|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 14, 2022 21:49:37 GMT
She was on Mastermind in 2006, although I can't get the video on Youtube. Even so, this clip is quite funny. It's a debate about Mao and Hitler, and by the way the bloke who said Mao murdered 60m people is totally wrong and totally stupid for saying it. She was right though in what she said. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4o5n2EGyAI know so many hate it, but she is pretty smart. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 17, 2022 8:31:00 GMT
You have to accept that someone we have all seen in long conversation talking about multiple topics, and who appears to be of barely average intelligence, is in fact some kind of genius.
Perhaps the Baron thinks we were all born yesterday and that, if we are told by him that a blue ball is yellow, we will just accept it as so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 17, 2022 10:47:09 GMT
You have to accept that someone we have all seen in long conversation talking about multiple topics, and who appears to be of barely average intelligence, is in fact some kind of genius. Perhaps the Baron thinks we were all born yesterday and that, if we are told by him that a blue ball is yellow, we will just accept it as so. Well, it worked for Ted Lowe! |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 17, 2022 12:38:00 GMT
You have to accept that someone we have all seen in long conversation talking about multiple topics, and who appears to be of barely average intelligence, is in fact some kind of genius. Perhaps the Baron thinks we were all born yesterday and that, if we are told by him that a blue ball is yellow, we will just accept it as so. What a load of twaddle and misinterpretation.
See the video and you see it is as clear as day. She knows her history of 20th century China and those stupid laughing tossers are blatantly wrong, whichever East Asian historian you consult.
They are jerks, but the public like jerks. Abbott is smart and always has been. What her enemies complain about is her political beliefs. The stupid brains of the masses can't separate out their emotional views about her politics and whether what she is actually saying at the time makes sense. She can pull facts from her knowledge quite readily and can think on her feet.
I can actually separate out the emotional stuff from my assessment of her mental abilities. OK I have seen arguments where you have the overriding mass view of one way or another and she is on the minor side, so they automatically think she is "totally wrong", to use their expression, but she is canny and will find some other argument that argues in the opposite direction of their prejudice and in doing so they fall down a hole and look like they do in that clip.
So to sum up, my view of here is I too do not like her socialist policies, but I respect her intelligence. It's quite entertaining watching the clowns try and put her down and in doing so put their foot in it. You know, like a bit of the circus to go with our bread offerings in Blighty.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 17, 2022 12:46:19 GMT
Maybe the people of hackney vote for Abbout because shes a good mp for hackney since 1987 . A long time serving mp Or maybe the constituency party is so full of her cronies no one else gets a chance to stand ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 12:49:50 GMT
I suspect that Abbots racist jibes help her .
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 17, 2022 12:52:56 GMT
See the video and you see it is as clear as day. I don't need to see the video because my contention is not that she knows nothing at all or is always wrong, but that she is unusually thick for her station. She has average intelligence for someone with an office job at low level management. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 17, 2022 12:59:29 GMT
See the video and you see it is as clear as day. I don't need to see the video because my contention is not that she knows nothing at all or is always wrong, but that she is unusually thick for her station. She has average intelligence for someone with an office job at low level management. You do not need to see the evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 17, 2022 13:02:49 GMT
You do not need to see the evidence. Huh? Like I said, I have seen plenty of evidence (as have most of us). You don't draw an opinion like that from just one duff or good conversation. I do have a question though. Does your example of her cleverness also involve her implicitly supporting a stance held by the Chinese Communist party? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 17, 2022 13:25:07 GMT
You do not need to see the evidence. Huh? Like I said, I have seen plenty of evidence (as have most of us). You don't draw an opinion like that from just one duff or good conversation. I do have a question though. Does your example of her cleverness also involve her implicitly supporting a stance held by the Chinese Communist party? No, her view would be the same as it is in say Wikipedia. Anyway, since you don't even want to watch a couple of minutes of circus fun, the issue raised was what good did Mao do, to which the jerks burst out laughing. Her answer, which they were still in hysterics about was that Mao industrialised China. This was her first point, and it is true. Mao had a good relationship with the Soviet Union so they were able to borrow a load of money off them to build heavy industry. The soviets were pretty expert at this so did a good job. This was the first big change that would see China go from a peasant nation of small farmers to what it is today, the world's second largest economy. She is absolutely right and anyone who was taught history at school should know this. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 17, 2022 13:52:44 GMT
the issue raised was what good did Mao do, to which the jerks burst out laughing. Her answer, which they were still in hysterics about was that Mao industrialised China. This was her first point, and it is true. Mao had a good relationship with the Soviet Union so they were able to borrow a load of money off them to build heavy industry. You should really be asking yourself how I knew that Diane Abbot's supposed acts of genius would be related in some way to China, Mao or the Chinese Communist Party. She might have chosen any subject at all to display her genius, and yet, by some stunning and inexplicable coincidence, it is China related. It is more or less consistent with my model of Diane Abbot that she would know by heart various bits, pieces and 'interesting facts' you might pick up from The Bumper Book Of How To Defend A Socialist HolocaustSignificant parts of China are still pretty pre-industrial to this day, so it's all very much a matter of degree / definition, but she is not definitely wrong imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 17, 2022 14:07:56 GMT
the issue raised was what good did Mao do, to which the jerks burst out laughing. Her answer, which they were still in hysterics about was that Mao industrialised China. This was her first point, and it is true. Mao had a good relationship with the Soviet Union so they were able to borrow a load of money off them to build heavy industry. You should really be asking yourself how I knew that Diane Abbot's supposed acts of genius would be related in some way to China, Mao or the Chinese Communist Party. She might have chosen any subject at all to display her genius, and yet, by some stunning and inexplicable coincidence, it is China related. It is more or less consistent with my model of Diane Abbot that she would know by heart various bits, pieces and 'interesting facts' you might pick up from The Bumper Book Of How To Defend A Socialist HolocaustSignificant parts of China are still pretty pre-industrial to this day, so it's all very much a matter of degree / definition, but she is not definitely wrong imo. I know what you are thinking, but honestly, I did not spend hours trying to find that clip. What I searched on was to try and find a clip of her on Mastermind in 2006. It is listened in some database of TV performances, but unfortunately it was not on Youtube. The search results contained random appearances on the TV, so just out of curiosity I clicked on the top one and lo and behold it was a question about China. All it was, was the show had a clickbait type of classic polemic of who was the worse or better between Mao and Hitler. They were just talking points for the show, and the only reason it was Mao was because Mao and Hitler in their minds are the two most evil dictators the world has ever seen, which is also a bit suspect, but anyway, this is primetime prole fodder served up.
It s bloody depressing to be frank with you. The proles are oblivious to the error of the jerks. I'll reprint the top comment from them with 2100 likes.
You see, these voters are tabloid vegetables.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 17, 2022 17:38:03 GMT
I'm amusing myself at the abject stupidity of the masses here.
They don't know fuck all about history. I've been trying in vain to find a person educated enough to correct the failure in the video.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Dec 18, 2022 19:31:51 GMT
Abbott achieved a lower second class degree. Not exactly top of the range is it? Today anything lower than a first is pretty weak, but in Abbott's day people could get away with lower scores. Very few people had the priviledge of going to University, let alone Cambridge. Perhaps it might give an indication of Diane Abbott’s abilities to note that she actually got into Cambridge. Even today, Oxford and Cambridge still take only around 20% of applicants, despite Blair’s aim to get 50% of school leavers into uni. It’s the other Russell Group of Universities have made entry easier since then. It is a shame there is no obvious replacement being lined up to take her place in Hackney North & Stoke Newington, as she is no longer as accessible to constituents as she was — past her sell by date could be a good description. But with the majority she gets, I doubt she’ll be forced out, or lose… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 18, 2022 20:13:07 GMT
Perhaps it might give an indication of Diane Abbott’s abilities to note that she actually got into Cambridge. That's backward logic. We know roughly what Diane Abbot's capabilities are. Most of us have seen her in extended and meandering conversation. However, I wouldn't describe her as exactly a cretin. She is a 'mid-wit' - , that is, somebody capable of a basic management role and intelligent enough to work out what is in her interests. There is very little of a remarkable nature going on upstairs. |
|
