Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

	This British politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>

Famous beards

What JC is not noted for (see [1]).

How well would he do in the 'Failed Beards' category? 109.153.101.243 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

More left than Bernie ?

Corbyn has been described by some as more left than Bernie, but I don't see why. What policiers of Corbyn are more left than Bernie's ? Is 10£ more than 15$ ? The only thing I found more left than Bernie was his people's quantitative easing and maximum wage (which Bernie supported at a time). Diacelium (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum

Apparently, one editor dislikes my including Anne Applebaum's status as a neoconservative with a long and well-established history of extremist paranoia about Russia. (For example, she promotes the nonsense described here.) As my documentation I edited in shows, she advocates preparing for "total war" with a nuclear power -- Russia. This is not rational or reasonable thinking. So, I'm not clear on the objection to my accurate and relevant edit? People can see that Trump likely has unsavory business interests with corrupt Russians and still not go off into the kind of dangerous hysteria that Russian Putin antagonists like Masha Gessen or Pussy Riot agree are getting out of control in the West, especially the U.S. and UK. So I really question citing Applebaum as a reasonable criticism for anything about Corbyn where Russia is concerned. --Tea Sagan (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edit uses a smear tactic called poisoning the well as well a genetic fallacy. You are discrediting the source of the claim rather than the claim itself. If someone completely unreliable said 2+2=4, then an attempt to discredit the speaker would not make that comment untrue. The claim is not true because Applebaum said it. The claim is presented, and then the evidence for the claim is provided. If the entire section was Applebaum's claims without evidence then you might have a point. Your conflation with RT and the BBC is laughable. RT is nowhere near as reliable as the BBC. RationalWiki and Wikipedia both describe RT as propaganda. By your logic, the BBC and state-owned media in North Korea are equally trustworthy. If you doubt the existence of Russian militarism and expansionism (and call it "extremist paranoia") then I suggest you look up Igor Strelkov.

Additionally, I removed this edit since the article you cited concerns the Ghouta chemical attack in August 2013, not the March 2013 Khan al-Assal chemical attack that was referred to earlier. CowHouse (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You do persist in straw-manning. No, neither the BBC nor RT are as severely and extremely propagandistic as broadcasts in NoKo. They, are both, however, propgandistic. I can list a litany of examples of ways in which both the BBC and corporate U.S. press are propagandistic -- just because there isn't a Putin occasionally killing reporters with poison or bullets doesn't mean corporate press in the West isn't agenda-driven. The fact is, Russians who want the truth about their nation would do well to watch the BBC and CNN, while Westerners who want the ugly reality about the U.S. and UK, should take to RT. Adverse interests result in each side's media telling truths mostly only about the other instead of their own nation (see Human Nature 101), and citizens in either sphere can get the most truth by reading the "enemy" press. Finally, unless you also want to indict Larry King and Ed Schultz, do drop the "Corbyn appears on RT!11!!1!!" nonsense. Or would you like a longer list of popular Westerners who have also appeared on RT? I can add one, if you want. --Tea Sagan (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

YOU inserted the Pulitzer and other laudatory material about Appelbaum, to create an argument from authority. Thus, my correct observations -- supported, linked ones, about her desire for "total war" wiht Russia, merely flesh out your authority ploy. Let's just remove her. The arguments about Corbyn and Russia can stand or fall without pros or cons on Applebuam. [EDITED To ADD: You were right about the difference between the March and July 21013 chemical attacks in Syria. I misread the source article I used.]--Tea Sagan (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You are straw-manning me. I am not saying RT is as bad as North Korea, you are misunderstanding me. Your edit describes RT as "state-owned (like the BBC)". You are saying that since it is like the BBC, it is therefore not unreasonable to recommend. You could substitute RT with state-owned media in North Korea and it would be the same (bad) argument. That is my point.

Do me a favour and read this short paragraph on Wikipedia about why RT are significantly less reliable than the BBC. RationalWiki's position on RT has consistently been that it is propaganda. Just look at some of the baseless, conspiratorial nonsense from so-called "journalists" at RT. Plus, compare their respective ratings for factual reporting by Media Bias/Fact Check (BBC: very high, RT News: mixed). Therefore I'm reverting this edit.

It is irrelevant that Larry King hosts programs on RT. I'm reverting your edit because of the following reason. You seem to fundamentally not understand why Corbyn is invited on RT so regularly. It is because Corbyn frequently supports Russia's perspective on world events. Watch this playlist and find me one example where Corbyn disagrees with Russia and sides with the Western point of view.

An appeal to authority is not always fallacious.

"her desire for "total war" wiht Russia" (big straw-man on Applebaum there). The article you cited says "So is it hysterical to prepare for total war? Or is it naive not to do so?" It is extremely dishonest to say preparing for war is the same as desiring war. By the way, you disagreeing with Applebaum does not make her an unreliable source. She has demonstrated expert knowledge on Russia. Your position is that she is unreliable because she disagrees with you on foreign policy. You haven't established that she is dishonest.

I'm reverting this edit because "Corbyn is criticized by some for positions about Russia" just raises the question of who is criticising him?

Reverting your apologetics for Stop the War. From The Independent: "What’s more, despite its claims to only back protests against the UK Government and not against the policies of other governments, the coalition has commendably supported demonstrations against the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen, against President Sisi’s dictatorship in Egypt and against the Israeli attack on Gaza." CowHouse (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your assertions -- frankly paranoid ones -- as to why you claim Corbyn is invited to speak on RT, your claims that other Westerns even hosting RT shows is irrelevant, it's all unreasonable. RT is driven by the Putin government's agenda, yes. So are the BBC vis-a-vis establishment British political power, or establishment U.S. media. Yes, Putin apparently has killed several journalists, but Russia is not remotely the most journalistically unfree nation in the word, and the U.S,. and UK press are not the most free and uncontrolled. In any event, there's nothing wrong with Corbyn appearing on RT, any more than there is with Larry King or Ed Schultz hosting a show there (do you think they would do that in North Korea?). Nor have you done anything but assert otherwise. Does this site edit per assertion absent reason and/or sound evidence? (Serious question, not rhetorical, I thought this was a fact-based place for sceptics wed to facts and reason? Is there someone to appeal to?)--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of this edit is covered in the "June is the end of May" section. If there is any new information, you can add it there.

You seem to have fallen for Russian propaganda yourself if you honestly believe the BBC are as bad as RT. I have already demonstrated why that is untrue.

How is it paranoid? It makes sense that they would invite on guests who agree with them, and Corbyn does as demonstrated by the playlist I sent you.

Not going to bother responding to your North Korea comment as you have missed the point once again.

Corbyn doesn't just "appear" on RT, he also recommends them.

And yes, this site is fact-based. Hence why I corrected you on including an article that was about the wrong Syrian attack and why I corrected your straw-man of Applebaum's view on war with Russia. What fact-based mistakes have I made? CowHouse (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Accusations that I've "fallen for Russian propaganda" are fallacious and I won't substantively engage this NeoMcCArthysimn. Remove all Appelbaum references, or negotiate how she shall be treated. One or the other.--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to be patient with you but it is clear you don't know what McCarthyism is. I am not accusing you of being a Russian spy or that you're a traitor. I am saying that the disinformation campaign perpetrated partly by Russia has worked on you. I'm certainly not shocked at all that the same person who calls Applebaum an "anti-Russia hysteric" also defends Russian propaganda outlets like RT.

I'm going to revert your edits again, and to be kind I will explain why.

Firstly, I have already included all your election updates.

Secondly, the referenced New Statesman article does point out that Milne highlights the achievements of Stalin and ignores or minimises his failures. That would constitute apologetics for Stalinism. Also, just FYI, removing an entire paragraph will almost always get reverted. If you want to remove an entire paragraph or section then the best course of action would be to reach consensus on the talk page.

"Corbyn is criticized by some for positions about Russia." "Some" is a weasel word, something which should be avoided. Therefore Applebaum should be named.

Stop the War "defended Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 as a reaction to “the ambition of the USA to exercise global hegemony”." (link) They are not a pacifist organisation and we do not need to be "fair" to such a group.

Your RT edits are tiresome at this point. You do not disagree they are propaganda, you do not disagree that Corbyn has recommended them and you do not disagree that he has appeared on RT. You still insist on changing the section to include a bullshit false equivalence with the BBC. Whether Larry King appears on RT or not does not change the fact that Corbyn recommends them or that they are propaganda.

I have explained why I have reverted each individual edit and you have failed to justify them. CowHouse (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

John Stonehouse

However #was# a Czech spy (and was, briefly, suspected of being someone else entirely). Anna Livia (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Attitudes

One association with an unacceptably anti-Semitic incident (or other person or viewpoint) can happen.

Two within a relatively short time indicates poor judgment.

Three or more indicate a conscious intent.

In this case 'no comment made' is a comment. 109.150.47.104 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall a third time. Are you including the incidents involving other MPs? -- Forerunner (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Godwin

Is Corbyn 'the wrong sort of Socialist'? ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.150.41.97 / talk}

Nobody has bothered to counter the two BoNs' comments - so does that mean passers-by agree? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternate theory: The BoN's comments are too stupid to be worth responding to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Allowing persons to make anti-Semitic/pro Hitler statements and remain within the Labour Party until too many complaints (Ken Livingstone etc) says something about the party. If it quacks and moves like a duck it may well be one. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)