Opposite views to PH majority

[Efbe]

Cheese is showing right now why left wing ideas are not seen on here.

over the top, reactionary right wing opinions are about all you see in the political threads. It doesn't mean that the forums are made up entirely of them; i suppose there just may be a relationship between right wing and overreacting aggressiveness with a complete inability to empathise with other's opinions.

[anonymous-user]

Efbe said:

Cheese is showing right now why left wing ideas are not seen on here.

over the top, reactionary right wing opinions are about all you see in the political threads. It doesn't mean that the forums are made up entirely of them; i suppose there just may be a relationship between right wing and overreacting aggressiveness with a complete inability to empathise with other's opinions.

yup this 100%

These threads are full of nutters spouting their blinkered religious/political ideology.

These posters feel like they are around like minded individuals as all the reasonable posters don't bother to reply and switch off.

[Bluebarge]

Efbe said:

Cheese is showing right now why left wing ideas are not seen on here.

over the top, reactionary right wing opinions are about all you see in the political threads. It doesn't mean that the forums are made up entirely of them; i suppose there just may be a relationship between right wing and overreacting aggressiveness with a complete inability to empathise with other's opinions.

What he said.

You can waste a lot of time providing a counterpoint to the prevailing opinion on here, but very few are prepared to enter into an exchange of ideas. It's generally just a load of angry pie-chucking.

[vixen1700]

Used to like Urban75 around 2001-2003, it was really good for organising free parties in London, together with parties at the Ministry of Unsound. Lots of decent people on there.

Don't go anywhere near the place these days, just seems full of people who argue for the sake of arguing and strange people who frequent their drugs forum.

Really not a good advert for the Left.

It's a shame, it used to be really good.

[turbobloke]

AnotherClarkey said:

Slaav said:

AnotherClarkey said:

The PH majority of what? The 'Poll of polls' thread demonstrated that Pistonheads is far from representative of the population as a whole.

And it is a shame that you are correct...

I don't think so. I enjoy talking st about cars but I certainly wouldn't want to live in Pistonheadsland. There is a huge amount of confirmation bias going on here.

You may be confusing PH with CIF.

The idea that being representative of the rest of the population is a good or bad thing is odd, given that this is (was) a specific interest site and there's no reason to expect a match. Since Haymarket went after volume and with the site being well-known there are people with no shared interest to the majority joining up, but again so what.

Opinions expressed on PH tend to have their basis put forward, people don't always back off in the face of empty me-too populism, and don't always run with the main population herd - that's no bad thing. Conformity is often lazy, appealing to insecurity.

Bluebarge said:

Efbe said:

Cheese is showing right now why left wing ideas are not seen on here.

over the top, reactionary right wing opinions are about all you see in the political threads. It doesn't mean that the forums are made up entirely of them; i suppose there just may be a relationship between right wing and overreacting aggressiveness with a complete inability to empathise with other's opinions.

What he said.

What he said is wrong, left wing ideas are seen on here. It's not as often as in The Guardian, but their website is easily found for anyone wanting a bigger dose.

What can be seen is name-calling ('reactionary') when people run out of steam defending left-wing dogma in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Politicians who claim to be putting leftism into some sort of practice then wreck the country's economy while increasing many forms of poverty, and perversely helping high earners, are rightly criticised. This is odd given the claimed skew on the so-called PH demographic.

For over-the-top see Labour and claims for NHS-saving Mansion, Bonus and avoided taxes. These Labour policies have been supported from time to time in those non-existent leftish posts.

[trashbat]

vixen1700 said:

Used to like Urban75 around 2001-2003, it was really good for organising free parties in London, together with parties at the Ministry of Unsound. Lots of decent people on there.

Don't go anywhere near the place these days, just seems full of people who argue for the sake of arguing and strange people who frequent their drugs forum.

Really not a good advert for the Left.

It's a shame, it used to be really good.

It was always like that. It's still a very good community, and it generally offers more intelligent political debate than PH NPE by a very wide margin, even if it's skewed towards one end of the political spectrum.

I could describe PH as many negative things, and certainly not a good advert for right-wing ideologies, but it would be equally difficult to adequately explain the reasons why I like it, such as how PHers frequently go a very long way out of their way to help each other.

TL;DR, I doubt many PHers would appreciate other forums' posters trying to characterise them, so probably best not do that to others

[turbobloke]

trashbat said:

vixen1700 said:

Used to like Urban75 around 2001-2003, it was really good for organising free parties in London, together with parties at the Ministry of Unsound. Lots of decent people on there.

Don't go anywhere near the place these days, just seems full of people who argue for the sake of arguing and strange people who frequent their drugs forum.

Really not a good advert for the Left.

It's a shame, it used to be really good.

It was always like that. It's still a very good community, and it generally offers more intelligent political debate than PH NPE by a very wide margin...

trashbat said:

I could describe PH as many negative things...

Feel free, unlike CIF you're far less likely to have your post deleted and then be banned for not running with the herd, in fact it's most unlikely.

trashbat said:

...and certainly not a good advert for right-wing ideologies...

That's hardly the purpose of a car enthusiasts' forum, not forgetting that when mixed in with cheap product, even the best seeds won't germinate on rocks.

trashbat said:

...but it would be equally difficult to adequately explain the reasons why I like it, such as how PHers frequently go a very long way out of their way to help each other.

That sentiment may apply more widely. I consider business-friendly and high-earner-tolerant conditions from the right of centre to be helpful and preferable because the resulting stronger economic conditions and greater tax-take from incentivisation as opposed to vilification and punishment-by-tax-rate will provide more hard cash for those who genuinely need it. Fine words of the emotive lefty variety tend to have no real value for anyone, for richer or poorer.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 28th April 11:36

[trashbat]

turbobloke said:

unlike

Must

turbobloke said:

product

you

turbobloke said:

sentiment

dismantle

turbobloke said:

nishme

everything

turbobloke said:

of

so

turbobloke said:

p

thoroughly?

It makes it very tedious to reply.

It's also great that you've found the opportunity to shoehorn a bit more of your politics into a post that wasn't really anything to do with it, and was actually about people slagging off another forum, which contrary to popular belief is not as to anti-capitalist yoghurt weaving as PH is to cars - or possibly in some lights it is, i.e. loosely related.

[BGARK]

Efbe said:

over the top, reactionary right wing opinions are about all you see in the political threads..

Do you mean facts or logic?

I find it hard myself to understand, do people want things run by emotion or intelligence. Generally facts do not distinguish the difference between left/right but emotional people seem to want to attack people who say things they don't like (putting heads in sand mentality).

I have yet to see a socialist point that I agree with, not because I like arguing, simply because they make no sense to me. A bit like Dr Spock I need logic!

Different strokes for different folks I suppose, which is perfectly fine with me as long as I don't have to pay for your choices, fair no?

[TTwiggy]

Mr Spock. FFS

[vixen1700]

trashbat said:

and was actually about people slagging off another forum

I didn't mean to slag of U75 at all, I've met an awful lot of posters (sadly most of them have long since gone) over the years and had some great times, but I don't really find it the place it was at all these days.

I don't think telling somebody to just fk off if they support UKIP is the best political debate though.

[Bluebarge]

BGARK said:

Generally facts do not distinguish the difference between left/right but emotional people seem to want to attack people who say things they don't like (putting heads in sand mentality).

That's pretty much the approach you adopt on the EU thread. Whenever an argument is put to you that you don't like, you either wilfully ignore it, repeat what you said previously even though it has been disproven, or refuse to listen because the argument contains a few long words that you profess not to understand.

If you want a genuine debate, that's not really the way to go about having one, is it?

[Mr_B]

Voting Green may be all well and good if that's what you want to do, trying to defend the silly wish list manifesto based on zero reality though is a non starter for even the most ardent Green fan, they simply don't bother.

[Cheese Mechanic]

Efbe said:

Cheese is showing right now why left wing ideas are not seen on here.

over the top, reactionary right wing opinions are about all you see in the political threads. It doesn't mean that the forums are made up entirely of them; i suppose there just may be a relationship between right wing and overreacting aggressiveness with a complete inability to empathise with other's opinions.

As I made perfectly clear in my post, you can be as big an idiot as you like, think what you like, but when you want to enforce that idiocy, those opinions on me, and cause havoc when doing so (as the Labour Party repeatedly have done) then expect to be treated with the contempt you deserve.

[davepoth]

Derek Smith said:

But in the banking collapse, for that is what it was, those who were running successful businesses were hit for no fault of their own. That is a failure of capitalism.

Banks had to be nationalised, i.e. my taxes paid to bail out poor business models: that is a failure of capitalism.

The need for continual expansion, now that is a failure of capitalism.

I'm not suggesting that socialism is more likely to succeed, just that capitalism.

Ah, but there's the problem. Capitalism didn't fail. Terrible banks and terrible regulation failed. Terrible government planning which meant there was no money available to prop up the economy outside of the banks failed. The point was to save in the boom to spend in the bust, and we ended up doing the exact opposite. Compare what happened here to what happened in Canada, and remind yourself that it was a smallish financial institution (Northern Rock) that was the first domino to fall.

https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/...

The need for continual expansion is at least partially a result of population growth - the economy needs to expand by 0.8% per annum to provide for the extra people even if they are "average". Factor on top of that the need to spend more on people due to demographic change and technological advancement (welfare and healthcare spending, which I don't think you'd argue with) and you get to a number over 1% required annual economic growth just to stand still.

So if a zero growth economy is required we can do a few things, all of which I think you can work out from the above, and none of which are especially palatable for either the right or the left.

[trashbat]

vixen1700 said:

I didn't mean to slag of U75 at all, I've met an awful lot of posters (sadly most of them have long since gone) over the years and had some great times, but I don't really find it the place it was at all these days.

I don't think telling somebody to just fk off if they support UKIP is the best political debate though.

Works for me

I use it a lot like I use PH, actually - to get news, to idly chat, and to talk about games, photography etc, rather than necessarily always its core purpose.

It's hard to explain what I mean about the different quality of it. The properly political posters are quite hardcore but mostly know their history & details at the very least, whether you agree with any of the subjective bits of what they're saying or not. I think there's also a lot less fishing for extreme opinion, i.e. "look at this appalling Mail story that will make you angry".

Put it this way, I'd be more likely to walk away from a discussion on there because I felt like I was clueless rather than because I felt like I was arguing with a large piece of rock and wasting my own time with it. In the end it usually ends a bit less personal and bilious too, but I might just be looking at it through rose tinted glasses. Eh, just my 2p.

Edited by trashbat on Tuesday 28th April 12:11

[BGARK]

Bluebarge said:

That's pretty much the approach you adopt on the EU thread. Whenever an argument is put to you that you don't like, you either wilfully ignore it, repeat what you said previously even though it has been disproven, or refuse to listen because the argument contains a few long words that you profess not to understand.

If you want a genuine debate, that's not really the way to go about having one, is it?

Ok, so you have basically just attacked me and spun the point in a different direction.

What reaction would you like, genuine debate, is that what this is?

[Derek Smith]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Derek Smith said:

But in the banking collapse, for that is what it was, those who were running successful businesses were hit for no fault of their own. That is a failure of capitalism.

The banking/financial collapse was directly down to Governmental fiscal policies it was a falure of politicians, namely Brown /Clinton etc, not capitalism.

Remember Brown "No more boom and bust" well, certainly no more of the former. Brown drove a property boom on borrowed money, the supply of which was propped up by a constant flow at low rates from the BoE. A policy, which could have only one end result, the one we got. I sold my house in 2006, suspecting what was to happen, although was not aware of the real severity of the scenario.

Clinton, he enabled Carters CRFA, a lunacy which leant on postcode, not on the ability to pay it back.Banks be forced to loan under those conditions by the state owned clearing houses Fannie/Freddie. Bush did not do anyhting about it allowed it to continue, that had only one end result, the one we got, mountains of toxic debt.

Clueless political interference, caused our economic ills, not capitalism

So Brown triggered a world wide recession did he?

I started a small business and was approached by my bank's small business advisor suggesting an interview where I would be offered advice and help. Good idea.

I was taken into a nice posh room, with comfortable chairs. I was offered a choice of beverages: I chose coffee as did my wife. I produced my business plan and this was discussed. I was told that I had probably underestimated the returns and I said I knew that. I was then asked how I was going to fund the little bit of expansion I had planned. That was when I made my first mistake: I said solely from profits. The atmosphere then went cold and neither my wife nor I finished our coffees. All the advisor wanted to do was put me in debt.

We see it happening now, with adverts for loans and interest free ways of transferring credit card debt. A family member's relationship broke down and she was left with both his and her debts. She was unaware of how much he owned and it came as a shock. Once the various creditors had negotiated settlements, my daughter was inundated with offers of credit cards, loans and such, none of these, I'm sure, came from Clinton.

It is glib to suggest that two leaders forced banks to overstretch themselves or to take on debt that could not be repaid. The truth is that the only way lending money makes any sense is if there is perpetual expansion. There never is, hence the perennial, or at least ever present, collapses of the systems. You suggest you predicted this.

Unlike you, I don't have any answers, this despite being able to predict the crash. The only variable was the date. History, the only sensible predictor of such things, shows that in any capitalist system, crashes are inevitable. Allow those with the money a free hand and the rest of us will, eventually, suffer. In this case, we had to pay the banks the money that they squandered.

The banks lend money to those who will never repay it. You can't criticise the borrowers for taking up the offer. Logically, it was the most sensible option. They will never pay it back so why not have, for a little time, some free dosh to spread around?

What irritates me is that those who lent the money, knowing full well they would not get it back, have had their losses covered by me and those who were so inept at running what is, in effect, a simple operation, are still in place, and drawing fantastic salaries which, if taxed, will mean them going abroad.

The best case for raising taxes I've ever heard.

[BGARK]

Guam said:

Not getting this are you?

Not really, when they keep saying really big and complicated words like: borrow, take, tax, not fair, more, 3 point plan and so on, it does go over my head.

[Frik]

Guam said:

And apparently its sooooo much better on other forums yet still they come on threads on PH to be disappointed and let down by the mix of denizens on here. One wonders why they bother?

Nostalgia, probably. Remembering a time when there was decent debate here, rather than just dogma.