

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.

They are all manifestations of liberalism.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

COMBAT LIBERALISM

Again, I forsee implementation issues. Probably the only way to deal with loonspud racists in practice though.
 
Last edited:
<Potentially derailing comparison with mod policy on a different type of site deleted>

What might some sort of collective responsibility for dealing with toxic gibberish look like in a socialist party? (assuming for the sake of argument that Labour were one)

How do you make it work in places like Facebook groups that you don't actually control but that still get associated with you closely enough that you're more or less obliged to be responsible for them?

Maybe they need something like this ... ?



COMBAT LIBERALISM

Again, I forsee implementation issues. Probably the only way to deal with loonspud racists in practice though.

Yes, but enough of Jeremy and his faults. :(
 
index.php
 
Luciana Berger is a shit-stirrer par excellence, and has been since her days on the NUS, where she attempted to use her authority to police supposed anti-Semitism at SOAS (in reality, the student union allowed the uni's Islamic Society to use a room free of charge, and the Union of Jewish Students branch at SOAS had a hissy fit), and got herself into a pile of shit because of it. frogwoman also followed the story at the time, and had several laughs about it.
Thanks for jogging my memory. I knew I'd followed her on twitter for a reason - I just couldn't remember if it was a *good* one or a *bad* one... :oops:
 
In these days of instant social media some people do tweet or retweet lazy anti Semitic tropes without necessarily realising they are doing it.

I confess I couldn't see anything wrong with the mural until it was pointed out to me.
 
Is that true? I thought it was an April fools yesterday!
True, apparently, in that the claim is still there and also appears on the mirror site. And whilst I don't give a shit about his facebook page, in the context of this row, deleting it is quite a big thing.
 
I wonder if any drop in the Labour vote from the GE I .The coming local elections will be painted as a response to this rather than Labour's record of implementing cuts and austerity?
 
Barnet will be an interesting case in point about all this (currently no majority after one Tory councillor deselected, IIRC). Labour will win regardless of some Jewish people probably switching their vote elsewhere, but most of the Jewish voters who would be most upset about this are the ones who vote Tory anyway, so I can't see it making an impact.
 
you get loons infesting all of the nets take away the filter that I might get a smack if I say this and all sorts of gibberish flows forth add your worse than Hitler if you suggest Israel isn't acting in Palestinians best interest :facepalm: and the Rothschilds control everything wake up sheeple on the other :facepalm: theres loads of room for mayhem.
 
Just seems like a really stupid thing to do, if he's really deleted his facebook at this particular moment and with no explanation, like something you'd do in a huff as a teenager. Especially after explicitly saying he wouldn't, last week.
 
True, apparently, in that the claim is still there and also appears on the mirror site. And whilst I don't give a shit about his facebook page, in the context of this row, deleting it is quite a big thing.
I don't really see it as that big a thing. In fact I'm surprised he didn't do it on becoming leader and just having an official one run by someone who knows what they're doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom