Opposite views to PH majority
Discussion
turbobloke said:
WinstonWolf said:
zygalski said:
It's when these views aren't stamped on by the staff here that it's seen as ok to do it.
Go post on the Guardian forum if you find PH so horrid.zygalski said:
If that doesn't show how out of step the forum regulars are with society as a whole then nothing will.
Better to be a thoughtful but metaphorical lemming that stays on the cliff rather than one of the mindless crowd that leaps over the edge just following the pack, with Ed as the lead lemming it's amazing anyone moves at all.
Johnnytheboy said:
turbobloke said:
WinstonWolf said:
zygalski said:
It's when these views aren't stamped on by the staff here that it's seen as ok to do it.
Go post on the Guardian forum if you find PH so horrid.zygalski said:
If that doesn't show how out of step the forum regulars are with society as a whole then nothing will.
Better to be a thoughtful but metaphorical lemming that stays on the cliff rather than one of the mindless crowd that leaps over the edge just following the pack, with Ed as the lead lemming it's amazing anyone moves at all.More censorship and less lawful free speech would indeed appear to be attractive to some PHers, but not those posting from the 'liberal' left of course
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Perhaps PH management do not wish to set themselves up as arbiters of who is an arse, or perhaps they just don't share your opinion of what constitutes one? And removing comments you don't like from your own forum *is* censorship, albeit a form one is perfectly entitled to engage in. Not all censorship is a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
CIF has the desired characteristics: posts removed, posters banned, if the content isn't lefty enough. There's always room for more conformist lefties.=> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree
MarshPhantom said:
Free speech - you are allowed to say racist things, other people are allowed to call you a racist.
Not pointed at anyone in particular.
Exactly. Fascism (i.e. a nationalism-invoking version of socialism) would allow you to say racist things, but no one would be allowed to call you racist.Not pointed at anyone in particular.
Something I'll pointlessly chime in with...
What increasingly puts me off NP&E is not so much the majority political view, but the means of "discussion". I have one or two posters particularly in mind for this, but it applies more widely.
Turning up and making unidirectional assertions - not arguments - is not meaningful discourse. It's basically just talking at someone, conversational hit-and-run. Nor does intermittently agreeing with other similarly-minded people make it any more of a social interaction.
If it were objective fact, then fine, refute away, but when it's subjective and values-based, it's always going to be, "I believe XYZ because...", not "XYZ is the one truth, so you're wrong". For that to be a workable conversation, you at least have to poke at what the other person thinks, listen to at least some element of their reasoning, probably make some concessions somewhere along the line, and maybe even agree to disagree. Not just snipe and repeatedly assert. Eh, f
king hippy that I am.
PH is properly st at this, more and more so, and why I feel less and less inclined to bother trying to articulate any kind of view.
What increasingly puts me off NP&E is not so much the majority political view, but the means of "discussion". I have one or two posters particularly in mind for this, but it applies more widely.
Turning up and making unidirectional assertions - not arguments - is not meaningful discourse. It's basically just talking at someone, conversational hit-and-run. Nor does intermittently agreeing with other similarly-minded people make it any more of a social interaction.
If it were objective fact, then fine, refute away, but when it's subjective and values-based, it's always going to be, "I believe XYZ because...", not "XYZ is the one truth, so you're wrong". For that to be a workable conversation, you at least have to poke at what the other person thinks, listen to at least some element of their reasoning, probably make some concessions somewhere along the line, and maybe even agree to disagree. Not just snipe and repeatedly assert. Eh, f
king hippy that I am.PH is properly s
t at this, more and more so, and why I feel less and less inclined to bother trying to articulate any kind of view.trashbat said:
What increasingly puts me off NP&E is not so much the majority political view, but the means of "discussion". I have one or two posters particularly in mind for this, but it applies more widely.
Turning up and making unidirectional assertions - not arguments - is not meaningful discourse. It's basically just talking at someone, conversational hit-and-run.
You seem partial to a spot of that.Turning up and making unidirectional assertions - not arguments - is not meaningful discourse. It's basically just talking at someone, conversational hit-and-run.
trashbat said:
Like being born into money, you mean? Great life choice, guys!
Cliché, soundbite, class war rhetoric, splash and dash?There are some well-developed arguments in a range of threads from all sorts of people, including yours which has been shortened above merely to isolate a key point. Pan Pan Pan has taken the trouble to articulate some well thought-out views recently and several PHers appreciated it but some have responded less positively.
A mix is bound to arise, and writing an extended reply isn't necessarily the best response...it depends. There's nothing wrong with being succinct, then having other things to do, so don't be too hard on yourself
...which was in response to you making another assertion, albeit a little dressed up. Admittedly, I shouldn't have taken the bait if I then wanted to complain about the same thing, but we can't all be godlike figures all the time.
The thread that comes from, however, is a good example of failed discourse. I wondered if it was worth illustrating why I made the voting choice that I did today, which was complicated and less than ideal.
As I kind of expected, it turns out to be impossible to discuss the apolitical mechanism and idea of it without getting into particular party politics and indeed just straight personal. This isn't the case everywhere, but it is here.
The thread that comes from, however, is a good example of failed discourse. I wondered if it was worth illustrating why I made the voting choice that I did today, which was complicated and less than ideal.
As I kind of expected, it turns out to be impossible to discuss the apolitical mechanism and idea of it without getting into particular party politics and indeed just straight personal. This isn't the case everywhere, but it is here.
trashbat said:
...which was in response to you making another assertion, albeit a little dressed up. Admittedly, I shouldn't have taken the bait if I then wanted to complain about the same thing, but we can't all be godlike figures all the time.
Yet you appeared to deify some people over others!
So, without a research grant to spend three years cobbling a PhD thesis together, we may have to agree to differ
I'll still remain convinced that making (overall) good life decisions is a key point in the context of achieving any personal goal, not just those relating to wealth. I totally understand you remain free to disagree most strongly
In which case you'd still be wrong
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff