Discussion
Have we seen any pictures or CCTV yet or is Owen still looking for his contact lens.
I'd like to see some pictures before getting too worked up about this. Assaults causing significant pain and injury are always to be condemned and especially so if motivated by homophobia or racism, etc, but if he has simply got involved in a spot of handbags and has a graze and bruised pride he needs to grow up a bit (more).
I'd like to see some pictures before getting too worked up about this. Assaults causing significant pain and injury are always to be condemned and especially so if motivated by homophobia or racism, etc, but if he has simply got involved in a spot of handbags and has a graze and bruised pride he needs to grow up a bit (more).
jakesmith said:
I condemn the attack completely, it is wrong. I can see why it may have happened because he seems to be quite obnoxious and that can result in scuffles in pubs, also he espouses extreme political views which can upset people. But again I condemn it.
Ok, if you’d said,“I condemn the attack completely, it is wrong” That’s a condemnation.
Or if you’d said.
“I condemn the attack completely, it is wrong. Some people think he espouses extreme political views, perhaps it was politically motivated. But again I condemn it.” That’s a condemnation followed by an explanation.
By writing
“I can see why it may have happened, because he seems to be quite obnoxious”
you are attaching your own negative view of him and that completely changes the emphasis of your post. You’re saying it may have happened because he’s obnoxious. You’re shifting the blame towards him and him being obnoxious.
Although you say you’re condemning it, your condemnation is reduced by saying it may have been caused by your view of him being obnoxious.
Taylor James said:
Have we seen any pictures or CCTV yet or is Owen still looking for his contact lens.
I'd like to see some pictures before getting too worked up about this. Assaults causing significant pain and injury are always to be condemned and especially so if motivated by homophobia or racism, etc, but if he has simply got involved in a spot of handbags and has a graze and bruised pride he needs to grow up a bit (more).
The level of physical injury is not really the issue here if it turns out to be politically motivated. I'd like to see some pictures before getting too worked up about this. Assaults causing significant pain and injury are always to be condemned and especially so if motivated by homophobia or racism, etc, but if he has simply got involved in a spot of handbags and has a graze and bruised pride he needs to grow up a bit (more).
Did you think the Farage milkshakes were fine and he just needed to grow up a bit?
jsc15 said:
DeepEnd said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/17/gu...
He has been targeted before by the far right according to this article.
This is not good no matter which “side” you’re on, and whether you find him annoying. I find him a bit annoying but beaten up for his views?
He could have been beaten up for a number of reasons. His "views" are possibly the least likely reason in this case. He has been targeted before by the far right according to this article.
This is not good no matter which “side” you’re on, and whether you find him annoying. I find him a bit annoying but beaten up for his views?
The Guardian article says Owen has been targeted before by the "far right", conveniently according to Owen himself. However in Owen's world the "far right" = "all people who don't agree with me", hence some cynicism of his take on last night's events
768 said:
Jesus that's some serious pains to twist his words.
Where have I twisted anything?Many of these condemnations are followed by BUT it’s often the bit after the but which is giving the poster’s own negative view of Jones and suggesting Jones was asking for it.
I condemn the attack BUT . . .
Read through the thread there’s loads of them.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Could this be like that scene in one of the Dirty Harry films where the `victim' (murderer) paid someone to paste him over a bit, so he could then claim `he' was being victimized, by Dirty Harry? Stranger things have happened
Yes it could be.Seems a bit of a leap though compared to it being for being gay or making a bit too much noise or whatever set of reasons some people need these days.
Countdown said:
768 said:
He didn't say but, other than to reiterate that he condemns it.
He goes on to say “I can see why it happened” implying that it was somehow justified. 768 said:
El stovey said:
Where have I twisted anything?
He's literally said he condemns it yet you conclude he doesn't.El stovey said:
I condemn the attack BUT . . .
He didn't say but, other than to reiterate that he condemns it.If someone you agree with politically was attacked, you wouldn’t come on saying “I condemn the attack” you’d just say you thought it was disgusting or whatever.
They’re not really condemning anything. They just want to say it’s basically his fault, but because it sounds really bad they have to say they condemn it first.
If say Nigel Farage gets a drink thrown over him. I might think it’s bad but funny. If I come on here saying “I condemn the attack, but he’s a dick so you can see why it happened.” That’s not really a condemnation is it? I’m saying I condemn it but it’s Nigel’s fault. The condemnation is meaningless. It’s just a way of justifying saying you can see why people throw drinks on him.
El stovey said:
jakesmith said:
I condemn the attack completely, it is wrong. I can see why it may have happened because he seems to be quite obnoxious and that can result in scuffles in pubs, also he espouses extreme political views which can upset people. But again I condemn it.
Ok, if you’d said,“I condemn the attack completely, it is wrong” That’s a condemnation.
Or if you’d said.
“I condemn the attack completely, it is wrong. Some people think he espouses extreme political views, perhaps it was politically motivated. But again I condemn it.” That’s a condemnation followed by an explanation.
By writing
“I can see why it may have happened, because he seems to be quite obnoxious”
you are attaching your own negative view of him and that completely changes the emphasis of your post. You’re saying it may have happened because he’s obnoxious. You’re shifting the blame towards him and him being obnoxious.
Although you say you’re condemning it, your condemnation is reduced by saying it may have been caused by your view of him being obnoxious.
Of course, people shouldn’t be beaten up but you can’t divorce the incident from the context (which in this case only comes so far from an individual whose commentary is always self-centred and which generally verges on the hysterical).
To take an extreme, the would-be suicide bomber at Glasgow Airport was beaten up because his assailant, to put it mildly, found him obnoxious. But his beating up (after he had been restrained) was still illegal.
As a matter of public policy, the alleged perpetrators need to be investigated and prosecuted, if appropriate. As, of course, should Jones if he had any part in starting the incident.
But I’m sorry, I’m really struggling to give a rat’s arse over an alleged assault on someone who has espoused political violence and putting his opponents in concentration camps.
Sounds like rough justice to me, even though I’m not keen on da yoot of Islington going around roughing people up as a matter of general policy.
Countdown said:
768 said:
He didn't say but, other than to reiterate that he condemns it.
He goes on to say “I can see why it happened” implying that it was somehow justified. Explanation is a hypothesis, justification is motivational and there's a clear difference.
[Bear in mind we know little of actually what happened.]
768 said:
El stovey said:
Where have I twisted anything?
He's literally said he condemns it yet you conclude he doesn't.El stovey said:
I condemn the attack BUT . . .
He didn't say but, other than to reiterate that he condemns it.Pan Pan Pan said:
Could this be like that scene in one of the Dirty Harry films where the `victim' (murderer) paid someone to paste him over a bit, so he could then claim `he' was being victimized, by Dirty Harry? Stranger things have happened
Of course not! But, going with the notion, unless he paid a couple of Brownies to do it, he should be asking for his money back! Countdown said:
768 said:
He didn't say but, other than to reiterate that he condemns it.
He goes on to say “I can see why it happened” implying that it was somehow justified. 
k off to the guardian's comment section? Or Facebook where an algorithm can show you only things you agree with?Explaining the reason something happened, bracketed before and afterwards by a specific condemnation of it, does not make the explanation into a justification.
I have nothing to prove to you. If I thought it was justified or he deserved it I would simply say so then and again now. Why would I care about 'appearing magnanimous' on an anonymous forum, I have no reputation on here & couldn't care less.
This isn't going anywhere so suggest you find something else to be outraged by, like harmful gender stereotypes in adverts or how about Corbyn who never condemns specific acts of violence by sides he supports, only 'violence on all sides'. That's a proper dog whistle. Maybe look it up?
jakesmith said:
This is going to blow your mind but... there are often reasons why something happens. That doesn't make it right. Not all events are random. WOuld you rather this discussion was 15 comments of 'terrible thing to happen'. Wouldn't be very interesting reading. Maybe you should fk off to the guardian's comment section? Or Facebook where an algorithm can show you only things you agree with?
Explaining the reason something happened, bracketed before and afterwards by a specific condemnation of it, does not make the explanation into a justification.
I have nothing to prove to you. If I thought it was justified or he deserved it I would simply say so then and again now. Why would I care about 'appearing magnanimous' on an anonymous forum, I have no reputation on here & couldn't care less.
This isn't going anywhere so suggest you find something else to be outraged by, like harmful gender stereotypes in adverts or how about Corbyn who never condemns specific acts of violence by sides he supports, only 'violence on all sides'. That's a proper dog whistle. Maybe look it up?
Except Owen Jones' personality isn't the reason it happened. It may be the excuse used by the thug, but saying the reason sits with the victim is victim blaming. Just like it would be in any crime like fraud, rape or murder.k off to the guardian's comment section? Or Facebook where an algorithm can show you only things you agree with?Explaining the reason something happened, bracketed before and afterwards by a specific condemnation of it, does not make the explanation into a justification.
I have nothing to prove to you. If I thought it was justified or he deserved it I would simply say so then and again now. Why would I care about 'appearing magnanimous' on an anonymous forum, I have no reputation on here & couldn't care less.
This isn't going anywhere so suggest you find something else to be outraged by, like harmful gender stereotypes in adverts or how about Corbyn who never condemns specific acts of violence by sides he supports, only 'violence on all sides'. That's a proper dog whistle. Maybe look it up?
Victims aren't the reason.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff