Political Discourse
Discussion
The thread on poor David Amess doesn't seem quite the place for it but clearly there's a lot of debate at the moment about the language used in politics including that used by the media.
We've had Rayner and her "scum" comments and I see Dan Hodges of The Mail is trending on Twitter this morning for this feature piece.
DAN HODGES: I don’t know why Sir David Amess was killed but the visceral hatred of Tories at the heart of Labour has to end right now
That's this Dan Hodges.
So you have journalists and politicians from all sides of the debate using increasingly divisive and sometimes hateful language stoking culture wars.
Is there likely to be a change for the better or are we headed on the same path as the USA?
We've had Rayner and her "scum" comments and I see Dan Hodges of The Mail is trending on Twitter this morning for this feature piece.
DAN HODGES: I don’t know why Sir David Amess was killed but the visceral hatred of Tories at the heart of Labour has to end right now
That's this Dan Hodges.
So you have journalists and politicians from all sides of the debate using increasingly divisive and sometimes hateful language stoking culture wars.
Is there likely to be a change for the better or are we headed on the same path as the USA?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: The thread on poor David Amess doesn't seem quite the place for it but clearly there's a lot of debate at the moment about the language used in politics including that used by the media.
We've had Rayner and her "scum" comments and I see Dan Hodges of The Mail is trending on Twitter this morning for this feature piece.
DAN HODGES: I don’t know why Sir David Amess was killed but the visceral hatred of Tories at the heart of Labour has to end right now
That's this Dan Hodges.
So you have journalists and politicians from all sides of the debate using increasingly divisive and sometimes hateful language stoking culture wars.
Is there likely to be a change for the better or are we headed on the same path as the USA?
I completely agree with you, and this is one of the biggest threats to a cohesive society.We've had Rayner and her "scum" comments and I see Dan Hodges of The Mail is trending on Twitter this morning for this feature piece.
DAN HODGES: I don’t know why Sir David Amess was killed but the visceral hatred of Tories at the heart of Labour has to end right now
That's this Dan Hodges.
So you have journalists and politicians from all sides of the debate using increasingly divisive and sometimes hateful language stoking culture wars.
Is there likely to be a change for the better or are we headed on the same path as the USA?
It is also easy for external influencers (governments, companies, pressure groups) to foment.
There is a fine line between censorship and regulation, but I think we do need to move that line from where it is now at basically hands-off.
It’s all part of the moral decline within society generally, if our politicians from the highest level are
throwing derogatory insults at each other and followers seem to believe that’s OK. Its when the Speaker lets things go to far we are in further trouble in politics, currently we have a excellent Speaker now, let’s hope the tradition holds up in the future. Politicians must lead by example and sadly that lead is not in the direction that I would hope for, Rayner & Co need to reflect deep and long.
throwing derogatory insults at each other and followers seem to believe that’s OK. Its when the Speaker lets things go to far we are in further trouble in politics, currently we have a excellent Speaker now, let’s hope the tradition holds up in the future. Politicians must lead by example and sadly that lead is not in the direction that I would hope for, Rayner & Co need to reflect deep and long.
I'd rather people were able to shout abuse at each other than pretend that banning it will make it all go away. If anything bottling up all that rage would probably lead to more actual violence as an outlet.
Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
I’ve found that a lot of the time people talking from a conservative POV tend to think their arguments are the only common sense ideas.
The problem is that in this climate of “culture war” these same people seem to be picking up ideas and talking points from increasingly extreme places without questioning them or the movements behind them.
This leads to people who think of themselves as rational arguing increasingly fringe positions on whatever the subject of the day is.
Obviously this is all from my place as someone quite far to the left and a self admitted idealist.
The problem is that in this climate of “culture war” these same people seem to be picking up ideas and talking points from increasingly extreme places without questioning them or the movements behind them.
This leads to people who think of themselves as rational arguing increasingly fringe positions on whatever the subject of the day is.
Obviously this is all from my place as someone quite far to the left and a self admitted idealist.
I don't think hatred will ever be divorced from politics. It's adversarial by nature. Policies have real effects, and will always invoke/stoke up passions.
I'd love a system where parties work together properly, rather than the tit-for-tat we have now. We don't seem mature and reflective enough as a nation to manage this yet, though.
I'd love a system where parties work together properly, rather than the tit-for-tat we have now. We don't seem mature and reflective enough as a nation to manage this yet, though.
pquinn said:
I'd rather people were able to shout abuse at each other than pretend that banning it will make it all go away. If anything bottling up all that rage would probably lead to more actual violence as an outlet.
Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
It's not really discussion to call those who disagree with you "scum" though, is it? Or to go around with banners proclaiming "kill Tory scum"?Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
I'll admit that as a believer in free speech it's a difficult situation to address. Those in parliament would do well to lead by example, and to strongly criticise that sort of language when it's used. And to apologise when they've used it themselves, rather than claim it doesn't mean what we all know it means.
As for people latching onto it, Diane Abbott was talking about it on BBC News earlier this morning. Without a hint of irony, given the views of some of her colleagues...
I was slightly amused by the OP anyway. There's a rather large stretch of clear blue water between "hatred" and that headline, which doesn't suggest actually killing Corbyn any more than it suggests he's genuinely a vampire.
pquinn said:
I'd rather people were able to shout abuse at each other than pretend that banning it will make it all go away. If anything bottling up all that rage would probably lead to more actual violence as an outlet.
Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
Quote from STNG of all places: Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably"
Freedom of speech is extremely important, especially with so many of our freedoms being eroded away. The politicians should show some mutual respect for each other and that's down to them entirely, perhaps it's more of a measure of how mud slinging or Trumpism has become a thing, because they're not exactly top of their game.
The tabloids inciting hatred and violence, yes, that headline is extremely bad taste, why ofcom etc exists.
Also 99.9% of people take no notice of tabloids or act on them except for panic buying petrol and diesel. We're not a fanatical bunch in this country like Trump supporters.
As for the tragic murder of David Amess by an islamic extremist, perhaps having airport style security with metal detectors is the way to go with security vetting people at the door at future surgeries. I'm sure David Amess and his family would like his work to continue and for normal people of all political persuasions to have access to their politicians in a safe manor.
spikyone said:
It's not really discussion to call those who disagree with you "scum" though, is it? Or to go around with banners proclaiming "kill Tory scum"?
I'll admit that as a believer in free speech it's a difficult situation to address. Those in parliament would do well to lead by example, and to strongly criticise that sort of language when it's used. And to apologise when they've used it themselves, rather than claim it doesn't mean what we all know it means.
As for people latching onto it, Diane Abbott was talking about it on BBC News earlier this morning. Without a hint of irony, given the views of some of her colleagues...
I was slightly amused by the OP anyway. There's a rather large stretch of clear blue water between "hatred" and that headline, which doesn't suggest actually killing Corbyn any more than it suggests he's genuinely a vampire.
Abbott has probably been the most abused MP ever.I'll admit that as a believer in free speech it's a difficult situation to address. Those in parliament would do well to lead by example, and to strongly criticise that sort of language when it's used. And to apologise when they've used it themselves, rather than claim it doesn't mean what we all know it means.
As for people latching onto it, Diane Abbott was talking about it on BBC News earlier this morning. Without a hint of irony, given the views of some of her colleagues...
I was slightly amused by the OP anyway. There's a rather large stretch of clear blue water between "hatred" and that headline, which doesn't suggest actually killing Corbyn any more than it suggests he's genuinely a vampire.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: ...
Is there likely to be a change for the better or are we headed on the same path as the USA?
Unfortunately I suspect the latter.Is there likely to be a change for the better or are we headed on the same path as the USA?
pquinn said:
I'd rather people were able to shout abuse at each other than pretend that banning it will make it all go away. If anything bottling up all that rage would probably lead to more actual violence as an outlet.
Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
I don't think you need to ban it per se. Just introduce proper jeopardy for people being dicks.Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
For politicians, heavy sanctions for using such crass language. The speaker would be on it in a flash if it happened inside the HoC. Why limit it there? They should be forced to work to the same standards wherever they are operating.
On Social Media, I think removing anonymity would have big impacts on what people spout. I hear BS' note on the other thread about people being scared to protest without anonymity, but I think the far bigger problem in this country is people saying what the hell they want (be it bullying, inciting others or whatever). So I'd change that.
Once anonymity is removed and it's easier to trace people, then ensure that the penalties are heavy (I think we've seen examples where they are) but publicly applied - I'd have a website of all those who have been found guilty of being morons on social media so that it can be seen by all. A modern "stocks"
I would also finalise the whole "publisher" versus "platform" thing once and for all. Change the law so that places like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are "publishers". Have a cross party body plus some "experts" to determine which companies are on the list and away you go. These companies would soon introduce workable measures to sort things out far more effectively than govt ever could. (And tough bananas to those who have accounts for their pets or imaginary friends). And they are most definitively acting like publishers on an increasing basis.
Traditional media already has quite heavy regulation. I think they need to be much, much more considered about language. The Mail clearly think they are being clever in the posted image and would no doubt argue they don't mean it literally. But they need to be much more grown up than they are being. Hopefully the regulators are issuing yellow cards for examples like that, and too many of those and they get a red.
TJSFWG said:
Abbott has probably been the most abused MP ever.
You'll struggle to find a thread on here about Diane Abbott because they pretty much all got closed down because they got so vile.I'd love to see a Venn diagram of the people who posted on them and those who are absolutely outraged at Rayner's language.
spikyone said:
pquinn said:
I'd rather people were able to shout abuse at each other than pretend that banning it will make it all go away. If anything bottling up all that rage would probably lead to more actual violence as an outlet.
Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
It's not really discussion to call those who disagree with you "scum" though, is it? Or to go around with banners proclaiming "kill Tory scum"?Also slightly worrying that people have latched onto and are pushing the idea of limiting discussion when that seems to have little to do with what this nut did.
I'll admit that as a believer in free speech it's a difficult situation to address. Those in parliament would do well to lead by example, and to strongly criticise that sort of language when it's used. And to apologise when they've used it themselves, rather than claim it doesn't mean what we all know it means.
As for people latching onto it, Diane Abbott was talking about it on BBC News earlier this morning. Without a hint of irony, given the views of some of her colleagues...
I was slightly amused by the OP anyway. There's a rather large stretch of clear blue water between "hatred" and that headline, which doesn't suggest actually killing Corbyn any more than it suggests he's genuinely a vampire.
I think we need to move to a PR system or remove the power of political parties and hand it back to MPs.
Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 17th October 12:53
It’s a fascinating topic and I’m completely torn on it.
I’m broadly anti regulation in most things and especially when it comes to free speech/press. I think a Chinese scenario where the only ‘news’ you receive is approved by the State is horrendous. But the fact that social media companies can now essentially influence the result of elections and drive hatred toward a specific target is just awful.
I really don’t know what the answer is and sadly, I suspect things will just get worse.
I’m broadly anti regulation in most things and especially when it comes to free speech/press. I think a Chinese scenario where the only ‘news’ you receive is approved by the State is horrendous. But the fact that social media companies can now essentially influence the result of elections and drive hatred toward a specific target is just awful.
I really don’t know what the answer is and sadly, I suspect things will just get worse.
Read an interview someone did with Sam Fender recently and he came out with something that explained a lot me about why we have this discourse.
He said "But I hate the Tories with a passion. I was raised to hate them, I still hate them, and I always will."
He actually said he was raised to hate them! Imagine raising a child and filling them with a hatred for a political party!
He said "But I hate the Tories with a passion. I was raised to hate them, I still hate them, and I always will."
He actually said he was raised to hate them! Imagine raising a child and filling them with a hatred for a political party!
Disastrous said:
It’s a fascinating topic and I’m completely torn on it.
I’m broadly anti regulation in most things and especially when it comes to free speech/press. I think a Chinese scenario where the only ‘news’ you receive is approved by the State is horrendous. But the fact that social media companies can now essentially influence the result of elections and drive hatred toward a specific target is just awful.
I really don’t know what the answer is and sadly, I suspect things will just get worse.
+1, I share this sentiment. It would be utopia to have news media being more civilised but the bait is required for the business model to sell more advertising.I’m broadly anti regulation in most things and especially when it comes to free speech/press. I think a Chinese scenario where the only ‘news’ you receive is approved by the State is horrendous. But the fact that social media companies can now essentially influence the result of elections and drive hatred toward a specific target is just awful.
I really don’t know what the answer is and sadly, I suspect things will just get worse.
Everyone (probably of a tory leaning ) is seemingly enraged by Rayners comments (which were entirely inappropriate, yet nothing to do with David Amess death ) but there is very little being said about the Tory MP who suggested he wanted to send a bomb to one of the Labour MPs. Bias confirmation is a terrible thing usually.
However, what strikes me the most about the David Amess tragedy is that all the MP's ive seen and heard interviewed about it talk about security for MP's . There is a serious problem with knife crime in this country, especially in London. This, not for the first time has touched those in the House of Commons, this time fatally. Regardless of their political colours, none of those ive heard have expressed any sort of message along the lines of "Communities in London have suffered as a result of knife crime and now the HoC has been affected , we much work with communities and the Police to bring an end " etc.
No, they don't care about the population because most of them are totally divorced from the reality of our lives,, only caring for themselves. The country is divided and from what i can see, pretty on edge. This sadly wont get better unless those in power start to have some empathy for the public (whatever side of the HoC they are on), esp those disproportionately affected by things like this.
IF that happened, and something was done, then at least David Amess death would start to bring t about some real change. Doesn't bring him back to his family, but at least some good would come out of it. Although i fear it will be the usually 'lessons learned' horsest with their noses back in the trough as fast as possible.
I urge all of you to write to your MP pointing these things out.
However, what strikes me the most about the David Amess tragedy is that all the MP's ive seen and heard interviewed about it talk about security for MP's . There is a serious problem with knife crime in this country, especially in London. This, not for the first time has touched those in the House of Commons, this time fatally. Regardless of their political colours, none of those ive heard have expressed any sort of message along the lines of "Communities in London have suffered as a result of knife crime and now the HoC has been affected , we much work with communities and the Police to bring an end " etc.
No, they don't care about the population because most of them are totally divorced from the reality of our lives,, only caring for themselves. The country is divided and from what i can see, pretty on edge. This sadly wont get better unless those in power start to have some empathy for the public (whatever side of the HoC they are on), esp those disproportionately affected by things like this.
IF that happened, and something was done, then at least David Amess death would start to bring t about some real change. Doesn't bring him back to his family, but at least some good would come out of it. Although i fear it will be the usually 'lessons learned' horses
t with their noses back in the trough as fast as possible.I urge all of you to write to your MP pointing these things out.
The Conservative MP was James Gray who also got into a bit of bother for confusing Sajid Javid and Nadhim Zahawi and reported as saying "They all look the same to me" when his error was pointed out to him.
I think his bomb comment was a joke that went very badly wrong and was very poorly timed given it was during the Labour Party Conference at Brighton (and that famous lefty Iain Dale was pretty pissed off by it too).
I don't think there was a thread on here or much comment.
Not sure about MP's not being bothered about knife crime either so much as it brings it home if it's one of your own in the same way I'm bothered by knife crime but if my next door neighbour is stabbed to death it's going to focus my mind more on my personal safetly.
I think his bomb comment was a joke that went very badly wrong and was very poorly timed given it was during the Labour Party Conference at Brighton (and that famous lefty Iain Dale was pretty pissed off by it too).
I don't think there was a thread on here or much comment.
Not sure about MP's not being bothered about knife crime either so much as it brings it home if it's one of your own in the same way I'm bothered by knife crime but if my next door neighbour is stabbed to death it's going to focus my mind more on my personal safetly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff