# Marine Le Pen in Cambridge today



## DrRingDing (Feb 19, 2013)

If anyone's interested.

Meet at the Cambridge Uni Union 2.30pm

Might get tasty. It might. Maybe.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2013)

I agree on the whole with this article;

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...on-time--let-marine-le-pen-speak-8499560.html


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 19, 2013)




----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 19, 2013)

what is it with these posh uni unions and inviting full cream wrong uns. Oxford just had assange so now cambridge goes with le pen- whats next, oxford goes with pistorious and cambridge does a video link with tommy from his US prison cell?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 19, 2013)

they love it, the poshos.  they like hearing the plebby howls of disdain.  and even if the wrong un in question isn't their sort of person, they are their sort of person, if you gets me.  it;s ok to be a bit rapey, or think that muzzis should be castrated, as long as you're not poor.  after all, you never know when you marine le pen might be able to put some baksheesh your way.


----------



## Random (Feb 19, 2013)

It's more about how the Oxbridge training to be in the international elite involves contact with the movers and shakers of the world, including the better known extremists.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 19, 2013)

shocking article from the Indie, reminds me why I'm stuck with the Graun , takes cretinous liberalism to it's limp little logical conclusion, highlighted by one the authors comments below the piece : ( has he really no idea how anti's justify "pre-emptive action " against the Fascists supposed 'rights' to "free speech " ? he's never heard any 'no platform' arguments, ever ? Piss poor)


*IRAJDATOO 13 hours ago*​Thanks for commenting Andrew. You say that "she would take away the free speech of the Left". Why do you say this? Either way, in some kind of pre-emptive action, you want to take away her free speech? How is that in any way justifiable?​


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 19, 2013)

it's not just her free speech that should be taken away.  fucking liberals.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 19, 2013)

shit article. telling strapline as well


> *There's a difference between Nick Griffin showboating for votes on national television and Le Pen exposing her views to the ridicule of a few curious students*


 
its ok for posh students to hear a fash speaker, so long as the great unwashed don't get to hear its fine


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 19, 2013)

it'll be ultra-plod time! international incident etc


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I agree on the whole with this article;
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...on-time--let-marine-le-pen-speak-8499560.html


 
Given that you are good mates with a stream of vile racists that hardly surprises me


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

oxford and cambridge are a fucking disgrace.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Given that *you are good mates with a stream of vile racists* that hardly surprises me


 
Firstly, that is wrong - I don't expect you to take my word for it, but it is.

Secondly, you have no way of knowing whether or not it is true anyway, because; you don't know what my user name is on the boards I post on, whom I talk to on there (if anyone) or what my relationship is with those people.

So let's just stick to the subject. I thought that was a fair article. As long as the students questioned her incisively - as the students at Columbia University questioned Ahmadinejad when he spoke to them - I'd say it's what a university is for.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

No it's a terrible article.



> Remember that the environment in the Cambridge Union will be an academic one. Those in the auditorium will at the very least have a brief background of Le Pen and will know to be sceptical of the dangerous words being uttered. In a show such as _Question Time_, however, many viewers only find out about the politicians’ opinions – and occasionally even the politicians themselves – for the first time, and the argument for no platform is stronger (but one I would still oppose).


 
Like academia has never provided intellectual and political cover for fascism. Why will they know to be sceptical of the words being uttered simply by virtue of being cambridge students? some would argue that the sense of entitlement produced by spending a life around such rarified environments as well as the lack of contact with ethnic minorities or working class people would mean that they were more susceptible to extreme right-wing viewpoints. And the article itself says that her views are quite close to that of Cameron who many of people in that audience will support. We have a far-right tory government and it's not such a leap to suggest that some of the people politically sympathetic to the tory far right would become sympathetic to the even further right.

Secondly the point about how it doesn't matter because it won't be a public event but will be a small university gathering is bollocks - what's the point of "making them squirm" as the article says if nobody will be around to see it?



> Unlike a television audience, many of whom might only have vague notions of what a politician might stand for, students will force an answer on subjects that she has tried to avoid.


 
This is a massive assumption (there are plenty of clueless students about) as well as being elitist bollocks. You think all cambridge students in that audience are well-informed not only on what fascism is but about the dangers that the far-right presents and are somehow inoculated against fascist views because they're students at an elite university?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

> One thing, however, is for certain. Come tomorrow, Marine Le Pen will be looking to prove that she belongs in the mainstream and it will be up to the audience to show her just how wrong she is, and why nationalist parties such as her British counterpart the BNP do not have a place in British society.


 
this is, again, bullshit. The "mainstream" have proved that they are not averse to using far-right and fascist politics and adopting some of the rhetoric and policies of the far-right. The article's author does not offer any reasons as to why she will be "proved wrong" only to say that she will be. Er why??


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> As long as the students questioned her incisively - as the students at Columbia University questioned Ahmadinejad when he spoke to them - I'd say it's what a university is for.


 
you think it's all right for heads of state who are responsible for spreading anti-semitic propaganda, repressing women and minorities and openly torturing and killing opponents to their regime (iran's gov't recently unveiled a hand-amputating machine) to have a platform as long as they're questioned incisively? And that that's what a university is for?with no opposition to the fact they're there just an "exchange of views"?

is it fuck what a university is for - and no i think it's a fucking disgrace that he was invited and allowed to speak with no opposition to his views. i'd say the same if it was cameron at a iranian university as well. This is why i'm a communist not a liberal.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

I think you're giving the woman too much intellectual credit. You may think Cambridge students are clueless but it remains very hard to get in there.

Have to say I'd like it better if their tutors and lecturers were also there to question her, as they were at Columbia - they might have been but I didn't see any sign of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I think you're giving the woman too much intellectual credit. You may think Cambridge students are clueless but it remains very hard to get in there.
> 
> Have to say I'd like it better if their tutors and lecturers were also there to question her, as they were at Columbia - they might have been but I didn't see any sign of it.


 
It might be very hard for most of us maybe but if you've been schooled and prepared for it, not as hard as it might be.


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> is it fuck what a university is for - and no i think it's a fucking disgrace that he was invited and allowed to speak with no opposition to his views. i'd say the same if it was cameron at a iranian university as well. This is why i'm a communist not a liberal.


 Unfortunately it's exactly what a university like Cambridge is "for" - to reproduce the ruling class and provide a comfortable place for political elites to network and compete with each other within certain safe limits.


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I think you're giving the woman too much intellectual credit. You may think Cambridge students are clueless but it remains very hard to get in there.
> 
> Have to say I'd like it better if their tutors and lecturers were also there to question her, as they were at Columbia - they might have been but I didn't see any sign of it.


That's right. They'll dazzle her with their shining wit and she'll slink home to hug an Algerian and open a halal butchers along with Bridget Bardot.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I think you're giving the woman too much intellectual credit. You may think Cambridge students are clueless but it remains very hard to get in there.
> 
> Have to say I'd like it better if their tutors and lecturers were also there to question her, as they were at Columbia - they might have been but I didn't see any sign of it.


 
Also I never said they were stupid. As you know there are reasons other than stupidity that somebody might be sympathetic to fascist ideas and surely it is not hugely improbable that some of the students at cambridge university, already viewing themselves as part of an elite might become sympathetic to the views of the extreme right particularly if they can be persuaded that such views are in fact "reasonable" and "moderate" and do not pose a threat to the social order they are a product of.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 20, 2013)

Oxbridge undergrads - our elite intellectual defenders against fascism. Not like the oiks in the audience for a _television_ programme. And certainly not in any way a deliberate target.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

_Unlike a television audience, many of whom might only have vague notions of what a politician might stand for, students will force an answer on subjects that she has tried to avoid._

Very telling line there.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you think it's all right for heads of state who are responsible for spreading anti-semitic propaganda, repressing women and minorities and openly torturing and killing opponents to their regime (iran's gov't recently unveiled a hand-amputating machine) to have a platform as long as they're questioned incisively? And that that's what a university is for? with no opposition to the fact they're there just an "exchange of views"?


 
There was plenty of opposition to the fact he was there, and the President's address acknowledged as much.

Bollinger admitted that Ahmadinejad's presence on campus was an experiment, in other words that he couldn't be sure whether or not he was doing the right thing. I think in the end he was vindicated by the fact Ahmadinejad's conceits were exposed (such as his claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran).


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> There was plenty of opposition to the fact he was there, and the President's address acknowledged as much.
> 
> Bollinger admitted that Ahmadinejad's presence on campus was an experiment, in other words that he couldn't be sure whether or not he was doing the right thing. I think in the end he was vindicated by the fact Ahmadinejad's conceits were exposed (such as his claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran).


Aha, I think I remember the old motto he must have been using: "when in doubt, always err on the side of helping mass murdering gay haters to have their say". I mean - what harm can it do to experiment?

Just goes to confirm the Oxbridge view of the world as some giant playground for their own self-expression and intellectual curiosity.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> There was plenty of opposition to the fact he was there, and the President's address acknowledged as much.
> 
> Bollinger admitted that Ahmadinejad's presence on campus was an experiment, in other words that he couldn't be sure whether or not he was doing the right thing. I think in the end he was vindicated by the fact Ahmadinejad's conceits were exposed (such as his claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran).


 
What he did by inviting this butcher was fucking reprehensible and it doesn't make any difference that students got him to look stupid for a few minutes (if that) and few people ever got to hear *about it. Meanwhile a publicity stunt for the regime and a bunch of "anti-imperialist" liberals get to look controversial. What kind of "message" does it send to the regime (or a similar regime) if people from it are allowed to spread their "ideas" as if they were any other lecturer? What kind of message it say to the opponents of the regime? The fact is that actions have consequences and giving somebody a platform has consequences and whoever made the decision to invite him should be fucking ashamed of themselves especially if they view themselves as any way progressive.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Just goes to confirm the Oxbridge view of the world as some giant playground for their own self-expression and intellectual curiosity.


 
OMG fucking THIS.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Aha, I think I remember the old motto he must have been using: "when in doubt, always err on the side of helping mass murdering gay haters to have their say". I mean - what harm can it do to experiment?
> 
> Just goes to confirm the Oxbridge view of the world as some giant playground for their own self-expression and intellectual curiosity.


 
"Playground"'s a very emotionally loaded word and implies that students of that university aren't serious about their intellectual development or their attempts to find their place in the world. And surely, intellectual curiosity is the whole point of any university's existence (or should be), not just that of the elite ones like Oxbridge?


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> "Playground"'s a very emotionally loaded word and implies that students of that university aren't serious about their intellectual development or their attempts to find their place in the world. And surely, intellectual curiosity is the whole point of any university's existence (or should be), not just that of the elite ones like Oxbridge?


Yes, I use words because of what they mean. For the wealth-backed denziens of Oxbridge the world is indeed something to be played in; a vast open field with all options at their fingertips. Whether they're "serious" or not is entirely by the by. The very real fact is that life, for them, is not the serious _struggle_ that it is for the other 99.99 %. This is the purpose of elite institutions, to reproduce class power for a tiny group.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is, again, bullshit. The "mainstream" have proved that they are not averse to using far-right and fascist politics and adopting some of the rhetoric and policies of the far-right. The article's author does not offer any reasons as to why she will be "proved wrong" only to say that she will be. Er why??


This shows that she thinks that _british society is in the personal ownership of oxbridge students_ and graduates( in one sense she is right). I would use this case the same way as i said the giffin one should have been, to show the shared ground between oxbridge and the elites they helped reproduce and the far-right, in their historical connections (crudely put). The _defend oxbridge!_ type stuff around the griffin thing was appalling and so politically backwards that i couldn't even laugh at it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> "Playground"'s a very emotionally loaded word and implies that students of that university aren't serious about their intellectual development or their attempts to find their place in the world. And surely, intellectual curiosity is the whole point of any university's existence (or should be), not just that of the elite ones like Oxbridge?


 
I think he means that they treat the world as a playground for themselves and their intellectual curiosity (as opposed to taking seriously any social responsibilities) not realising or caring about the impact that their actions and the actions of the people they're "curious" about have on the world. And I don't he means intellectual curiosity in itself, it's the whole idea of _debates_ with frankly disgusting individuals or propositions as just an intellectual plaything rather than something that has a real impact on a lot of people. Do you think that somebody in one of ahmedinejad's jails will look at that stuff and be like "oh well it's a good thing he was invited because his views on gays were made to look a bit silly for five seconds".


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Yes, I use words because of what they mean. For the wealth-backed denziens of Oxbridge the world is indeed something to be played in; a vast open field with all options at their fingertips. Whether they're "serious" or not is entirely by the by. The very real fact is that life, for them, is not the serious _struggle_ that it is for the other 99.99 %. This is the purpose of elite institutions, to reproduce class power for a tiny group.


 
I think that's less true than it was (and I agree that it once was, in the days when most people there had private incomes and didn't have to worry about earning a living once they'd graduated).

Oxford and Cambridge in common with other Russell Group universities nowadays produce technocrats - people who are intellectually equipped for roles in government and the higher professional roles in industry and commerce.

Take an example of bias towards Oxbridge. I believe that to get a job in the Treasury, it's pretty much mandatory to have an Oxbridge First in either maths or economics. If they had to recruit more widely (and I agree they should), they'd just pick people from universities like Bristol, Southampton or Warwick instead, and you can bet they'd go on insisting that people had a First in the same subjects. You may disapprove, but you'd have to argue against technocracy itself, not just its class base.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 20, 2013)

Can technocracy and its class base be separated?


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Can technocracy and its class base be separated?


 Producing a cadre of priest-engineers to serve the Gods of State and Market? What on earth could be wrong with that?


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> You may disapprove, but you'd have to argue against technocracy itself, not just its class base.


 You think the UK is a "technocracy"?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I think that's less true than it was (and I agree that it once was, in the days when most people there had private incomes and didn't have to worry about earning a living once they'd graduated).
> 
> Oxford and Cambridge in common with other Russell Group universities nowadays produce technocrats - people who are intellectually equipped for roles in government and the higher professional roles in industry and commerce.
> 
> Take an example of bias towards Oxbridge. I believe that to get a job in the Treasury, it's pretty much mandatory to have an Oxbridge First in either maths or economics. If they had to recruit more widely (and I agree they should), they'd just pick people from universities like Bristol, Southampton or Warwick instead, and you can bet they'd go on insisting that people had a First in the same subjects. You may disapprove, but you'd have to argue against technocracy itself, not just its class base.


Why would you? And why is the elite dominance across all the institutions of society - cultural, financial, political, military, legal, sporting and so on then? Do all these positions need technocratic skills?

Technocracy in the sense that you've just used it _is a political myth_ designed to present across the board class dominance as just the necessary (but neutral) effect of capitalist functioning, rather than a political choice taken by a fraction of the political class of capital i.,e class struggle.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I think that's less true than it was (and I agree that it once was, in the days when most people there had private incomes and didn't have to worry about earning a living once they'd graduated).
> 
> Oxford and Cambridge in common with other Russell Group universities nowadays produce technocrats - people who are intellectually equipped for roles in government and the higher professional roles in industry and commerce.
> 
> Take an example of bias towards Oxbridge. I think to get a job in the Treasury, it's pretty much mandatory to have an Oxbridge First in either maths or economics. If they had to recruit more widely (and I agree they should), they'd just pick people from universities like Bristol, Southampton or Warwick instead (and you can bet they'd go on insisting that people had a First in the same subjects). You may disapprove, but you'd have to argue against technocracy itself, not just its class base.


 

While it is true that oxbridge does admit poorer students it is nonetheless true that it remains a bastion of privilege, admitting a few token people from poorer backgrounds does nothing - nothing - to change the fact that the institution itself is designed for the education of a ruling class. And capitalism is a social relationship. Even if somebody who grew up living in a cardboard box went to oxbridge (which is very unlikely for numerous reasons) the fact of them going to that institution opens doors for them that would not exist if they did not go to university at all or went to a different "less prestigious" university.

sorry misread post  

What about them makes them "intellectually equipped"? What does the fact that you have to have an oxbridge first tell you - just that they are able to do the job? look beyond that. come on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2013)

Le Pens vist was not marred at all by what the  OP described as 'things getting tasty' then? Shame really.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> While it is true that oxbridge does admit poorer students it is nonetheless true that it remains a bastion of privilege, admitting a few token people from poorer backgrounds does nothing - nothing - to change the fact that the institution itself is designed for the education of a ruling class. And capitalism is a social relationship. Even if somebody who grew up living in a cardboard box went to oxbridge (which is very unlikely for numerous reasons) the fact of them going to that institution opens doors for them that would not exist if they did not go to university at all or went to a different "less prestigious" university.
> 
> sorry misread post
> 
> *What about them makes them "intellectually equipped"? What does the fact that you have to have an oxbridge first tell you - just that they are able to do the job? look beyond that. come on.*


 
I'm the last person you should ask, being an almost complete cynic about economics (I'd just as soon toss a coin as put my trust in an *economist's prediction about anything) but assuming that a Cambridge economics degree has the same amount of rigour as a Cambridge maths degree (which is a _lot_), getting a Cambridge First in economics should mean that you have a reasonably solid grasp of the current start of knowledge of the subject and, from historical knowledge, what the likely consequences of any particular policy would be. 

Sorry, but I'm going to leave the discussion at this one point. I may come back to it later.

* Some one said that economists were invented to make astrologers look good.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I'm the last person you should ask, being an almost complete cynic about economics (I'd just as soon toss a coin as put my trust in an *economist's prediction about anything) but assuming that a Cambridge economics degree has the same amount of rigour as a Cambridge maths degree (which is a _lot_), getting a Cambridge First in economics should mean that you have a reasonably solid grasp of the current start of knowledge of the subject and, from historical knowledge, what the likely consequences of any particular policy would be.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm going to leave the discussion at this one point. I may come back to it later.
> 
> * Some one said that economists were invented to make astrologers look good.


 
that's not really what i was asking but ok.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think he means that they treat the world as a playground for themselves and their intellectual curiosity (as opposed to taking seriously any social responsibilities) not realising or caring about the impact that their actions and the actions of the people they're "curious" about have on the world. And I don't he means intellectual curiosity in itself, it's the whole idea of _debates_ with frankly disgusting individuals or propositions as just an intellectual plaything rather than something that has a real impact on a lot of people. Do you think that somebody in one of ahmedinejad's jails will look at that stuff and be like "oh well it's a good thing he was invited because his views on gays were made to look a bit silly for five seconds".


 
That's a good question froggy. I'd like to know what Ahmadinejad's internal opponents thought, but I've not seen any such comments.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Le Pens vist was not marred at all by what the OP described as 'things getting tasty' then? Shame really.


 
There was only a tiny handful of us willing to do owt and one of us got nicked pretty early on


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Le Pens vist was not marred at all by what the OP described as 'things getting tasty' then? Shame really.


 
What was your excuse for not coming? You're not far away at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> That's a good question froggy. I'd like to know what Ahmadinejad's internal opponents thought, but I've not seen any such comments.


Yes, the oxbridge students _forgot_ to invite any.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that's not really what i was asking but ok.


 
I misread the question too, sorry (I'm still recovering from 'flu).

That you have to have an Oxbridge First? "He's our sort of chap, old boy, knows which way the port goes round the table."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I'm the last person you should ask, being an almost complete cynic about economics (I'd just as soon toss a coin as put my trust in an *economist's prediction about anything) but assuming that a Cambridge economics degree has the same amount of rigour as a Cambridge maths degree (which is a _lot_), getting a Cambridge First in economics should mean that you have a reasonably solid grasp of the current start of knowledge of the subject and, from historical knowledge, what the likely consequences of any particular policy would be.


 
Well here you've just destroyed the idea of a necessary technocracy that you presented above and argued that the very concept is, in fact, a political tool. (And then you go back to say _but then again they do have the necessary technical knowledge needed_ etc)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> There was only a tiny handful of us willing to do owt and one of us got nicked pretty early on


 How did the attack on oxbridge go?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> That's a good question froggy. I'd like to know what Ahmadinejad's internal opponents thought, but I've not seen any such comments.


 
No but some people get to look controversial and have a "robust debate" with somebody whose hands are dripping in blood. I'm sure it gave a lot of those who fancy themselves as a bit of an intellectual avant garde something to think about. Cunts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> What was your excuse for not coming? You're not far away at all.


 

I'm so prole I would literally burst into flames like a vampire caught in sunlight if I stepped onto that soil

Fair play to your lot for having a go- was never much chance of getting at a senior foriegn polotician on poshland mcposh campus was there I spose.


----------



## Random (Feb 20, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> What was your excuse for not coming? You're not far away at all.


That sort of line gets my back up. Call a protest and other people need an "excuse" to not turn up?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 20, 2013)

Random said:


> That sort of line gets my back up. Call a protest and other people need an "excuse" to not turn up?


 
Oh belt up. If someone's going to moan that the demo didn't turn out as they'd desire it's fair to call them out if it was feasible they could of contributed.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I misread the question too, sorry (I'm still recovering from 'flu).
> 
> That you have to have an Oxbridge First? "He's our sort of chap, old boy, knows which way the port goes round the table."


 
Well yes. What does it tell you about the people who will be doing that job? Not just their technical expertise or whatever. How did they get that expertise?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Fair play to your lot for having a go- was never much chance of getting at a senior foriegn polotician on poshland mcposh campus was there I spose.


 
There's been some cheeky demos at the Uni Union in recent history. The policing for this was on a much larger scale than was required to deal with a small gaggle of UAF.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Oh belt up. If someone's going to moan that the demo didn't turn out as they'd desire it's fair to call them out if it was feasible they could of contributed.


 

could _have_. And I wasn't having a go, just expressing disappointment that le pen didn't get at least a thrown shoe of arab style disgust. I'm sure you lot had a good go !


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 20, 2013)

The union is the premier league of Cambridge arseholes. If you find yourself marooned in a college with not enough tory-boy wankers (not bright enough for Trinity, perhaps) then for a mere fuckload you can mingle with more dead-eyed pus-bags than you can shake a real-tennis raquet at.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well here you've just destroyed the idea of a necessary technocracy that you presented above and argued that the very concept is, in fact, a political tool.


 
I don't think I have. The state of knowledge in the subject may be pretty poor but it's still the best we have right now.

Medicine was pretty crap at one time too but we still had doctors back then. There's no assumption of bad faith on my part where economists are concerned. I am sceptical of their competence, not of their motives (my cousin's husband is an economics teacher and we've had this discussion too).

I suspect also the profession has undergone a lot of soul searching in the aftermath of the credit crunch of 2008, wondering how they (or most of them) could have got it so badly wrong by failing to spot what what was coming, and perhaps their predictions will become more reliable in future.

Remember how we all used to laugh at weather forecasters (poor old Michael Fish on the eve of the hurricane in 1987 - "don't worry, it's not coming here")? They're a lot better now than they used to be.



butchersapron said:


> (And then you go back to say _but then again they do have the necessary technical knowledge needed_ etc)


 
They at least know what their colleagues are talking about and how to apply it, which I wouldn't.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Firstly, that is wrong - I don't expect you to take my word for it, but it is.
> 
> Secondly, you have no way of knowing whether or not it is true anyway, because; you don't know what my user name is on the boards I post on, whom I talk to on there (if anyone) or what my relationship is with those people.
> 
> So let's just stick to the subject. I thought that was a fair article. As long as the students questioned her incisively - as the students at Columbia University questioned Ahmadinejad when he spoke to them - I'd say it's what a university is for.


 
We know full well about your involvment with boards like Phora and the like and your constant defence of racists and fascists.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I don't think I have. The state of knowledge in the subject may be pretty poor but it's the best we have right now. Medicine was pretty crap at one time too but we still had doctors back then. There's no assumption of bad faith on my part. I am sceptical of economists' competence, not of their motives (my cousin's husband is an economics teacher and we've had this discussion too).
> 
> 
> 
> They at least know what their colleagues are talking about and how to apply it, which I wouldn't.


You can think that you haven't but you have - if you say that you don't trust any economists prediction then why are you saying that they have special technical skills that allows them to make predictions more accurately then anyone else? Which is it? (and i haven't mentioned their motives). And you can't successively compare economics to astrology then to medicine. That's just totally incoherent.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> We know full well about your involvment with boards like Phora and the like and your constant defence of racists and fascists.


 
Constant defence? I hardly mention the subject. And who's the "we" here anyway? Is there a secret committee here or something?

I'm not "involved" with the Phora (I'm never likely to be asked to be involved with the board, and wouldn't want to be), it's a board I post on.

Give it up Spanky, you're no good at this.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I don't think I have. The state of knowledge in the subject may be pretty poor but it's still the best we have right now.
> 
> Medicine was pretty crap at one time too but we still had doctors back then. There's no assumption of bad faith on my part where economists are concerned. I am sceptical of their competence, not of their motives (my cousin's husband is an economics teacher and we've had this discussion too).
> 
> ...


 
the point i was making, possibly somewhsat cryptically, was that a job somewhere like the treasury and needing an oxbridge first for it means that you have had the opportunities in life that prepare you to get an oxbridge first, the support, financial and otherwise, from family/connections etc, and even thinking that you are worthy of going to oxbridge (for want of a better word) being prepared for it etc.

secondly it means that you need to share the _assumptions_ that all the other people who are influential in the treasury etc have about economics and the like, which will have been a product of their education but also of the background they were in before that oxbridge education if you see my point. the assumptions about what's "good for the economy" etc


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

> One thing, however, is for certain. Come tomorrow, Marine Le Pen will be looking to prove that she belongs in the mainstream and it will be up to the audience to show her just how wrong she is, and why nationalist parties such as her British counterpart the BNP do not have a place in British society.


​Other way round IMO.

Why do you think she agreed to debate with them meltingpot? Do you think it was because she wanted a debate?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> ​​Other way round IMO.
> 
> Why do you think she agreed to debate with them meltingpot? Do you think it was because she wanted a debate?


 
That wasn't my quote, but anyway, for the same reason as any other politician would - she was hoping to persuade them of her point of view. In her case, she probably hoped to persuade them that she's more moderate than her father.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> That wasn't my quote, but anyway, for the same reason as any other politician would - she's hoping to persuade them of her point of view. In her case, she probably hopes to persuade them that she's more moderate than her father.


 
Why?

Why _them_ in particular?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Why?
> 
> Why _them_ in particular?


 
A / Because they were the ones who asked, and

B / Because when you're French and are trying to think of a university to speak at in a foreign country, you go for the best known and most prestigious ones.

I'll turn this back on you; would you speak at the Sorbonne if they invited you there and your French was good enough?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> A / Because they were the ones who asked, and
> 
> B / Because when you're French and are trying to think of a university to speak at in a foreign country, you go for the best known and most prestigious ones.
> 
> I'll turn this back on you; would you speak at the Sorbonne if they invited you there and your French was good enough?


 
No I wouldn't. Wouldn't speak at oxford uni's union either.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> A / Because they were the ones who asked, and
> 
> B / Because when you're French and are trying to think of a university to speak at in a foreign country, you go for the best known and most prestigious ones.
> 
> I'll turn this back on you; would you speak at the Sorbonne if they invited you there and your French was good enough?


 
Not just that - she chose to go there because some of these people at least are going to become a future political elite and she is seeking to persuade them that her views are reasonable and moderate and somebody they can deal with.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm writing a response to the article now which I'm going to put on my blog.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2013)

http://disillusionedmarxist.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/the-world-is-their-playground/ hows this?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Constant defence? I hardly mention the subject. And who's the "we" here anyway? Is there a secret committee here or something?
> 
> I'm not "involved" with the Phora (I'm never likely to be asked to be involved with the board, and wouldn't want to be), it's a board I post on.
> 
> Give it up Spanky, you're no good at this.


 
Come on now you've defended it on here before - why deny it? And that's before the dirty bitch that is your mum groaned it in my ear when we were "making sweet love".


----------



## bignose1 (Feb 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> oxford and cambridge are a fucking disgrace.


 
And your starter for ten is.......why are you all cunts


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No I wouldn't. Wouldn't speak at oxford uni's union either.


i would: it's apparently good to speak truth to power. or at any rate to a gaggle of spoilt brat undergraduates. (oxbridge)

i bet you get a better class of people at the sorbonne with all their frenchy fashion and gourmet foods.


----------



## Random (Feb 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i would: it's apparently good to speak truth to power. or at any rate to a gaggle of spoilt brat undergraduates. (oxbridge)


I disagree with that Quaker quote. I say tell lies to power, and save the truth for the working class.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 22, 2013)

Ra ra ra we can invite who we like fuck the proles


----------



## audiotech (Feb 22, 2013)

Oxford and Cambridge students, as well as students generally then were some of the more enthusiastic blacklegs during the 1926 General Strike. 250 Oxford students were brought into Hays Wharf, Southwark to unload foodstuffs, receiving the equivalent of dockers pay for their "patriotic duty".


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 22, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Oxford and Cambridge students, as well as students generally then were some of the more enthusiastic blacklegs during the 1926 General Strike. 250 Oxford students were brought into Hays Wharf, Southwark to unload foodstuffs, receiving the equivalent of dockers pay for their "patriotic duty".


 
for fucks sake


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 23, 2013)

I find it surprising that there are still so many people on Urban who support a 'No Platform' stance. I don't understand it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 23, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> I find it surprising that there are still so many people on Urban who support a 'No Platform' stance. I don't understand it.


what dont you understand?

there's a difference between no platform implemented by the state and the community controlling what groups it wants to allow in the vicinity. And this isn't simply about no platform it is about a very privileged group of people inviting a fascist to speak and not seeing any problem with it.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 23, 2013)

I see absolutely no problem with it and I'm surprised that you do. I'm as anti-fascist as you all and my family have suffered personally at the hands of fascists.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 23, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> I see absolutely no problem with it and I'm surprised that you do. I'm as anti-fascist as you all and my family have suffered personally at the hands of fascists.


 
so if a neo nazi group was holding its meetings in a pub at the end of the road you'd be ok with it? ETA or a nazi group holding a stall in the middle of a high street with literature on how black people are an inferior race and advocating killing all jews etc and kicking all immigrants out of the country? I'm not talking about the state policing and its laws on "extremism" but don't you think that whether they are allowed in or not should be controlled by the community and the people who have to walk past and see that should get a say in whether they're allowed to do that stuff?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 23, 2013)

And I agree about the damage state laws etc - I don't think this stuff should be policed by the state.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i would: it's apparently good to speak truth to power. or at any rate to a gaggle of spoilt brat undergraduates. (oxbridge)
> 
> i bet you get a better class of people at the sorbonne with all their frenchy fashion and gourmet foods.


 
what would i say to them? i was in the reading university debating society for a while, i went along for the first time thinking it would be a group of people sitting around in a circle and arguing about politics. Oh how wrong I was! i hated that shit and the stupid protocols (no pun intended on this thread lol) you have to follow, like "points of order" and doing something silly every time you have to make a point and so on. i didn't understand or get it. they even make it into a sport with different debating teams i think in a lot of private schools and i think some state schools.

and what would be the actual content of my argument, that i want to see oxbridge destroyed or at least changed so much that it wouldn't even be the same place any more?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 23, 2013)

At the beginning of an economics degree course at the local polytechnic (turned into a university half way through) some debating society bod came along to talk about what they actually did as a society. As a mature student at the time I asked what else did they do beside invite Thatcherites and drink beer? Stunned silence!

I took a more practical approach and at the beginning of one lecture on quantitative methods rose from my seat and announced to all that a demonstration was taking place outside to defend the NHS. I asked people to join the march, as I walked out of the lecture. A good friend at the time and just one other student followed me. The other students, some shifting in their seats and others sat there with mouths wide open didn't. I failed the first year of that particular course and had to do a rethink. Maths were never my strong point.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Come on now you've defended it on here before - why deny it? And that's before the dirty bitch that is your mum groaned it in my ear when we were "making sweet love".


Line crossing stuff there. Neck. Kindly wind in. Ta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> I find it surprising that there are still so many people on Urban who support a 'No Platform' stance. I don't understand it.


i find it surprising there are people on urban who don't support a no platform stance.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 24, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> I see absolutely no problem with it and* I'm surprised that you do.* I'm as anti-fascist as you all and my family have suffered personally at the hands of fascists.


 
as with the author quoted in the OP. how are you "surprised" ? Not having a pop, just unsure,  is it because you haven't heard any of the arguments/politics behind the No Platform strategy ( that stretches back nearly a century, from Italy onwards) , or just think it's  outdated / flawed etc ?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 25, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i find it surprising there are people on urban who don't support a no platform stance.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 25, 2013)

cantsin said:


> as with the author quoted in the OP. how are you "surprised" ? Not having a pop, just unsure, is it because you haven't heard any of the arguments/politics behind the No Platform strategy ( that stretches back nearly a century, from Italy onwards) , or just think it's outdated / flawed etc ?


 
Yes outdated and flawed and ineffective. Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time doesn't appear to have done the BNP any good. The reverse if anything. Even mainstream anti-fascist organisations such as Hope not Hate are saying that No Platform is outdated and "Enforcing it [No Platform] is no longer a central plank of our work"

http://hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/2410/why-no-platform-means-something-different-today


----------



## cantsin (Feb 26, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Yes outdated and flawed and ineffective. Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time doesn't appear to have done the BNP any good. The reverse if anything. *Even mainstream anti-fascist organisations such as Hope not Hate are saying that No Platform is outdated and "Enforcing it [No Platform] is no longer a central plank of our work"*
> 
> http://hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/2410/why-no-platform-means-something-different-today


 
life's too short...


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 26, 2013)

cantsin said:


> life's too short...


 
Sorry I'm not up to date with the latest from whatever micro sect your disdain comes from.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 26, 2013)

Hope not Hate and searchlight are not disdained only  by micro sects ffs


----------



## cantsin (Feb 26, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Sorry I'm not up to date with the latest from whatever micro sect your disdain comes from.


 
you could probably spend five minutes looking for info about HnH/SL ( on here, from many with first hand experience /or on the interweb ) that would at least begin to help you understand just how silly/ignorant that / yr previous statement is, but I'm guessing you're more than happy with the sound of your own (virtual ) voice, so as I say, life's too short


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 26, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> I find it surprising that there are still so many people on Urban who support a 'No Platform' stance. I don't understand it.


 
Let me try and explain toblerone3, ....

There have always been plenty of nominally "anti racist" people about who have argued the "No Platform" position is both an infringement of free speech, and a missed opportunity to thoroughly trounce through debate the illogic and evil that is supposedly obvious to all rational people in the fascist/nazi political position. If only we human beings inhabitted a world where rationality and logic ruled supreme. Those who argue against the provision of any platform, or certainly an uncontested platform, for fascist views, or agreeing to debate with them, point out that in the real world millions of people have been systematically pumped full of racist ideas from the cradle, and that, particularly in periods of social turmoil, allowing fascists unfettered freedom to spread their poisonous racist filth is like allowing someone the dubious freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema - regardless of the ensuing chaos caused. The sad fact is that fascist/racist/nationalist ideology is very attractive to significant classes of frightened people, looking for easy answers and convenient scapegoats for their problems. It cannot simply be defeated through comfy, rational debate - particularly as fascist rhetoric and organisational strategy is specifically aimed at unleashing the atavistic, the irrational, the deepest phobias of a frightened population, and then mobilising this unleashed force against selected minorities, and of course the radical socialist and trades union organised working class opponents of unfettered capitalism.

More recently, the uncontrollable nature of the internet has led even some anti fascists to argue that on technological grounds alone the "No Platform" position is redundant. It's certainly harder , its true - though the No Platform position was never an absolute , enforceable proposition. It's a matter of doing what is possible to suppress the dissemination of fascist views, and equally important, physical FASCIST MOBILISATION, and "projections of strength." Fascists need to show the "little man" the frightened, ideologically brainwashed bigot, that he can be a part of the "great fascist dragon" of a violent, street-dominating mass movement. The early growth of such a movement has to be smashed, using whatever means necessary. The consequences of not doing so are so horrendous that this feature of the No Platform line will always be particularly important. eg, In the 70's the National Front had for a while some great success with their provocative "Family March" tactic - getting the membership out and about in full" family gathering" mode. Very effective in putting across the NF 's chosen image of being an "ordinary British Joe.. just putting across a typical British family view about immigration, Black people, our fear of swamping, etc, etc etc". Of course once the family outing NF march had left town, then the enhanced racial hatreds the marches had made seem much more respectable amongst White racists in those communities burst out in the form of widespread racist violence against ethnic minorities for months afterwards. ie, there was a human cost to be paid for the NF's freedom to spread their message. That's why we ruthlessly smashed up those NF "family marches" in the 70's, and were right to do so. And why it is still right to oppose , and if possible physically smash, every street manifestation of fascism today, even if its just a bunch of drunken, confused, EDL supporters. Crush em when they're small and weak.. so much easier than when they're strong and kicking the shit out of YOU.

You need to get out more toblerone3.


----------

