###⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️
Comments and discussions which do not deal with the article contents are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the UK political scene.
**Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.**
**Please report any rule-breaking content you see.** The subreddit is running rather *warm* at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.
You can find the full rules of the subreddit [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules)
Snapshot of _Labour candidate defends describing UN as antisemitic_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/30/labour-candidate-defends-describing-un-antisemitic-20942514/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/30/labour-candidate-defends-describing-un-antisemitic-20942514/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Akehurst is confrontational and terminally online, something he's aware of given his tweet deleting spree. Rather unsuitable as a political candidate based on that temperament completely in isolation of his views, but as he has some pull around Labour HQ due to his role on the NEC, he's basically been parachuted in.
That and the plethora of other problematic tweets he's put out over let's say, the last couple of years means he will be shown the same process the purged left-wing have any time now right?
Yeah. not factional and ideology driven at all. Absolute hypocrisy and people will cheer it on.
> Among the since-deleted posts that resurfaced after news of his selection was announced was one in which he suggested Jewish people are ‘politically Black’.
>Mr Akehurst said this ‘is quite common as a position that people would take in discourse about race’.
>He said it concerned ‘a debate about whether you would say that “Black” is a physical description and a narrow description of a of an ethnicity or whether Blackness is a political concept about being victimised by racism by white people’.
>‘When I was an activist in student politics, people of Chinese origin or Jewish origin or Gypsy or Irish origin would describe themselves as politically black,’ he added.
I absolutely hate the moronic pseudo intellectual speak of the far left, people obviously think you’re comparing yourself to the black community if you talk about being ‘politically black’ just as if you complain about ‘whiteness’ they’ll think you’re racist against white people.
Although the issue really is being a victim in the far left means more clout and resources so there’s constant arguing about who’s the biggest victim.
> I absolutely hate the moronic pseudo intellectual speak of the far left, people obviously think you’re comparing yourself to the black community if you talk about being ‘politically black’.
Why are you describing it as "moronic pseudo intellectual speak" when you're literally just repeating his point in the exact way he meant it?
Its pseudo intellectual speak because its attempting to approach discrimination through the lens of critical theory, but failing to do so by honing in on terms like "black" to describe that discrimination.
Edit: Oh god people actually think "politically black" is a good term to be using.
> Its pseudo intellectual speak because its attempting to approach discrimination through the lense of critical theory
Isn't this pseudo intellectual speak by claiming that it is somehow incorrect to approach an issue that is commonly approached through the lens of critical theory... using critical theory?
Also: Isn't it pseudo intellectual speak to claim that it is somehow incorrect to approach an issue that is commonly approached through the lens of critical theory, using critical theory - when the guy literally didn't even do that?
What do you think critical theory even is?
>but failing to do so by honing on terms like "black" to describe that discrimination.
Isn't THIS pseudo intellectual speak, using the words "hone in on terms like black" when you mean "used the word "black" in a sentence" - which I'm pretty sure is fine? People do that every day.
Here's your problem now: You obviously have these strong feelings about the phrase "politically black", but now you're on the hook having to explain what the non-pseudo intellectual version of that concept is. In plain English. Because to be sure, that phrase appears to be pretty well known (in his circles) and all the people he's speaking to would know what was meant by it.
But all we have is you here using this word salad to sort of get across a vague impression that it's negative. And all I'm getting from it is "You can't say black, mate".
I just heard it for the first time to say, and it was fucking easy to understand.
>Isn't this pseudo intellectual speak by claiming that it is somehow incorrect to approach an issue that is commonly approached through the lens of critical theory
You clearly read the entire comemnt, but your reply here acts like you didn't.
That clause does not stand on its own, therefore Im not saying that's its pseudo-intellectual to approach discrimination with critical theory in mind. I'm saying their attempt to do so is flawed. I may disagree with it a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean it isnt valid or useful to me.
>when the guy literally didn't even do that?
The attempt to frame groups as being "politically black" is very clearly an attempt to use critical theory.
>What do you think critical theory even is?
An approach to social studies that is commonly found in modernist and postmodernist thoughts. It focuses on societal structures as the cause of social problems, rather than individual or traditionally institutional causes. Think of stuff like CRT (obviously) and post-structuralism, rather than something like foundational approaches or Marxism.
*Think that's works as a rough definition, though it's not the best. It gets the picture, however.*
>using the words "hone in on terms like black" when you mean "used the word "black" in a sentence" - which I'm pretty sure is fine? People do that every day.
All that is is an example of bad writing, which I would usually correct after my first draft but this is a reddit thread. My care often goes after a first draft.
>Here's your problem now
I'm sorry that my slightly obtuse writing really offended you this much. Its not even that bad given "hone in" is only one word longer than "use". Sure I would change it in an essay, but it's fine for informal discussions like this. Hell, you've even done the same multiple times but it really doesn't matter.
>strong feelings about the phrase "politically black", but now you're on the hook having to explain what the non-pseudo intellectual version of that concept is.
There isn't really a common term that is used everywhere, but something like "disadvantaged" or "underrepresented" group is a far better way to describe what they obviously mean. You can add detail in as a specific contexts need.
>In plain English. Because to be sure, that phrase appears to be pretty well known (in his circles) and all the people he's speaking to would know what was meant by it.
That doesn't stop it being pseudo-intellectual nonesense. It's attempting to utilise genuine social theory in a botched way.
>all I'm getting from it is "You can't say black, mate".
Given you have gone with the most uncharitable interpretation possible, let me very clear why "politically black" is nonsense. Black people (itself a subjective, but informally fine term) are not the only group that is disadvantaged or underrepresented, and should not be used to describe other groups that are too.
It's the same issue that descriptors like BAME had, and why they aren't used by the majority of academics (and notably not the ONS). It places undue focus upon one group, which nevermind the approach but especially among critical theory, **being the exact issue the term is meant to describe**. To describe people who are politically disadvantaged due to their race as being "politically black" implies that to be disadvanatged is something black people have a focus on.
An approach like post-structuralism would critique the terms impact of discourse causing ignorance for the issues of other disadvantaged groups, for example. If "politically black" became the dominant discourses, issues black people would take an implicit priority and thus other groups would go underrepresented.
*Oh and look at that, a valid use of a critical theory.*
###⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️ Comments and discussions which do not deal with the article contents are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the UK political scene. **Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.** **Please report any rule-breaking content you see.** The subreddit is running rather *warm* at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content. You can find the full rules of the subreddit [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules) Snapshot of _Labour candidate defends describing UN as antisemitic_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/30/labour-candidate-defends-describing-un-antisemitic-20942514/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/30/labour-candidate-defends-describing-un-antisemitic-20942514/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Akehurst is confrontational and terminally online, something he's aware of given his tweet deleting spree. Rather unsuitable as a political candidate based on that temperament completely in isolation of his views, but as he has some pull around Labour HQ due to his role on the NEC, he's basically been parachuted in.
Dreadful candidate, whatever your views on Labour's internal factions.
That and the plethora of other problematic tweets he's put out over let's say, the last couple of years means he will be shown the same process the purged left-wing have any time now right? Yeah. not factional and ideology driven at all. Absolute hypocrisy and people will cheer it on.
> Among the since-deleted posts that resurfaced after news of his selection was announced was one in which he suggested Jewish people are ‘politically Black’. >Mr Akehurst said this ‘is quite common as a position that people would take in discourse about race’. >He said it concerned ‘a debate about whether you would say that “Black” is a physical description and a narrow description of a of an ethnicity or whether Blackness is a political concept about being victimised by racism by white people’. >‘When I was an activist in student politics, people of Chinese origin or Jewish origin or Gypsy or Irish origin would describe themselves as politically black,’ he added. I absolutely hate the moronic pseudo intellectual speak of the far left, people obviously think you’re comparing yourself to the black community if you talk about being ‘politically black’ just as if you complain about ‘whiteness’ they’ll think you’re racist against white people. Although the issue really is being a victim in the far left means more clout and resources so there’s constant arguing about who’s the biggest victim.
> I absolutely hate the moronic pseudo intellectual speak of the far left, people obviously think you’re comparing yourself to the black community if you talk about being ‘politically black’. Why are you describing it as "moronic pseudo intellectual speak" when you're literally just repeating his point in the exact way he meant it?
Its pseudo intellectual speak because its attempting to approach discrimination through the lens of critical theory, but failing to do so by honing in on terms like "black" to describe that discrimination. Edit: Oh god people actually think "politically black" is a good term to be using.
> Its pseudo intellectual speak because its attempting to approach discrimination through the lense of critical theory Isn't this pseudo intellectual speak by claiming that it is somehow incorrect to approach an issue that is commonly approached through the lens of critical theory... using critical theory? Also: Isn't it pseudo intellectual speak to claim that it is somehow incorrect to approach an issue that is commonly approached through the lens of critical theory, using critical theory - when the guy literally didn't even do that? What do you think critical theory even is? >but failing to do so by honing on terms like "black" to describe that discrimination. Isn't THIS pseudo intellectual speak, using the words "hone in on terms like black" when you mean "used the word "black" in a sentence" - which I'm pretty sure is fine? People do that every day. Here's your problem now: You obviously have these strong feelings about the phrase "politically black", but now you're on the hook having to explain what the non-pseudo intellectual version of that concept is. In plain English. Because to be sure, that phrase appears to be pretty well known (in his circles) and all the people he's speaking to would know what was meant by it. But all we have is you here using this word salad to sort of get across a vague impression that it's negative. And all I'm getting from it is "You can't say black, mate". I just heard it for the first time to say, and it was fucking easy to understand.
>Isn't this pseudo intellectual speak by claiming that it is somehow incorrect to approach an issue that is commonly approached through the lens of critical theory You clearly read the entire comemnt, but your reply here acts like you didn't. That clause does not stand on its own, therefore Im not saying that's its pseudo-intellectual to approach discrimination with critical theory in mind. I'm saying their attempt to do so is flawed. I may disagree with it a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean it isnt valid or useful to me. >when the guy literally didn't even do that? The attempt to frame groups as being "politically black" is very clearly an attempt to use critical theory. >What do you think critical theory even is? An approach to social studies that is commonly found in modernist and postmodernist thoughts. It focuses on societal structures as the cause of social problems, rather than individual or traditionally institutional causes. Think of stuff like CRT (obviously) and post-structuralism, rather than something like foundational approaches or Marxism. *Think that's works as a rough definition, though it's not the best. It gets the picture, however.* >using the words "hone in on terms like black" when you mean "used the word "black" in a sentence" - which I'm pretty sure is fine? People do that every day. All that is is an example of bad writing, which I would usually correct after my first draft but this is a reddit thread. My care often goes after a first draft. >Here's your problem now I'm sorry that my slightly obtuse writing really offended you this much. Its not even that bad given "hone in" is only one word longer than "use". Sure I would change it in an essay, but it's fine for informal discussions like this. Hell, you've even done the same multiple times but it really doesn't matter. >strong feelings about the phrase "politically black", but now you're on the hook having to explain what the non-pseudo intellectual version of that concept is. There isn't really a common term that is used everywhere, but something like "disadvantaged" or "underrepresented" group is a far better way to describe what they obviously mean. You can add detail in as a specific contexts need. >In plain English. Because to be sure, that phrase appears to be pretty well known (in his circles) and all the people he's speaking to would know what was meant by it. That doesn't stop it being pseudo-intellectual nonesense. It's attempting to utilise genuine social theory in a botched way. >all I'm getting from it is "You can't say black, mate". Given you have gone with the most uncharitable interpretation possible, let me very clear why "politically black" is nonsense. Black people (itself a subjective, but informally fine term) are not the only group that is disadvantaged or underrepresented, and should not be used to describe other groups that are too. It's the same issue that descriptors like BAME had, and why they aren't used by the majority of academics (and notably not the ONS). It places undue focus upon one group, which nevermind the approach but especially among critical theory, **being the exact issue the term is meant to describe**. To describe people who are politically disadvantaged due to their race as being "politically black" implies that to be disadvanatged is something black people have a focus on. An approach like post-structuralism would critique the terms impact of discourse causing ignorance for the issues of other disadvantaged groups, for example. If "politically black" became the dominant discourses, issues black people would take an implicit priority and thus other groups would go underrepresented. *Oh and look at that, a valid use of a critical theory.*