Tuesday afternoon quiz
I unveil the first in a long series [perhaps not, ed.] of the Tuesday afternoon quiz. Today’s question:
What nickname did Private Eye frequently take great pleasure in referring to Peter Hitchens as?
Peter here using the Observer public lavatory
Answers in the comments thread please, the first person to answer correctly gets there name printed on these pages in red font.
Good luck!
Advertisement
Categories: General Politics
Spanky?
Spanky? That would be adorable, but no cigar sir!
1. Sparty Hitchens?
2. Bigoto Hitchens?
3. One-time-Oxbridge-quasi-Trot-turned-Right-of-Attila-the-Hun Hitchens?
It is a harder question than it seems.
It’s not a million miles away from your third attempt, but no luck to you squire!
I’m afraid I cheated, so it rhymes with a game played with chestnuts on strings if you want to continue.
You win sir. Now, do I write your name up in red, or are you red enough?
I like to think that I’m well red, but it’s your house, and thus your rules.
Carl,
If you are going to host racist like skidmarx, then I am out of here.
If you are in any doubt, http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/anti-zionists-and-the-whiff-of-racism/
PS: Skidmarx wasn’t being a pedant on that Chavez thread, basically he can’t see anti-Jewish racism. His quibbling wasn’t coincidental, when you think about it.
I see that someone has got there before me but Private Eye in their most eloquence …. Not …referred to Hitchens as ‘bonkers’.
Well Louise you were the first to actually say the word bonkers, perhaps I’ll send out a book voucher worth, er, actually I’ll give you a book. In fact, I’ll give you your book back, and your DVD. Do you remember?
So mister Raincoat did you watch the strange but true DVD and bk? Really freaky stuff hope it didn’t give you nightmares
no pressure give bk and DVD back to me when I see you. Impressed you remembered.
Of course I remembered. In fact it’s in my field of vision right now. I loved both the book and the film, it was so eery, and the cinematography was really excellent. I might just watch it again over the weekend now I’m reminded of it
Er, I didn’t expect to get into a tangle over this. Perhaps the democratic thing to do is allow skidmarx the right to reply (I’m not by first principles a no-platform type, I like to allow bad ideas to tie their own ropes). Skidmarx?
Yeah Carl,
Ask him why he reads sites that promote Jew Watch, the neo-Nazi site and The Protocols.
They are normally BIG red flag where anti-Jewish racism is concerned.
Also, you might want to ask why Skidmarx’s doesn’t pick up on Alison Weir’s racism.
Then after that ponder his comments on your thread about Chavez, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism, you might see a small connection there….
Do you never read sites that do that for research? I needn’t defend him as I don’t know him, but do you really have good grounds to him antisemitic? He’s never claimed so, but then I’ve never asked. As for the comments thread, clearly he just doesn’t trust me. He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.
Carl, I’ve hardly bothered to read modernity’s accusation, let alone detail a response, but essentially its nonsense. Yes, I did put in links to three sites with dodgy material on them, because I found a cartoon and a couple of charts on Google Images, and didn’t bother to check out the sites from which they came before linking to the cartoon and the charts, rather than to the sites.
The idea that I’m trying to promote racist material, that has escalated to the libellous accusation that I’m a racist, is ludicrous. Modernity was trying to get me banned from websites friendly to him long before this, because I couldn’t be bothered to adhere to his list of prescribed reading material, I was therefore someone “who didn’t take anti-semitism seriously”.
The OP of the thread he detects the whiff of racism from contained the phrase “shit-finger Arab monkey”. Eventually, after everyone else had, modernity noted the racism. He din’t call for the poster to be banned, or even demand an apology. He didn’t take exception to Bob from Brockley providing him with a platform. Modernity is a hypocrite who wants to bully those running other websites into banning those he disagrees with. Bob from Brockley didn’t see it the same way, neither did Dave Osler.
I hope that answers your question.
i had no idea of the history you two had had. Even if I wanted to ban people I couldn’t, I only have publishing rights on this blog, but as I say I prefer to air ideas and if they stand up that’s good enough for me. We’re all grown up enough to look at trite and defend our rejection of it. by way of analogy, look at son of man by Rene Magritte – we look at the apple and instinctively we want to see what it obscures, what kind of face hides behind it, is it disfigured, is there a face at all? I’m intrigued, and suddenly the intrigue turns to lust, then anger, now I’m fetishising the fact I can’t see the face. Consider Melanie Klein’s views on good vs bad breast – we have a complex relationship of intrigue and dismay at the absent object. Consider also The Human Centipede II – the first one was shit, but this one is banned; fascinating.
My point is I will not elevate stupid opinions to the dignity of intrigue, let them hang out like an old ball.
Carl,
I have detailed the actual text of skidmarx’s comments.
There’s no need for ambivalence on this you can read them and decide for yourself.
I’ve taken some length to explain why it is a critical issue, blindness to anti-Jewish racism to me is absurd, it is an indicator of a deeper problem, an inability to grasp racism, particularly when it’s aimed at Jews.
Now we may all assume good faith that skid marks is a jolly nice Oxbridge educated chap, I’d like to think so, but his attitude troubles me, pasting in one link is a mistake, pasting in two….well….
I refer you to your Chavez threads, and I would make this bet with you, if you look around at other similar themed threads (ones that deal with antisemitism, anti-Jewish racism) and you look at skidmarx’s comments you will see similar sneering, irrelevancies and arguing over nonsensical points.
Now I can’t explain that, there may be another reason, but I think it is indicative of an unhealthy attitude towards Jews.
I’ll leave you to make your own judgement, all I would ask is that you look at the evidence, and I would assume that is not too arduous.
Go ask him about Alison Weir’s racism, then you make you own mind up on her and see it is really hard to determine the direction of her racism….
I covered the sites here, http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/more-racism/
and http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/alison-weirs-racism/
The overall summary is here, http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/anti-zionists-and-the-whiff-of-racism/
Carl, you decide, but whatever you do, at least be serious about it
This is a useful site.
http://ifamericansknewalisonweir.com/
Perhaps as site ‘boss’ I should intervene here.
Carl is quite right to say he has posting rights only and no auhority to edit/delete comments, though of course this is more a matter of oversight/Carl’s typical overthoughtfulness; actually I hadn’t even noticed he hadn’t taken up comments management. This is easily corrected. Carl – you now have comments management rights, although it will cost you two pints at a later date.
On the substantive issue, clearly there is no issue of racist language/views on this particular thread, so it seems to me that there are two issues outstanding:
1) There is the general issue, which Modernity is quite right to highlight, that anti-Jewish racism can and does get overlooked/unconfronted to a greater extent than other racism. All, or at least mostly, to do with the state of Israel, and all that, which I’ve no need to go into now.
I see an implicit recommendation from Modernity that TCF needs to be alert to that should it occur. That seems fair enough.
2) Then there’s the specific question of whether TCF should allow commenters who have expressed/do express racist sentiments, but haven’t done so on a particular thread.
So….
a) Would we allow through a comment from Nick Griffin on economic policy?
No probably not, because Nick Griffin is entirely reflective of his party’s racist views, and giving him any platform at all to sound respectable (even though he probably does understand the Laffer Curve) would be unwise in the context of TCF’s avowed mission.
b) But on the other hand, and by way of comparison, Chris Dillow at S&M actually provides recommendation-by-link to a BNP member and previous BNP council candidate, who happens to have an acute understanding of Modern Monetary Theory. Should he do this? I think this is more nuanced by the fact that it takes a bit of a trawl beyond the immediate post at hand to ascertain the gu’ys affiliations.
c) We have in the past approved comments by BNP members who seem willing to engage in relatively reasonable discussion (esp when Dave S was around) as long as the didn’t get too overtly racists (and not to do so is their modus operandi in public).
This is not to say, at all, that Skidmarx falls into categories b) or c). But if he (I’m asuming from previous that it’s a ‘he’) did, why would we single him out for exclusion from the comments board? Simply because he’s a ‘player’ on the net, and therefore has more influence than passing BNP commenters (so more akin to the a category)?
All tricky, but in the end my sense is that, unless commenters are defined in the public mind by affiliation to a racist cause (as is Griffin), then we do need to be open to their commentary as long as that commentary is not racists in itself, in which case the usual rules apply (and additional note is taken of the need to guard against anti-Jewish racism).
“Consider also The Human Centipede II – the first one was shit, but this one is banned; fascinating”.
Carl, Ha-ha-hahaha. Was that a conscious pun about the first one being shit (just bought it on DVD) you have to dig deep in the narrative of excrement to find a message. Ben Six is no Pasolini. Sorry, the above made me chuckle. I think the BBFC is totally daft for banning the sequel.
ha it wasn’t conscious – how about that. It is shit though, right, in (now I see) both senses of the word.
Tom Six – no relation!
“Carl is quite right to say he has posting rights only and no auhority to edit/delete comments, though of course this is more a matter of oversight/Carl’s typical overthoughtfulness; actually I hadn’t even noticed he hadn’t taken up comments management. “
I have NOT asked for anyone to be banned, merely that the authors of this blog take the time and trouble to understand the background to some of your posters, Skidmarx.
The issue is not complex, I have provided the links to the evidence, all you need to do is read it, if you disagree, fine. that is your choice.
But think of the alternative, suppose a year down the line you found out, by your own experience, hypothetically, that Skidmarx had, er, issues with Jews.
Further suppose, that someone said “I could have told you that”.
The natural reply would be “Why didn’t you”
That’s what I’m doing, forewarning you.
If you ignore it that’s your choice, but at least spend five minutes reading the evidence and drawing your own conclusion.
That’s all I am asking.
Noted. I never take antisemitism lightly and will be vigilante about any that should pass through this blog, however well disguised! That’s my promise.
So did anyone take the trouble to look at the links, and see the issue?
Yes I did, I know the issue inside out, your points have been noted.
In other Private Eye -related events, Taki Takealotofcokeupthenos is hoping for a coup in Greece.
And in case modernity butts his head back in, that link is not intended as an endorsement.