Migrant smugglers shot in France
Discussion
andymadmak said:
I'd say there was something in the first part of your answer, but I'd disagree that it's because it appeals to the human race. I'd say that what we are seeing is a backlash against what many many people see as a long period of people being afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled.
Being labelled as racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti gay, or whatever else has the potential to deeply affect peoples careers (especially in the public sector) so these labels are used as weapons to silence debate and suppress discussion about genuinely held fears.
And people have gotten tired of effectively being told what to think by a liberal, bien pensant cadre in society who see it as their duty to be the moral guardians of "the right way to be". Forget the fact that most people in this country simply want to get along with each other and really could not give a flying fig about the colour of someones skin, their arrangement of their genitalia, their choice of God, or their choice of sexuality, No, our liberal guardians have decided that what they have to do is make sure that nobody ever questions anything. No matter what happens, no matter what the stated motives, no matter how awful, the underlying causes and motivations must not be examined. We, society, just have to accept that stuff happens, perpetrated by people who's backgrounds, beliefs or motivations are apparently utterly irrelevant to their actions.
Remember, to question is to risk being labelled.
Against that background, and the climate of censorship that this creates for those who dare not risk being misinterpreted or missunderstood it is little wonder that a pressure cooker of resentment has built up. The simple fact is that most people don't have time or the skill to craft carefully constructed answers to questions that avoid causing offence to someone, somewhere, so most simply keep schtumm ( to the delight of the liberal elite)
Does anyone remember this prime example of an ordinary person being labelled for asking a simple (if clumsy) question? :
Duffy: We had it drummed in when I was a child with mine … it was education, health service and looking after the people who are vulnerable. But there's too many people now who are vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can't get claim, can't get it.
Brown: But they shouldn't be doing that, there is no life on the dole for people any more. If you are unemployed you've got to go back to work. It's six months.
Duffy: You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're … but all these eastern European what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
Later, as he was leaving
Brown: Very good to meet you, and you're wearing the right colour today. Ha, ha, ha: How many grandchildren do you have?
Duffy: Two. They've just got back from Australia where they got stuck for 10 days. They couldn't get back with this ash crisis.
Brown: We've been trying to get people back quickly. Are they going to university. Is that the plan?
Duffy: I hope so. They're only 12 and 10.
Brown: Are they're doing well at school? [pats Duffy on the back] A good family, good to see you. It's very nice to see you.
In the car
Brown: That was a disaster. Well I just ... should never have put me in with that woman. Whose idea was that?
Aide: I don't know, I didn't see.
Brown: It was Sue [Nye] I think. It was just ridiculous.
Aide: I'm not sure if they [the media] will go with that.
Brown: They will go with that.
Aide: What did she say?
Brown: Oh everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman. She said she used be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous.
So Mrs Duffy was instantly labelled a bigoted old woman for questioning migrant numbers... And people wonder why there is so much anger out there?????
When the release comes it is often extreme and uncontrolled. People are angry. Stuff gets said, and they stop caring who they offend. In their own minds eye they know they are not racist or sexist etc, they just want to know the answers.
The purpose of labelling is clearly to ridicule, to silence and to dismiss the opinions of the speaker.
No attempt is ever made to understand the points being made. Instead it comes down to cheap "victories" which ultimately create the kinds of frustrations and slanging matches that are all too common.
Remember the video of the "clearly hard of thinking" BNP supporter talking about Muslamic Rape gangs? Oh ho ho ho, how he was laughed at and ridiculed. Muslamic ray guns? haha! Again, let's just dismiss him. Except, as we have subsequently found out, despite his being largely incoherent, he was actually right! Thousands suffered, and it is clear that one of the reasons why the suffering went on for so long and was so widespread is because public sector workers in the Police and Social services were scared stiff of being branded as racist if they investigated the complaints! To be branded meant career death!
So people got angry, and the result is that extreme organisations like the BNP and other foul creations of similar ilk gain traction simply because they are the ONLY people prepared to give voice to the many concerns that ordinary people have - concerns which if they dared to voice them would see them criticised and labelled and attacked.
In other words, it's getting more extreme because the liberals have yet to cotton on to the fact that stifling debate in this way does nothing for cohesion, it just makes people angry. The best way forward to to ENCOURAGE questions and to debate openly without fear. That is not a carte blanche for every racist or sexist attitude - there will always be extremes that are unacceptable. But the way to deal with them is to put them in the light, to expose them, not to suppress them or pretend that because you have stifled the debate the topic has somehow gone away.
We see it on PH all the time. Try to have a discussion about anything contentious and you'll be labelled as soon as you can blink. Just look at the thread on here about the stuff that happened in Germany on new years eve. It was IMPOSSIBLE to have a sensible discussion. Every new revelation was greeted (by the usual suspects) with smeary hints at "real agendas" and such like. Now we know that more than 1000 crimes were committed and we can see easily why people are angry, confused and upset.
Better to deal with the issues, or better to sweep it under the carpet and label as racist anyone who dares to challenge?
Sorry for the long, rambling post. I'm not sure I have managed to say what I wanted to say!
A good post. Thank you for putting into words what I hope most people would agree with. Being labelled as racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti gay, or whatever else has the potential to deeply affect peoples careers (especially in the public sector) so these labels are used as weapons to silence debate and suppress discussion about genuinely held fears.
And people have gotten tired of effectively being told what to think by a liberal, bien pensant cadre in society who see it as their duty to be the moral guardians of "the right way to be". Forget the fact that most people in this country simply want to get along with each other and really could not give a flying fig about the colour of someones skin, their arrangement of their genitalia, their choice of God, or their choice of sexuality, No, our liberal guardians have decided that what they have to do is make sure that nobody ever questions anything. No matter what happens, no matter what the stated motives, no matter how awful, the underlying causes and motivations must not be examined. We, society, just have to accept that stuff happens, perpetrated by people who's backgrounds, beliefs or motivations are apparently utterly irrelevant to their actions.
Remember, to question is to risk being labelled.
Against that background, and the climate of censorship that this creates for those who dare not risk being misinterpreted or missunderstood it is little wonder that a pressure cooker of resentment has built up. The simple fact is that most people don't have time or the skill to craft carefully constructed answers to questions that avoid causing offence to someone, somewhere, so most simply keep schtumm ( to the delight of the liberal elite)
Does anyone remember this prime example of an ordinary person being labelled for asking a simple (if clumsy) question? :
Duffy: We had it drummed in when I was a child with mine … it was education, health service and looking after the people who are vulnerable. But there's too many people now who are vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can't get claim, can't get it.
Brown: But they shouldn't be doing that, there is no life on the dole for people any more. If you are unemployed you've got to go back to work. It's six months.
Duffy: You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're … but all these eastern European what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
Later, as he was leaving
Brown: Very good to meet you, and you're wearing the right colour today. Ha, ha, ha: How many grandchildren do you have?
Duffy: Two. They've just got back from Australia where they got stuck for 10 days. They couldn't get back with this ash crisis.
Brown: We've been trying to get people back quickly. Are they going to university. Is that the plan?
Duffy: I hope so. They're only 12 and 10.
Brown: Are they're doing well at school? [pats Duffy on the back] A good family, good to see you. It's very nice to see you.
In the car
Brown: That was a disaster. Well I just ... should never have put me in with that woman. Whose idea was that?
Aide: I don't know, I didn't see.
Brown: It was Sue [Nye] I think. It was just ridiculous.
Aide: I'm not sure if they [the media] will go with that.
Brown: They will go with that.
Aide: What did she say?
Brown: Oh everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman. She said she used be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous.
So Mrs Duffy was instantly labelled a bigoted old woman for questioning migrant numbers... And people wonder why there is so much anger out there?????
When the release comes it is often extreme and uncontrolled. People are angry. Stuff gets said, and they stop caring who they offend. In their own minds eye they know they are not racist or sexist etc, they just want to know the answers.
The purpose of labelling is clearly to ridicule, to silence and to dismiss the opinions of the speaker.
No attempt is ever made to understand the points being made. Instead it comes down to cheap "victories" which ultimately create the kinds of frustrations and slanging matches that are all too common.
Remember the video of the "clearly hard of thinking" BNP supporter talking about Muslamic Rape gangs? Oh ho ho ho, how he was laughed at and ridiculed. Muslamic ray guns? haha! Again, let's just dismiss him. Except, as we have subsequently found out, despite his being largely incoherent, he was actually right! Thousands suffered, and it is clear that one of the reasons why the suffering went on for so long and was so widespread is because public sector workers in the Police and Social services were scared stiff of being branded as racist if they investigated the complaints! To be branded meant career death!
So people got angry, and the result is that extreme organisations like the BNP and other foul creations of similar ilk gain traction simply because they are the ONLY people prepared to give voice to the many concerns that ordinary people have - concerns which if they dared to voice them would see them criticised and labelled and attacked.
In other words, it's getting more extreme because the liberals have yet to cotton on to the fact that stifling debate in this way does nothing for cohesion, it just makes people angry. The best way forward to to ENCOURAGE questions and to debate openly without fear. That is not a carte blanche for every racist or sexist attitude - there will always be extremes that are unacceptable. But the way to deal with them is to put them in the light, to expose them, not to suppress them or pretend that because you have stifled the debate the topic has somehow gone away.
We see it on PH all the time. Try to have a discussion about anything contentious and you'll be labelled as soon as you can blink. Just look at the thread on here about the stuff that happened in Germany on new years eve. It was IMPOSSIBLE to have a sensible discussion. Every new revelation was greeted (by the usual suspects) with smeary hints at "real agendas" and such like. Now we know that more than 1000 crimes were committed and we can see easily why people are angry, confused and upset.
Better to deal with the issues, or better to sweep it under the carpet and label as racist anyone who dares to challenge?
Sorry for the long, rambling post. I'm not sure I have managed to say what I wanted to say!
MarshPhantom said:
greygoose said:
The extreme right wing do seem to dominate here.
They have done for a long time but the opinions are becoming more and more vile.Ordinary folk are getting that pissed off with the situation they now don't care if SJW's shout and scream 'ists and 'isms.
Its a funny situation where someone says we are all the same and the SJW's will call them racist. The fools are creating more divisions in society with their attitude and it will lead to an increase in nationalism.
Its a funny situation where someone says we are all the same and the SJW's will call them racist. The fools are creating more divisions in society with their attitude and it will lead to an increase in nationalism.
andymadmak said:
I'd say there was something in the first part of your answer, but I'd disagree that it's because it appeals to the human race. I'd say that what we are seeing is a backlash against what many many people see as a long period of people being afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled.
Being labelled as racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti gay, or whatever else has the potential to deeply affect peoples careers (especially in the public sector) so these labels are used as weapons to silence debate and suppress discussion about genuinely held fears.
And people have gotten tired of effectively being told what to think by a liberal, bien pensant cadre in society who see it as their duty to be the moral guardians of "the right way to be". Forget the fact that most people in this country simply want to get along with each other and really could not give a flying fig about the colour of someones skin, their arrangement of their genitalia, their choice of God, or their choice of sexuality, No, our liberal guardians have decided that what they have to do is make sure that nobody ever questions anything. No matter what happens, no matter what the stated motives, no matter how awful, the underlying causes and motivations must not be examined. We, society, just have to accept that stuff happens, perpetrated by people who's backgrounds, beliefs or motivations are apparently utterly irrelevant to their actions.
Remember, to question is to risk being labelled.
I couldn't agree more. It's a favourite tool of the liberal left, to take offence and publicly label and shame anyone who disagrees with their supposed position of moral high ground, without any actual discussion and debate on the points raised, no matter how valid but contentious they may be.Being labelled as racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti gay, or whatever else has the potential to deeply affect peoples careers (especially in the public sector) so these labels are used as weapons to silence debate and suppress discussion about genuinely held fears.
And people have gotten tired of effectively being told what to think by a liberal, bien pensant cadre in society who see it as their duty to be the moral guardians of "the right way to be". Forget the fact that most people in this country simply want to get along with each other and really could not give a flying fig about the colour of someones skin, their arrangement of their genitalia, their choice of God, or their choice of sexuality, No, our liberal guardians have decided that what they have to do is make sure that nobody ever questions anything. No matter what happens, no matter what the stated motives, no matter how awful, the underlying causes and motivations must not be examined. We, society, just have to accept that stuff happens, perpetrated by people who's backgrounds, beliefs or motivations are apparently utterly irrelevant to their actions.
Remember, to question is to risk being labelled.
andymadmak said:
Murph7355 said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
IT is a concern- certaily NP&E has got more right wing (and i consider myself right wing already).
For me, its the unpleasant tone to some replies, coupled with the lack of any intelligence.
A long time ago NP&E used to have some informed debates, it seems now to be becoming a place to make only unpleasant statements.
perhaps we should ban one line responses in NP&E in order to encourage debate rather than edless reaction.
We seem to be moving from Private Eye to the Sun/Daily Mail. I miss the former.
I suspect the nation at large is getting more and more this way...extremes of views on either side (left or right) getting the air time, less balanced debate and logical discussion. It evidently appeals to the human race...For me, its the unpleasant tone to some replies, coupled with the lack of any intelligence.
A long time ago NP&E used to have some informed debates, it seems now to be becoming a place to make only unpleasant statements.
perhaps we should ban one line responses in NP&E in order to encourage debate rather than edless reaction.
We seem to be moving from Private Eye to the Sun/Daily Mail. I miss the former.
Being labelled as racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti gay, or whatever else has the potential to deeply affect peoples careers (especially in the public sector) so these labels are used as weapons to silence debate and suppress discussion about genuinely held fears.
And people have gotten tired of effectively being told what to think by a liberal, bien pensant cadre in society who see it as their duty to be the moral guardians of "the right way to be". Forget the fact that most people in this country simply want to get along with each other and really could not give a flying fig about the colour of someones skin, their arrangement of their genitalia, their choice of God, or their choice of sexuality, No, our liberal guardians have decided that what they have to do is make sure that nobody ever questions anything. No matter what happens, no matter what the stated motives, no matter how awful, the underlying causes and motivations must not be examined. We, society, just have to accept that stuff happens, perpetrated by people who's backgrounds, beliefs or motivations are apparently utterly irrelevant to their actions.
Remember, to question is to risk being labelled.
Against that background, and the climate of censorship that this creates for those who dare not risk being misinterpreted or missunderstood it is little wonder that a pressure cooker of resentment has built up. The simple fact is that most people don't have time or the skill to craft carefully constructed answers to questions that avoid causing offence to someone, somewhere, so most simply keep schtumm ( to the delight of the liberal elite)
Does anyone remember this prime example of an ordinary person being labelled for asking a simple (if clumsy) question? :
Duffy: We had it drummed in when I was a child with mine … it was education, health service and looking after the people who are vulnerable. But there's too many people now who are vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can't get claim, can't get it.
Brown: But they shouldn't be doing that, there is no life on the dole for people any more. If you are unemployed you've got to go back to work. It's six months.
Duffy: You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're … but all these eastern European what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
Later, as he was leaving
Brown: Very good to meet you, and you're wearing the right colour today. Ha, ha, ha: How many grandchildren do you have?
Duffy: Two. They've just got back from Australia where they got stuck for 10 days. They couldn't get back with this ash crisis.
Brown: We've been trying to get people back quickly. Are they going to university. Is that the plan?
Duffy: I hope so. They're only 12 and 10.
Brown: Are they're doing well at school? [pats Duffy on the back] A good family, good to see you. It's very nice to see you.
In the car
Brown: That was a disaster. Well I just ... should never have put me in with that woman. Whose idea was that?
Aide: I don't know, I didn't see.
Brown: It was Sue [Nye] I think. It was just ridiculous.
Aide: I'm not sure if they [the media] will go with that.
Brown: They will go with that.
Aide: What did she say?
Brown: Oh everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman. She said she used be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous.
So Mrs Duffy was instantly labelled a bigoted old woman for questioning migrant numbers... And people wonder why there is so much anger out there?????
When the release comes it is often extreme and uncontrolled. People are angry. Stuff gets said, and they stop caring who they offend. In their own minds eye they know they are not racist or sexist etc, they just want to know the answers.
The purpose of labelling is clearly to ridicule, to silence and to dismiss the opinions of the speaker.
No attempt is ever made to understand the points being made. Instead it comes down to cheap "victories" which ultimately create the kinds of frustrations and slanging matches that are all too common.
Remember the video of the "clearly hard of thinking" BNP supporter talking about Muslamic Rape gangs? Oh ho ho ho, how he was laughed at and ridiculed. Muslamic ray guns? haha! Again, let's just dismiss him. Except, as we have subsequently found out, despite his being largely incoherent, he was actually right! Thousands suffered, and it is clear that one of the reasons why the suffering went on for so long and was so widespread is because public sector workers in the Police and Social services were scared stiff of being branded as racist if they investigated the complaints! To be branded meant career death!
So people got angry, and the result is that extreme organisations like the BNP and other foul creations of similar ilk gain traction simply because they are the ONLY people prepared to give voice to the many concerns that ordinary people have - concerns which if they dared to voice them would see them criticised and labelled and attacked.
In other words, it's getting more extreme because the liberals have yet to cotton on to the fact that stifling debate in this way does nothing for cohesion, it just makes people angry. The best way forward to to ENCOURAGE questions and to debate openly without fear. That is not a carte blanche for every racist or sexist attitude - there will always be extremes that are unacceptable. But the way to deal with them is to put them in the light, to expose them, not to suppress them or pretend that because you have stifled the debate the topic has somehow gone away.
We see it on PH all the time. Try to have a discussion about anything contentious and you'll be labelled as soon as you can blink. Just look at the thread on here about the stuff that happened in Germany on new years eve. It was IMPOSSIBLE to have a sensible discussion. Every new revelation was greeted (by the usual suspects) with smeary hints at "real agendas" and such like. Now we know that more than 1000 crimes were committed and we can see easily why people are angry, confused and upset.
Better to deal with the issues, or better to sweep it under the carpet and label as racist anyone who dares to challenge?
Sorry for the long, rambling post. I'm not sure I have managed to say what I wanted to say!
What strikes me is how your bien pensant cadre here have jumped on a pretty natural response - i.e. to not give a s
te for scum trading in human misery and even the death of innocents including children, who were threatening drivers at knife point, who fled from the police driving so madly as to endanger anyone unlucky enough to come across them and helped lead to the death of the innocent motorcyclist, and being willing to admit so - as another sign of racism, extreme right wingery etc. I can't recall any mention in the press about race or nationality before some posts had been made, in fact they linked the vermin to the UK (so said 'victims' could well have been white British). If they prove to be innocent then I'm sure most of us in the 'bad' camp would willingly retract our harsh wishes and apologise for the bile, but in the face of the story I think that very unlikely. Would any of us really care more about them if they were as guilty as supposed but white?
Your post about the automatic jumpers on and their roaming moral bandwagon was spot on. Another ironic observation is how some of this type like to link intelligence to the posts as if they know with certainty that the opposition are automatically unintelligent, under educated, ill informed rabid types spewing out venom to make up for their bad lot in life. I wonder, how many degrees does Mr. Pugwash (should rename that to hogwash) have, how high has he reached in academia or commercial life and how soon will he be able to retire and live a comfortable life thanks to his education and brain power. I really don't know. And nor does he re. other posters.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
IT is a concern- certaily NP&E has got more right wing (and i consider myself right wing already).
For me, its the unpleasant tone to some replies, coupled with the lack of any intelligence.
A long time ago NP&E used to have some informed debates, it seems now to be becoming a place to make only unpleasant statements.
perhaps we should ban one line responses in NP&E in order to encourage debate rather than edless reaction.
We seem to be moving from Private Eye to the Sun/Daily Mail. I miss the former.
It's the canyon-esque pigeon hole in which others are placed that kills any debate. Branding them as "lefties" for not taking anything other than a strong right-sided view. Raise a question about CEO pay, "Bla bla leftie buy some shares". Compliment the BBC (which simply won't do), left, liberal, left! For me, its the unpleasant tone to some replies, coupled with the lack of any intelligence.
A long time ago NP&E used to have some informed debates, it seems now to be becoming a place to make only unpleasant statements.
perhaps we should ban one line responses in NP&E in order to encourage debate rather than edless reaction.
We seem to be moving from Private Eye to the Sun/Daily Mail. I miss the former.
It's simplistic, tiresome and used as a tactic to stifle any debate by politically-simple people.
La Liga said:
t's the canyon-esque pigeon hole in which others are placed that kills any debate. Branding them as "lefties" for not taking anything other than a strong right-sided view. Raise a question about CEO pay, "Bla bla leftie buy some shares". Compliment the BBC (which simply won't do), left, liberal, left!
It's simplistic, tiresome and used as a tactic to stifle any debate by politically-simple people.
hey, at least it's better than being branded a racist for daring to ask a question about migrants.......... It's simplistic, tiresome and used as a tactic to stifle any debate by politically-simple people.
Eric Mc said:
No it's not. Both views are tiresome and, as explained, guaranteed to kill a discussion stone dead.
Indeed, I have decided that this forum is no longer a place for discussion or debate and I am less inclined to even read comments here - let alone post anything.
Yet you bothered to read this one, and to join in with the critics of those who slighted the injured 'victims' / vermin (take your pick) along familiar 'racists!' lines, even though nothing I'd seen by ten came even close to racism or to one of the typical and regular for and against immigrant threads. Indeed, I have decided that this forum is no longer a place for discussion or debate and I am less inclined to even read comments here - let alone post anything.
Frankly, I'd be pleased to see you stop posting in NP&E as you are one of the top 1 or 2 most sanctimonious people here. Hypocritical too, as you think you can make a generalised but strong condemnation of or slight against a set of posters (as if that avoids the accusation of being insulting) yet have, several times, complained about insults towards you and your 'colleagues' here. The response, if any will be enlightening!
andymadmak said:
La Liga said:
t's the canyon-esque pigeon hole in which others are placed that kills any debate. Branding them as "lefties" for not taking anything other than a strong right-sided view. Raise a question about CEO pay, "Bla bla leftie buy some shares". Compliment the BBC (which simply won't do), left, liberal, left!
It's simplistic, tiresome and used as a tactic to stifle any debate by politically-simple people.
hey, at least it's better than being branded a racist for daring to ask a question about migrants...It's simplistic, tiresome and used as a tactic to stifle any debate by politically-simple people.
However, being called 'right' isn't an insult per se, where as being called 'left' is, which probably reflects the skew of the forum.
Bring on the clowns said:
The response, if any will be enlightening!
I doubt if enlightenment is something that would be noticed or even appreciated by many here, to be honest.And if you think I might be sanctimonious, that's fine. I'd rather be thought of as erring on the side of "being good" than the opposite.
By the way, I didn't say I would never post here - just that I am "less likely to".
It is strange, the opinions on here
I've been called a leftist, socialist, pinko leftie and more in similar vein yet I've voted tory in the nationals since 2001. I voted for Blair in 1997 because the tories weren't fit to govern.
It seems not being able to make your mind up whether to vote to stay in or go from the EU because you lack information is leftist. That thinking the BBC makes some excellent programmes and is well worth the fee is Stalinist. Perhaps this is because it was a target of the left a few years ago as it was seen as part of the establishment.
I read the Guardian. That makes me left. I read The Times as well. I am trying to think of the word to describe those who refuse to look at information that comes from the 'other side'.
I've got it: uninformed.
I had a neighbour who voted for the UKIP. The bloke is the most racist in the road I lived in at the time, and at a dinner party he was criticised for his views. When I agreed with his detractors, he said that out of everyone, he thought he could depend on my support. Was that because I'm a lefty?
I was bemused, and confused, by his point of view.
I've been called a leftist, socialist, pinko leftie and more in similar vein yet I've voted tory in the nationals since 2001. I voted for Blair in 1997 because the tories weren't fit to govern.
It seems not being able to make your mind up whether to vote to stay in or go from the EU because you lack information is leftist. That thinking the BBC makes some excellent programmes and is well worth the fee is Stalinist. Perhaps this is because it was a target of the left a few years ago as it was seen as part of the establishment.
I read the Guardian. That makes me left. I read The Times as well. I am trying to think of the word to describe those who refuse to look at information that comes from the 'other side'.
I've got it: uninformed.
I had a neighbour who voted for the UKIP. The bloke is the most racist in the road I lived in at the time, and at a dinner party he was criticised for his views. When I agreed with his detractors, he said that out of everyone, he thought he could depend on my support. Was that because I'm a lefty?
I was bemused, and confused, by his point of view.
La Liga said:
t's certainly a tactic that works both ways.
However, being called 'right' isn't an insult per se, where as being called 'left' is, which probably reflects the skew of the forum.
actually chap you're wrong there - in most places (outside of tinterweb) to announce that you are right-wing can get you looked at like you're a card carrying member of the SS. It's then that you have to qualify it by adding "...I'm not racist..." "...I'm not a Nazi..." hell even saying that you liked Maggie gets you weird looks. On the other hand say you're hard left and practically no-one raises an eye-brow. Say you're a communist and you're pretty much guaranteed no censure, be selling 'The Militant' on a street corner and you'll not even attract a second lookHowever, being called 'right' isn't an insult per se, where as being called 'left' is, which probably reflects the skew of the forum.
Eric Mc said:
Bring on the clowns said:
The response, if any will be enlightening!
I doubt if enlightenment is something that would be noticed or even appreciated by many here, to be honest.And if you think I might be sanctimonious, that's fine. I'd rather be thought of as erring on the side of "being good" than the opposite.
By the way, I didn't say I would never post here - just that I am "less likely to".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff