That's hot.

(June 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This Guardian commenter's theory about why Boris Johnson doesn't look particularly happy or as encouraged as he was before the vote is interesting:

---

Quote:If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

---

Thoughts?

They'll find someone who is prepared to do it, and damn the consequences. Someone so devoid of compassion that they'll deliberately act against the best interests of their electorate, even when handed the opportunity to save them from themselves. Someone so self-interested that they'll take short-term notoriety over long-term character suicide. Someone with such a superiority complex that they'll truly believe they've been picked to deliver success rather than realise they've been manipulated in to an untenable position for nefarious reasons. Someone who'll give them a job in the foreign office, maybe even a leading role.

BEHOLD!

(June 29, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Now let's break down the word Islamophobia. It means irrational fear of Islam.

In fact, the word is used most commonly, colloquially to mean 'bigotry towards muslims'. Yes, it has a root definition as you've described but you can't ignore common usage simply to fit your belief that the term is bullshit.

(August 8, 2016 at 9:16 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Now let's break down the word Islamophobia. It means irrational fear of Islam.

In fact, the word is used most commonly, colloquially to mean 'bigotry towards muslims'. Yes, it has a root definition as you've described but you can't ignore common usage simply to fit your belief that the term is bullshit.

Sure, the term has been successfully claimed by the regressive (authoritarian) left but that does not mean it can't be reclaimed. 

 Failing that, there needs to be a counter-meme that establishes a new term that means "rational fear of a Caliphate" or some such (although, thinking about it, can one have a rational fear? ... It would be like having a rational passion or a rational love    ).

Try it.

If anyone accuses you of being Islamophobic say "No!  I'm Caliphophobic.

Spread the meme... GO!

What about theismophobic? It's like Islamophobic but concerns theism in general, including all Abrahamic faiths. Although I suppose that could also be taken as anti-semitic.

Good point. And I note your implication. The 3 Abrahamic faiths are all ultimately based on Judaism. Therefore.

(August 8, 2016 at 10:59 am)DLJ Wrote: "rational fear of a Caliphate" or some such (although, thinking about it, can one have a rational fear? ... It would be like having a rational passion or a rational love    ).

One can have rational fears. Although someone claiming "rational fear of Caliphate" certainly has a lot of explaining to do. Such as how 2 to 4 percent of any given population would go about installing a Caliphate. And that's even assuming 100 percent of these 2 to 4 percent even want it.

That's also why the regressive (authoritarian) left finds it so ridiculous and fundamentally stupid, and perfectly in line with the fear of the jewish takeover in the first half of the last century.

(August 8, 2016 at 11:32 am)abaris Wrote:

(August 8, 2016 at 10:59 am)DLJ Wrote: "rational fear of a Caliphate" or some such (although, thinking about it, can one have a rational fear? ... It would be like having a rational passion or a rational love    ).

One can have rational fears. Although someone claiming "rational fear of Caliphate" certainly has a lot of explaining to do. Such as how 2 to 4 percent of any given population would go about installing a Caliphate. And that's even assuming 100 percent of these 2 to 4 percent even want it.

That's also why the regressive (authoritarian) left finds it so ridiculous and fundamentally stupid, and perfectly in line with the fear of the jewish takeover in the first half of the last century.

Can you give me an example of a rational fear?  I was considering poisonous snakes or spiders but I'd put those in the category of 'sensible' rather than 'rational' i.e. sensory input triggering a fight, flight or freeze reaction as opposed to rationality, which requires thought (and of course, time).

But concern regarding a politicised ideology e.g. Stalin-style Communism or a theocracy (e.g. a Caliphate) might be a contender for a 'rational fear'; it would be certainly qualify as rational in that it would require some rational thinking but would it be a fear (in the instinctive sense)?

From your comment about 2-4%, I think you are making a point about risk (specifically 'likelihood' or 'vulnerability').  I'm not sure where your numbers come from but yes, the proximity to an existing Islamic State would be a factor... Singapore being an example of higher vulnerability hence the TPP etc.

I can't agree with your last point.  Surely it would be the non-authoritarian progressive left who would be highlighting the ridiculousnessosity of the threat.  The authoritarian regressive left would be the ones declaring any dissent as hate-speech and of course the authoritarian right using the fear, no, creating the fear to impose tighter security measures e.g. Poland, Trump and some of the Brexiteers, etc.

(August 8, 2016 at 1:42 pm)DLJ Wrote: Can you give me an example of a rational fear?  I was considering poisonous snakes or spiders but I'd put those in the category of 'sensible' rather than 'rational' i.e. sensory input triggering a fight, flight or freeze reaction as opposed to rationality, which requires thought (and of course, time).

A rational fear is something based on facts. So, without going into details, I fear going bankrupt. That's based on facts and hard evidence. And yet it's a fear.

Fear of a Caliphate is not a rational fear in the West.

My numbers come from hard evidence, as in muslim population in any given western countries.