BS: Conservatives at Mudcat

Subject: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 01:26 AM

I don't know how long a question like this can be discussed at Mudcat without the thread needing to be closed ot stop the chaos, but I thought I'd give it a try.

In the thread on Why Middle Class People Play Music, Steve Shaw said the following:

Don't want to extrapolate too much, but I do wonder whether this explains why a website like Mudcat attracts (apparently) a disproportionate number of somewhat right-wing people who are so intolerant of the tribulations that less fortunate people have to live through. You might have thought, naively mebbe, that folkies wouldn't be like that. But, knowing that folkies may be, on average, a bit more middle class and a bit more smug than expected... :-(

And an unnamed Guest replied:

Steve, that's a bit extrapolate-y. Also, I tend to not see many "right-wingers," (save the one or two extremely vocal who I'll leave nameless), but more liberal people (not necessarily "left-wingers," but left-leaning) on this site. Also, middle-class people tend to be (as a group) rather middle-of-the-road, not so strongly right-winged or left-winged. There seems to be some infrequent banter online about it, but I haven't been able to locate any numbers supporting one side or the other

I think I can count Mudcat right-wingers on the fingers of one hand. I guess that is "disproportionate." In most places, one would expect far closer to fifty percent instead of less than one percent. But that's not really a topic for a music thread. Maybe you could post that question in a BS thread, Steve, and see if the discussion could be civil.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 01:38 AM

I suppose the definition of "right-winger" is a relative thing. I think of myself as a moderate liberal. I'm a pacifist, anti-gun, against the death penalty, and I support most social justice causes. But around here, there are times I feel that my support of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and that nice Tony Blair, make some people here think of me as a fascist. Oh, and I question the morality of both abortion and gay marriage, although I firmly believe that both should be legal. Oh, yes, and I go to church, which some people think to be categorically horrible.

So, am I one of those "right wingers" Steve Shaw is talking about? In the county where I live, I'm known for writing letters to the editor supporting the cause of homeless people - and some people get frighteningly angry about my letters. Those are the people I consider right wingers. What, then, am I? And, for that matter, do I not deserve to be here at Mudcat?

Of people who post here regularly, I would consider Pete From Seven Stars link and probably Guest from Sanity to be conservative - and Bearded Bruce, but he hardly posts any more. Keith A says some things that would be considered conservative, and some not. Same with Akenaton. So, that's five - and none of them are the rabid, hateful conservatives I encounter where I live.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 02:40 AM

A small handful seems about the right number to me as well, though I would add a few more. But as always it is more complicated than that. I consider myself to be left of centre. But in the not too distant past I have voted for Conservative, Liberal and Labour. Having said that it is also not really accurate to consider me a floating voter either. In the case of the Tory, for example, in Tony Blair's first season my local MP was Labour and he voted along with the party on every single issue: I may as well have elected a rubber stamp for all the difference it made. The Tory he had replaced was on the centrist side and had proven to himself to be active, concerned about and generally involved in the constituency both as MP before Blair and as an ex-MP after. Also as an MP he had shown himself generally loyal to his party but voting against them on some issues, demonstrating some independence of thought.

So I was left with having to decide between them and on balance I went with him.

And that illustrates the problem, really. Overall, a person's centre of gravity, as it were, may be to the left or right, but anyone can be Left or Right on an individual issue like those you have named, and when that topic is under discussion they may get called left or right wing in a way that does not match their centre of gravity.

The only solution - exactly like the 'what is folk? question really - is to recognise left/right is a convenient label for some purposes, but to be aware of its limitations and to try not to let a label 'frame' your perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:16 AM

I agree, DMcG. Most of us humans don't have the clarity of vision of those on the extremes, and we have an annoying tendency to see both sides of most arguments. That makes us much harder to define and to pigeonhole. If people want to know what we think, they have to listen to us instead of merely consulting the label they've branded us with.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:33 AM

There are not all that many of the lunatic right here - maybe ten I see frequently. I include gun-nuts in this category. Then there are a few g-d-botherers and they don't always overlap. But there are quite a lot of those who look a bit right-ish to me (although some of them call themselves left) - but then I am very left, happy to be so, and convinced of the moral rectitude of left leaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:48 AM

I notice rudeness and intolerance from people of all political persuasions on this site, some left and some right.
quite frankly they are boring

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:20 AM

I am often referred to as right wing and even far right by Steve and others.

I am not at all, but they are seeing me from their position on the extreme left, so most people appear right wing to them.
I think that explains Steve's observation Joe.

I am in fact centre/centre right which is the majority position in England.
I used to vote labour when "that nice Mr. Blair" was in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:21 AM

how many lunatics that can see the wider picture?

happy to be considered a loony if that's the definition of an observant intellectual with enough logic to avoid calling the opinionated, lunatics.

n.b.
Mr Red's political hue is that of pure unadulterated water (where found), think seeing clearly. Mono-chromatically, he sports sartorial affectation.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:23 AM

"In most places, one would expect far closer to fifty percent instead of less than one percent."

Mind I suppose it depends what country you are in etc but here in the UK I would expect a forum where a lot of the posters are folk musicians to be mostly left leaning. Certainly wouldn't expect it to be 50/50.

Likewise here in Scotland folk singers not only tend to be overwhelmingly left leaning but they tend to be overwhelmingly Yes leaning too. That is both on a national and local basis. And it wasn't just based on place of birth. The vast bulk of the English born folkies living and performing locally were left leaning and Yes leaning also. The local audiences on the other hand were far more mixed re the referendum.

I always wonder do left leaning (and here in Scotland Yes leaning) musos tend to be more drawn to folk music - or do people getting involved in the scene get influenced by the existing lean of the scene?

Though I agree there is no need for the insults etc. My own wife is a Tory voter (through nurture in SE England) and she was actively working for Better Together during the referendum. The other side have different political views but it doesn't make them evil or worthy of insults etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:53 AM

I believe that many people who are middle of the road or slightly right are a low percentage here because of the intolerant way they are treated. If one happens to be person of faith , a Tory, pro Israel or the least bit doubtful about in controlled immigration, you are branded as a racist, an islamaphobe or worse.
The so called "left" narrow minded always claim the moral ground. See mr. Bridges post above.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:56 AM

HiLo has it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:02 AM

The notions of conservatism and right-wing comprise a large number of entirely different mindsets, some of which are mutually exclusive. The literal meaning of conservative is of course to conserve an existing condition, but the interpretation is always very selective.

More precise notions are "nationalist", "free enterprise", "theocratic", "law-and-order", "ethnocentric" etc. At Mudcat, the "free enterprise" faction seems to be particularly quiet (as far as I have read), although "pro-gun" may be viewed as a variant of it.

Left-wing is slightly better defined. Basically there are two flavours of it: individualist and collective.

Many issues are shared by self-proclaimed conservatives and leftists. In practical politics, the consequences of any principal mindset are far from clear - see for example the recent discussions about Greece.

A particular problem at Mudcat is that the loudest debaters do not reply to their opponents' messages carefully, and thus miss the opportunity to convince any undecided reader.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:11 AM

Hi, Allan - yes, I would expect folk musicians in most countries to be "left-leaning," and I think that's the case here. But I hardly think that there's reason to complain that Mudcat is aiding and abetting right-wing extremists. Conservatives are a scarce commodity in these here parts.

HiLo - the people on both the extreme left and the extreme right always claim the moral high ground. Both extremes are incapable of questioning themselves. They are also unable to see value in any point of view that is not their own. That's the nature of extremism.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:23 AM

I agree with you Joe. Both do claim the moral high ground. But here on this forum it seems to be far more pronounced on the left. I often refrain from commenting on certain threads because I know in advance that I will be accused of all sorts of distasteful thing and I can pretty much know who will say what.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:04 AM

"I am in fact centre/centre right which is the majority position in England."
No the case, no matter how many times you claim it.
The majority of people don't vote, so we have no idea where they stand politically
The majority of those who do vote don't support right policies, even following the result of the last election, there is an indication of a significantly large SWING TO THE LEFT in Britain.
As for Mudcatter's - whatever their descriptions of themselves, their claims make quite clear their political allegiances - 'by your deeds shall ye be known'
My favorite toast - recorded from Walter Pardon.
"Here's to those who love us, and to those who don't love us.
To those who love us, may God bless them; to those who don't love us, may he break their anklebones so we can spot them".
What has happened of late is that some of the most extreme posters have resorted to distancing themselves from their own extremism by blaming someone else "I only believe it because ***** said it was true, or alternatively claiming to have no opinion - "I'm not an expert - historian - I don't understand these things but this is what the majority of historians... whatever" - adding dishonest cowardice to their extremism.
jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:16 AM

I would expect folk musicians in most countries to be "left-leaning"

In my opinion, performing traditional music is a conservative activity per se, and "in most countries" and ethnic contexts, it is firmly connected with the dominating forces. Only in societies where "folk music" is defined to be the music of a lower class that collectively struggles for more recognition, performing it may be viewed as a statement in favour of that struggle. The champions of that movement, such as Pete Seeger, are so well known worldwide that we may tend to overestimate their share in the whole scene. In the USA, you can of course simply call all non-leftist music "Country" etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:41 AM

i suppose by alligning yourself with 'tradition' you are declaring an interest in conservatism.

in truth , i imagine we all want to conserve some things about our way of life, and we are all conservatives in that sense.

the dissension arrives when it comes to deciding what we want to conserve.

i was glad to see the back of trouser turn ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:49 AM

Gosh, this is a right old can I' worms. First of all, I think we should leave the word extremist out of this as it will do nothing to enhance the conversation. Second, the naming of names in a topic of this kind throws up a quite interesting anomaly. If I declare that I think Richard, Jim, Shimrod, Kevin and me good self are undoubted lefties, not only would any of them not think of objecting (except, maybe, to complain that I've mentioned them in a thread that they may not have posted in yet), but there'll be others who may feel cheated that I've left 'em out. On the other hand, isn't it amazing that people who proudly proclaim their undoubted right-wing views here hate to be actually called right-wing. There's no badge of honour in it, is there (discuss...)?

To clear up one or two things. Being opposed to abortion doesn't make you right-wing. Campaigning to have it banned or restricted is right-wing behaviour. Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. Being religious does not make you right-wing. Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing. Forcing people to pay homage to your particular version of God under pain of mutilation or death is fascist. There are degrees. Believing in the continued existence of the state of Israel now that it's here is not right-wing. That happens to be my view and I don't think I'm that right-wing. Justifying the repressive treatment meted out to Palestinians by the Israeli regime (note careful inclusion of the word regime) is definitely right-wing. That is not to say that there should be no criticism of the other side, by the way. Building a wall that divides farms and families, stealing the best land, imprisoning a million and a half people in the world's biggest slum and making Arabs wait at road blocks for three days is fascistic behaviour. Which is not the same as calling people fascists. Clement Atlee was left-wing, but on his watch gay men were harassed and imprisoned and he didn't do much about it. If that were the case today, I should think we'd be calling him pretty right-wing owing to his presiding over an intolerable situation. These things have a habit of evolving.

Speaking of intolerance, well some of the right-wing behaviour I've exemplified is itself intolerance personified. Refuting the work of scientists, even insulting their good name, in favour of creationism is intolerance personified. Not permitting criticism of the Israeli regimes behaviour under pain of being called antisemitic is intolerance personified. Odd how intolerance can be defended by calling its critics intolerant. Take this, for example:


I believe that many people who are middle of the road or slightly right are a low percentage here because of the intolerant way they are treated. If one happens to be person of faith , a Tory, pro Israel or the least bit doubtful about in controlled immigration, you are branded as a racist, an islamaphobe or worse.

People here who are Tories, pro-Israel, religious are not subjected to intolerant ripostes because they are those things. They may well be if their posts display intolerance, which they frequently do. I've tried to resist naming names, but just read almost any post of Teribus's. He's a right-wing, pro-Israel Tory by any measure. And his post will call at least one person who disagrees with him, often more than one, a name, and will be peppered with gratuitous sarcasm (yes I know he thinks we deserve it, but we don't all go around shouting stuff at people all day that they deserve, do we?). The above quoted poster is being a little defensive, not to say selective, methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:58 AM

"In my opinion, performing traditional music is a conservative activity per se, and "in most countries" and ethnic contexts, it is firmly connected with the dominating forces. Only in societies where "folk music" is defined to be the music of a lower class that collectively struggles for more recognition, performing it may be viewed as a statement in favour of that struggle."

I think you're being a bit theoretical. Folk music is pretty good at evolving. Song tunes change, words are added, lost or altered, even parodied. Go to an Irish session as a stranger and you wouldn't believe how nearly all the tunes are different to "your version". There can be a bit of a rebellious, even subversive streak in folk music. In some ways, it's what keeps it vibrant. The best folk traditions may be a bit cONSERVATIVE (I did that on purpose), but not all that reactionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:06 AM

This thread concists of posts by timewasters and diddypols, for god sakjeplay some music or learn a new song

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:22 AM

No Steve , I am not the least defensive. I am just very tired of the intolerance, on both sides. I find many of your posts to be irrelevant as you seem not to read the posts of others with any degree of insight. You appear to be, I could be wrong, more interested in arguing than in hearing other points of view. This is also true of some of those with whom you argue incessantly. Oddly, you argue in the name of "Tolerance". You are not alone in this and I am sure you will point out that the rest of us need saving from bigots. Very high minded indeed.
You say there is "no badge of merit in being right wing", how bloody pompous can you get. It is not your "left wing" views that I find tedious, in fact I agree with many of them, but it is your arrogant dismissal of those who disagree with you that prompts me to discount you as a debater.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:54 AM

"This thread concists of posts by timewasters and diddypols, for god sakjeplay some music or learn a new song
It does now.
If you don't wish to take part - don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 09:40 AM

Not very fair, HiLo. I spend quite a lot of time on some of my posts and I respond point by point to many. I disagree with your take on a few things but I'm not going to get emotional about it. I tend to choose my words carefully, but if that comes across as high-minded well so be it. It's an internet forum, not life. If you care to take me on over particular issues rather than coming out with an unfocused rant, I could discuss stuff with you. Over to you. Or over and out if you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 10:35 AM

Unfocused rant, that isn't my department Steve. I do realize it is an internet forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 11:38 AM

I'll come back and read this thread properly when I have more time...

But just to dash off a quick thought...

When me and my mates were in our late teens & early 20s,
and becoming politicised and involved in various progressive/alternative grass-roots causes & actions..

Our enemy was quite clearly signposted as Thatcher & Mary Whitehouse & Religions.

Our default position was not to trust any politicians -
though our well informed O & A level and Degree studies in govt + politics & ideology
inclined us more towards a serious consideration of marxism / socialism
rather than the more fashionable trendy sloganeering punk rock badge pose of anarchy...

Now i'm entering my late 50's it aint easy trying to remember what I used to think and who I used to be....

I still regard myself as some sort of vague moderate centre to far militant lefty [depending on the issues]

But I've been battered and distracted for so long with family, career, health and money problems..
and so often betrayed by employers...

that it's now difficult remaining focused and aware of current affairs and the dire shenanigans of party politics...???


It's like I somehow need to intellectually reorientate myself with the long forgotten complex ideas of my distant past
in order to get back up to date and functional with my future.....???????????????????
[anyone got a spare DeLorean time machine...??? 😜 ]


Maybe why I suddenly find Corbyn an intriguing prospect and possible wake up call back to action.........???

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 12:02 PM

"Unfocused rant, that isn't my department Steve."

No Steve , I am not the least defensive. I am just very tired of the intolerance, on both sides. I find many of your posts to be irrelevant as you seem not to read the posts of others with any degree of insight. You appear to be, I could be wrong, more interested in arguing than in hearing other points of view. This is also true of some of those with whom you argue incessantly. Oddly, you argue in the name of "Tolerance". You are not alone in this and I am sure you will point out that the rest of us need saving from bigots. Very high minded indeed.
You say there is "no badge of merit in being right wing", how bloody pompous can you get. It is not your "left wing" views that I find tedious, in fact I agree with many of them, but it is your arrogant dismissal of those who disagree with you that prompts me to discount you as a debater.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,puinkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 12:48 PM

[post delayed due to mudcat choking and spluttering in and out of life all afternoon....]


... and regarding the thread title "Conservatives at Mudcat"...

Probaly explains why I still get the odd subconcsious urge to get a bit bolshie & sarcastic
when occasionally confronting the daft prejudiced diatribes from some of our venerable petty reactionaries at mudcat...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 12:56 PM

Joe Offer: "Of people who post here regularly, I would consider Pete From Seven Stars link and probably Guest from Sanity to be conservative..."

Hardly...my refutations usually go after the corruption on BOTH sides. Being as Mudcat is so chuck full of so=called activists' for the 'so-called left', it may appear that I'm 'conservative'...not so... but very opposed to any and all those who promote false talking points, and banter them around,as IF they were true!!

..and how many times should I remind you, that I am NOT with the party...but with the band!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 01:26 PM

I have to say that the older I get, the more impatient I get with political ideologies - of both Right and Left. Well, actually, I despise Right-wing ideology because its usually just greed, selfishness, self-interest, xenophobia and snobbery dressed up as politics. Nevertheless, existing political ideologies seem to me to belong to the 19th century - and we desperately need a politics for the 21st century. Such a politics would have to be evidence-based. You only have to look at the dreadful shambles in the Middle East, and the current refugee crisis, to realise what an absolute shambles our reactive, 'gut instinct', ideology-driven politicians are currently making of the world. Basically, our 'civilisation' is heading for imminent environmental melt-down and contemporary politicians are only now dimly aware that the environment exists - not good enough!!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 01:30 PM

The problem is the confusion of political and social/ moral issues.

I have been on the extreme left politically most of my life, yet socially and morally I am a confirmed conservative...and most of the people I have met on the left fringes are the same.

The social radicals are usually soft left "liberals" who support the status quo politically, but want to re-define institutions and large swathes of society to give the appearance of meaningful change. Homosexual "marriage being a typical example.
Something which will affect only a tiny number in a group who don't want it, while the real economic inequality continues apace.

On Folk musicians, I have found most of the successful ones to be grasping penny pinchers the worst type of "right wingers" around.

Also, from a politically left wing perspective the "right" or right of centre here are much more tolerant of different ideas than most of the "liberals"

The abuse of people of faith and any one who questions their views on controversial subjects is certainly illiberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 01:46 PM

There can be a bit of a rebellious, even subversive streak in folk music

We all know that, Steve, with the emphasis on can. Some ethnicities have the feeling that their culture is being oppressed, so that merely performing it amounts to an act of opposition - not necessarily left-wing, though. Also, it is always attractive for rebels to make use of folk-like songwriting - again not necessarily left-wing ones.

Still, most traditional music cultures of the world form strong alliances with their establishment, so that they are functionally conservative even if their governments claims to be left-wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 02:39 PM

I don't quite get the idea that the "centre/centre right" is the majority position in England. When was the last time there were more English Tory voters than combined Labour and Lib Dem voters? Not saying that all Labour and Lib Dem voters are centre/centre left but just can't see how the original assertion could be proved.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 02:48 PM

Again though Grishka I wasn't talking about folk music worldwide so you may well be right there. However in the UK the folk music world does tend to be left leaning and here in Scotland it is left leaning and Yes leaning. Fair point of course is that Scotland is left of centre leaning so the folk music world is firstly likely to mirror that - but it seems more uniformly left than society in general. I simply can't think of a Scottish folk singer who is openly in favour of the Tories and the union. There may be some but I don't know of any. Whereas I could list many who are openly supporters of either the SNP, the Greens or Labour and who support independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:04 PM

As usual, anyone who has a different POV is considered intolerant.....especially if it is a biblical POv!   Esp by Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:16 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo - PM
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:22 AM
"
No Steve , I am not the least defensive. I am just very tired of the intolerance, on both sides. I find many of your posts to be irrelevant as you seem not to read the posts of others with any degree of insight. You appear to be, I could be wrong, more interested in arguing than in hearing other points of view. This is also true of some of those with whom you argue incessantly. Oddly, you argue in the name of "Tolerance". You are not alone in this and I am sure you will point out that the rest of us need saving from bigots. Very high minded indeed.
You say there is "no badge of merit in being right wing", how bloody pompous can you get. It is not your "left wing" views that I find tedious, in fact I agree with many of them, but it is your arrogant dismissal of those who disagree with you that prompts me to discount you as a debater."
excellent post

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:21 PM

The left , both in Britain and the U.S., put folk song into the public gaze
In Britain, the earlist moves were by the Workers Music Association, who inspired Topic Records and MacColl and Lloyd.
Both Ewan and Bert took their leads from Alan Lomax, who was on the run from MacCarthy's witch-hunt.   
Immediately, they recognised folk music as the creative art of 'the common people' (rotten term, but it sums up who I referring to).
When I came on the scene at the beginning of the sixties, the clubs were full of working class youngsters - I (an apprentice of the docks) went to my first club with mate, who was a porter at 'Paddy's Market'.
The scene was pretty much the same at The Singers Club and in Birmingham and Manchester then.
Maccoll commented on the time he aand Peggy was booked at Doncaster - the room was full of steelworkers - "all shouting, because they spent their entire working day in the noise of steel-mill machinery.
Those of us who got involved in research continued to recognise it as 'people's music' - though it is noticeable that, since the 'anything goes' attitude has grown in the clubs, coupled with the risde in the number of singers who associate singing with being paid, the more conservative (with a small "c") and middle-class the audiences have become.   
I'n not making a general rule for this - many clubs I continued to go to still attracted working class audiences.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mo the caller
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 03:58 PM

Steve said "
Being religious does not make you right-wing. Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing."

But what is a lie? And what else can you tell your children than what you believe?
Can a statement be untrue without being a lie? I suppose my definition would be a lie is saying something you believe to be untrue.

From my atheist PoV faith schools are unhelpful and divisive, but from the PoV of some believers "a Godless education is no education" - I forget which history of education textbook I read that quote in, 50 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:14 PM

The left , both in Britain and the U.S., put folk song into the public gaze

Yes, Jim and maybe vice versa. The earliest things in the media that stick in my mind as being either 'left' (from the workers perspective at least) or folk were that TV series (from the BBC in Manchester?), that were some sort of spin off from the Radio Ballads I think. About 1960.

Introduced by Brian Redhead - the first regional accent I recall on TV. Three firsts in one programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 04:55 PM

I am indebted to all other club organisers, and people like MacColl and Lloyd and Davenport and others who helped to establish the network of clubs. the sad thing is that much of the industry that Jim talks about has been ecimated by governments particularly mrs Thatcher,
MUCH INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MOVED TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, so it is hardly surprising if there are fewer working class people in folk clubs, because there are fewer people working, fewer people manufacturing, and less money to spend.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:08 PM

Mr. Shaw says: Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing.

Well, darn. I thought I was telling my kids the truth about God when I raised them in the religious tradition that I hold dear. I was careful to explain that the Bible is not a historic or scientific document, although it is a profoundly valuable document of faith. I think my kids' Catholic school teachers did their best to be honest in their teaching, too. We taught them about pacifism and about the immorality of capital punishment, and about our obligation to the poor and oppressed. We taught them to question everything, and to think for themselves. And I let my kids know that they had the option to attend state-funded schools if they wished.

I raised my children the way I thought best, and I did my best to be honest with them and not to force them to believe anything.

I suppose that won't satisfy Mr. Shaw, though.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:24 PM

While I agree with you, Joe, I can see why people might claim that is illiberal. But it seems at least as illiberal for someone else to say you can't bring a child up as you think best, providing it is within the laws of the country. And I can't see any reason to regard it as right wing in any meaningful sense. Pleny of right wing people have no religion and plenty of religious people are very left of centre, just as there are plenty of religious people who are very right of centre.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:45 PM

"Being religious does not make you right-wing. Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing."

But what is a lie? And what else can you tell your children than what you believe?

It's a lie if you tell your children that God is true, and if you compound that lie by making your children attend church and school where they are told that they should accept the truth of the gospels without question. "Without question" is crucial. Joe Offer, who gets very defensive with me whenever I raise religion, says he allows his kids to question faith at every turn. That's exactly what a man of faith should be doing. Unfortunately, looking at the whole world of religion, his is a minority position. You should not be telling your children that beliefs that can't be supported by evidence are so true that you should be living your life according to them. Education is about giving children the skills to find knowledge, not have it poured over them, and to be critical of any assertion they hear that lacks evidence. Now if you, Joe or anyone else thinks that's unreasonable, please tell me how. I have never really changed my position on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:50 PM

DMcG, I have not conflated right-wingery with religious belief per se. I tried to make that clear in my long post. Please reread.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: brashley46
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:51 PM

Meh. I'm a Trotskyist m'self, rather close to Van Ronk's position in the seventies, so almost all of you lot are to my right ... but the folk chorus I sing in has members of all political persuasions in the Canadian political context from left-Liberals to, well, me.

I'm here for the music.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 05:58 PM

In the phrase of yours that people have highlighted you specifically say sending children to religious schools is right wing, Steve. It is that conflation I disagree with.

But we don't want to get into the whole religious stuff for the 10,000th time, so I won't be going further with this aspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:17 PM

Jesus was a lefty - would he have survived 1950s McCarthyism ?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:21 PM

I dunno, Steve. It still smells like rigid intolerance to me. If I believe that God, or at least my perception of God, is true - why wouldn't I tell my children what I think to be true? And if I live within a tradition that is sacred and dear to me, why shouldn't I raise my children in that tradition? And rather than "true," I think I would prefer to say that my perception of God is "of value."

I look on my religious tradition as a rich and diverse context for exploration of the mysteries that surround me - life, death, love, peace, eternity, whatever. I'm not so sure that "truth" is all that important to me. I'd rather explore possibilities and perspectives. I'm not all that sure there is a "truth" at the end of my road - and if it's there, where would I go then? When I reach my destination, I'd like to choose another road to explore.

Steve, I suppose you have a right to your perspective, but to me your perspective seems stiflingly negative - not to mention insulting and demeaning toward those who choose a faith tradition as a way of life. Maybe you've had a bad experience with religion in your life - many people do. But that doesn't mean that ALL religious tradition is deserving of condemnation.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:21 PM

Actually, I was at pains to say that I was referring to people who make their children go to faith schools when there are other choices. It's in my post. I also said that being religious does not make you right-wing. Do be fair, please. You usually are.

As usual, anyone who has a different POV is considered intolerant.....especially if it is a biblical POv!   Esp by Steve.

I don't give a stuff about your biblical point of view, but I do give a stuff about your extreme intolerance of genuine scientific endeavour. You are an extremist evolution denier, clear to all because you have read stuff on fundamentalist creationist websites as opposed to thinking for yourself. On your own, you are completely incapable of holding down an argument, yet you feel free to insult hard-working scientists at every turn. And one day I may tell you what I *really* think of your severely intolerant attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:35 PM

"But what is a lie? And what else can you tell your children than what you believe?"

You cannot elevate a 'belief' to a 'truth' unless you can back up your belief with evidence. I agree with Steve, it is wrong to teach children that unsubstantiated beliefs are truths.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:40 PM

"If I believe that God, or at least my perception of God, is true - why wouldn't I tell my children what I think to be true? "

Exactly. Stop being so disingenuous about what I'm saying. We all tell our children what we THINK to be true. But we should be telling our children that what we THINK is a mixture of our upbringing and the function of the accident of our birth. What you THINK is largely because you were born in the United States of America, which happens to have five percent of the world's population, and because you just happened to have Catholic come-froms. Out there is another ninety-five percent, most of whom are not Catholic and many of whom have either a different version of God to yours or no God at all. As long as you put your version of truth in that context to your children, and encourage them to think outside the rather confined box not of your own making, you are a man of integrity, despite the fact that your faith is basically a huge delusion. From what you tell me, that's exactly what you do, and, believe it or not, I can respect that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:55 PM

It is no business of you or society to abuse others for holding a faith or teaching their children why they think that faith is important and beneficial.

Socialism has failed almost everywhere due to extreme opposition from capitalist interests, but I still think that socialism can be made to work just as Joe thinks the Christian religion can make a better society.....and I have tried to instil socialist ideas into my children.    That is not lying or any kind of abuse, it is the advancement of political....or religious theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:01 PM

"It is no business of you or society to abuse others for holding a faith or teaching their children why they think that faith is important and beneficial."

I don't. The trouble with you is that you either can't or won't read.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:08 PM

"However in the UK the folk music world does tend to be left leaning and here in Scotland it is left leaning and Yes leaning. Fair point of course is that Scotland is left of centre leaning so the folk music world is firstly likely to mirror that - but it seems more uniformly left than society in general. I simply can't think of a Scottish folk singer who is openly in favour of the Tories and the union."

An interesting point. I post on the Gaughan forum a fair bit, where political discussion is encouraged and where any point of view at all falling short of actual bigotry is fiercely defended. Right-wing opinions expressed there are about as common as rocking-horse shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:11 PM

And who decides what is actual bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:15 PM

Not so long ago discussing homosexuality or immigration was considered bigotry by most of the UK Mudcat contributors.

Thankfully most of the seriously intolerant have been weeded out, leaving only a small group of dark shadows.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:19 PM

Shimrod says: You cannot elevate a 'belief' to a 'truth' unless you can back up your belief with evidence.

I think I can agree with that...to a point. But as I said above, I look on "belief" as a context for exploration, not as "truth." In many ways, "truth" is irrelevant to me because I find it limiting. I come from a religious tradition which I find to be of value to me - it's where I come from. However, I feel free (and obliged) to explore the mysteries of life also from a non-theistic perspective.

Steve Shaw: Thanks. I think we understand (and respect) each other.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:53 PM

"decimated by governments particularly mrs Thatcher,"
Thank you Dick - it's nice to have someone stand up for what Britain was good at rather than these "patriots" who tell us what crap we produced and how lazy and incompetent the British work force was - and is.
My first job was in an ship repair and engineering firm on the docks and I can remember the pride that people had in the ships we built - the skill and care that went into what be built - all sold out by Thatcher and her mob so rich layabouts like Denis T could bank another million.
And her supporters are still at it - telling us about "crap" British steel, which rolled off the lathe like tempered springs rather than falling off in dry chips like "superior" foreign steel (I can still remember the turner who shared the electrical workshop with us showing me how you could tell good British steel from the inferior stuff that was beginning to be shipped in to undermine British Steel products.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:15 PM

The complication is that people tend to have different definitions of what kind of issues belng on a left right spectrum. Some people seem to place just about everything on that spectrum, the music you like, the clothes you wear, the food you eat...

I prefer to think left right should be limited to a realatively few issues, mostly to do with economic issues. There are of coure other spectra on which we can place our opinions and so forth -- authoritarian/ libertarian, religious/ atheiist, and a few more. But I think it's healthier to keep the different spectra separate, and realise that just because someone is close to us or far away on one, it needn't carry over to the others. It's perfectly possible to be extremely religious and extremely left, and equally to be extremely anti- religious and far left, and so on.

Separating things out like that tends towards greater tolerance, I feel, mixing them together makes for bigotry, wwhich can ccrop up just about anywhere.
......
As for folk music and left right, I always like to remember something I read that happened while they were getting together to commemorate the bicentenary of the French Revolution. Apparently they wanted to set up a big traditional music event, with loads of traditional musicians frrom places like Brittany. But when they got them together and explained what it was about the reaction wasn't what they expected. Celbrate the Fench Revolution? For.many Bretons the French Revolution still has the same kind of historic meaning as tye English Revolution still has in Ireland, for the same kind of reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:37 PM

"Not so long ago discussing homosexuality or immigration was considered bigotry by most of the UK Mudcat contributors."

This has absolutely never, ever, been the case. Discussing matters has never been regarded as bigotry. What has been regarded as bigotry has been ignorant, unsupportable and prejudiced remarks about minority or ethnic groups. Sadly, it's hardly a surprise that you can't tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:44 PM

" It's perfectly possible to be extremely religious and extremely left..."

Whilst I agree (as ever) with most of what you say, I don't think I can agree with this. I think it's possible to be religious in a liberal and all-embracing sense and be left-wing, but not extremely religious and extremely left.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 09:56 PM

Depends if you count anarchism as far left. Plenty of religious anarchists.

Also depends what you mean by extremely religious. I think you could be thinking in terms of fundamentalism which is a very different notion. I'd call Gandhi and Tolstoy extremely religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Sep 15 - 10:03 PM

I agree with steve to the extent that you should not teach belief that is unsubstantiated.   However he has been passing off his beliefs without being able to substantiate them, and blasts me for not accepting what he has been unable to substantiate.   As far as I,m concerned his "faith is a great delusion " . The fact is , I have bought many evidences against his beliefs, and all he can bring against mine is the evolutionism he has been unable to substantiate. If you don't want the heat stay out of the kitchen, Steve. Your intolerance of Christians only displays your entrenched opposition to other POV.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:38 AM

Steve Shaw: "Not very fair, HiLo. I spend quite a lot of time on some of my posts..."

Maybe you should just learn how to type.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:39 AM

Jim,
I'm not an expert - historian - I don't understand these things but this is what the majority of historians...

It is not right wing to believe the history books above lefty mudcatters on matters of history.
You think you are right about everything, but that is just an arrogant conceit.
Other views are available.

Likewise other references to expert or inside knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:58 AM

"I'm not an expert "
Don't remember mentioning a name but you seen to have identified yourself with my description - as did everybody else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:20 AM

"The fact is , I have bought many evidences against his beliefs, and all he can bring against mine is the evolutionism he has been unable to substantiate."

Oh no! Here we go again!

So you've purchased (bought?) some "evidences" have you, pete? How much do they cost and where can I buy some from?

Presumably, you mean that you've (deep breath) "BROUGHT some evidences against his beliefs" (English grammar is not one of your strong points, is it pete?). Actually, I don't recall you bringing any "evidences" - or even any evidence - against anything. All I can recall is you parroting nonsense from creationist websites.

And to save us re-opening the evolution vs creation 'debate' again, why don't you lift your head (all green, foul smelling and slimy) out of the creationist swamp and go and read some of the excellent and readily available popular texts on evolution which are out there. Steve Jones's books would be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:22 AM

Learn how to type? I'll have you know that I have the fastest one finger in the west. Actually, at this very moment I'm multitasking with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:30 AM

Better to just laugh, Shimrod.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:40 AM

Shimrod, I often agree with you, but your last sneering post is unworthy of anyone who calls himself a socialist.

We have both made typing mistakes many times pete's meaning was obvious and his stance is polite and worth consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:46 AM

Allan, the particular problem of the Tory party is that they are identified with the elites of Oxbridge and London City. Maggie Thatcher spent years learning an exaggerated "posh" accent, and only weeks learning economic theory.

Therefore, people who sing folk songs (particularly from the North) are typically reluctant to proclaim their emotional identification with the Tories. Still they may be conservative with a small c, in some of the meanings of the word.

In the USA, the image of conservatism is quite different, not predominantly white-collar and definitely not academic. (See also Mudcat threads about "Is Country Folk?".)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 05:13 AM

"the sad thing is that much of the industry that Jim talks about has been [d]ecimated by governments particularly mrs Thatcher,
MUCH INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MOVED TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, so it is hardly surprising if there are fewer working class people in folk clubs, because there are fewer people working, fewer people manufacturing, and less money to spend."

Dick - take a look at who closed more pits - Conservative or Labour - Answer: Labour.

Our Steel, Coal, motor industry and shipbuilding went to the wall not because of the will of any government in the the UK, they went to the wall because they could not compete in the world market and in the case of Steel, Coal and Shipbuilding the government subsidies paid were decreed illegal and unfair by the EEC/EU.

Yes heavy labour intensive industries did gravitate to "third world countries" they provided the competition that the UK could not compete with. India's rail, coal, steel and garment manufacturers infrastructure was set up by British investment during the nineteenth century.

The "working class" that those on this forum witter on about have long since departed, according to world statistics the only class across the whole face of the planet that is expanding rapidly is the "middle class". And Dick counter to what you state there is a higher percentage of the population of the UK in work today than at any other time in history of these islands. The reason there are fewer people in folk clubs these days is because fewer people are interested in the output in terms of the standard of material and performance in those clubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 05:56 AM

Many of that "higher percentage" of yours are part time, or temporary, or on bogus "apprenticeships" paying £2.79 per hour that have nothing to do with training and everything to do with paying less than half the minimum wage, or equally bogus "self-employed" (to evade National Insurance contributions by employers), or on zero hour contracts (almost a million and shooting up).

None so blind...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mo the caller
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 05:56 AM

Back to what you tell your children.

All our most deeply held values are beliefs, hard to back up with evidence. Most people teach the beliefs first, the reasoning afterwards.
You don't say "well I think it's wrong to hit your sister with a hammer, this is why, but you must make up your own mind" it's "PUT THAT HAMMER DOWN" maybe adding "or there will be consequences"
Logically it makes sense not to 'do as you would be done by' but to 'do what you can get away with' but even without being Theist most people think some things are right and try to instil those ideas in their children.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:11 AM

I would not be telling my child that I think it's wrong to hit his sister with a hammer. I would be telling him that's it's wrong to hit his sister with a hammer. I sort of agree with your last sentence. But what I'm really saying is that, hands down, there is no evidence that God exists, therefore no evidence that the Gospels are factual accounts, enough to please an historian. In consequence, it is not justifiable to make your child believe in God. It is justifiable to tell him that you believe in God, here's why, and one day you can make up your own mind. This is what I've always said, and for saying it I've been called intolerant, bigoted, a militant atheist, etc. but what I've never been told is what's actually wrong with it!

And I do set the bar quite high for evidence. I do it in all other walks of life, so I'm not giving religion a bye. Why should I?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:15 AM

"Shimrod, I often agree with you, but your last sneering post is unworthy of anyone who calls himself a socialist."

Well, Ake, "I never promised you a rose garden"!

Generally, I try to treat people with respect but some people are not worthy of respect - particularly people who don't appear to be able to think for themselves. Pete continually parrots stuff from creationist websites but when, on previous threads, a number of us have asked that he present evidence to support his beliefs he has merely parroted back "show me your evidence!" then sneered at any evidence that doesn't fit with what he has chosen to believe in. To reject the whole of modern science because it doesn't support your beliefs is beyond silly!

And, Mo, there is plenty of evidence that hitting people with hammers causes injuries!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 07:10 AM

"MUCH INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MOVED TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES", by conservatives who would rather trade in goods made by swet labour than support British industry - much more profitable for those who would make a quick buck without getting their hands dirty.
" Answer: Labour"
Another distortion - Labour may have overseen the closure of more pits, but decades of sabotage of the mining industry by Conservative governments had destroyed it as a viable concern - whatever their failings, Labour were left to pick up the debris
"because they could not compete in the world market"
Our industries were viable and efficient and the products were of a high quality -
Thatnk to Tory philosophy, it was more profitable to invest abroad in inferior products so quality and efficiency were sacrificed so the investors could make a quick buck out of sweat labour abroad - steel industry, textiles, electronics... and the rest - all gone - that is "competing on world markets".
You describe British Steel as "crap" yet it was the best in the world, and accepted as such - that was place by inferior foreign product.
Far from the "middle class expanding" the distance between the classes has become a yawning chasm thanks to the accelerating wealth of the rich and the increase in poverty and insecurity - poverty among the lower paid who have become poorer - they have not disappeared, just become an invisible inconvenience.
Unemployed workers are still working class.
What has changed is the emergence of sub-groups - a division of the working class into poorer groups ('precariat' and 'emergent service workers') - largely regionally based, thanks to Thatcher's 'Home Counties v the rest of Britain' to divide the nation' tactic.
Are you still claiming that British Steel was crap? - don't expect an answer - just keeping your ant- British attitude on the boil
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 07:35 AM

just want to concur with that.

Mudcatter, Yorkshire Yankee was married to a metallurgist, they both lived in Sheffield and she came to one of my gigs.

at the time i was looking for a good knife for cooking. the lady's husband assured me that Sheffield steel was the very best and they got me this brilliant knife set - cheaper than all the poncy foreign alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:03 AM

Don't forget the Tories' favourite, and mythical, subgroup, Jim, the "undeserving poor with a benefits lifestyle".

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Stu
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:53 AM

There is a correlation (though that does not imply causation as the saying goes) between folk who form opinions based on evidence (such as that presented by science for example) and those whose opinions are formed by ideology. Left-wingers tend to be more evidence-based than right-wingers and the religious. There are exceptions of course, but if you look at the way the threat of climate change (for example) is treated by right-wingers (wrong, hoax, deny, etc) then they totally ignore the available scientific evidence, as will a UK tory when it comes to the percentage false benefit claims.

This dichotomy is responsible for the mess the western powers have allowed their countries to get into by allowing markets to dictate policy where possible. There's no doubt if you give people free heath care they will live longer and suffer less whilst alive, yet many right-wingers (especially in the US) don't care if people do die young and suffer needlessly because they believe an inability to pay is a sign of weakness.

As for religion, whatever the more fanatical religious folk on this site say there's zero scientific evidence to support any of the creation theories, existence of god, the devil or the flying spaghetti monster. If personal revelation tells you it's true then fine, but don't go pretending science supports your supernatural interpretation of the world; it doesn't. That said, many people's faith (including scientists) is thankfully a little more sophisticated than the fundamentalist headbangers absolutist claptrap. We all know how that ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 10:07 AM

"undeserving poor with a benefits lifestyle"
Think that's incorporated in the 'precariat' - the bottom of the pile, but to 'intellectuals' like Terrytoon (aka as Mr Oakhampton) all workers are like that - an inconvenient bunch of scroungers who need to get on our bikes.
Never though I'd ever come acroos anybody who describes British Steel as "crap" - not even a self-serving Tory
Rule Britannia eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 10:26 AM

Arguments about religion can be interesting, and even valuable. But I think it's a mistake to think of differences about religion as markers of conservatism or the reverse (whatever we choose to call the reverse) in other contexts.   

If you are on a barricade or even a picket line you don't want to worry whether the person beside you has what you (and me) see as daft ideas about creationism which they associate with religious beliefs.

In the same way I see assuming that ethical values like tolerance and compassion relate directly to politics. You can get cruel and intolerant socialists, anarchists, liberals, conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 10:45 AM

Because Mudcat allows more debate on certain topics than 'most' forums, it is easy for people with uncompromising views & attitudes to get carried away in expressing themselves.... and that brings out those who have disagreements with both facts & mode of expression.... which means that "mode of expression" often turns to insult, invective and characterizations of personality.
   The idea of debating only the position instead of labeling the person seems to be lost on many.
It is also the case... (and I have seen it admitted several times).. that some just simply relish the process of contentious argument and seem to consider it wimpy to back off & defuse things when the temperature gets too hot.

There are several mindsets that are displayed in these situations... one is the "my mind is made up... don't confuse me with facts" type. Another is the use of "righteous indignation" to justify almost any invective in one's defense.. or attack... of some particular cause or idea. Then we see added in cultural/religious/political "hot buttons" which can bring out immediate, knee-jerk responses for some. When these are combined, threads are closed & posts deleted.

Now... read again what I just said, and note that I made no reference to ANY specific issues.... yet I would not be surprised to see reactions such as: "I suppose you meant ME in point 3a!" or "You know that point 5 is exactly how whatisname acts when anyone mentions XYZ!" This has already happened above as various well meaning folk automatically switch into defending or attacking their favorite specific issue.

There is also the misconception that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are just 2 sides of the same coin. In reality, there are two very different thought processes involved in a lot of the issues in the two basic attitudes. It is not always immediately apparent, but can be seen by exploring the implicit premises involved... if you can get anyone to even discuss the actual basis and reasoning by which they arrived at their positions.
It is not always even a matter of 'right or wrong', because it is possible to be 'right' about some things, while using atrocious logic & explanations... and possible to have an air-tight reasoning process and be 'wrong' due to just simply beginning with faulty premises.

(I'm still not pointing a finger directly at anyone... but as Pete Seeger said about his song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy".... "I didn't name anyone... I'm just a shoemaker, going around making shoes- but if the shoe fits...")

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:29 PM

Again, I was at pains to point out that religiosity in itself is not an indicator of right-wingism. To put it bluntly, it's what you do with your religion that matters, and I did say there were degrees. I'm not going over it again. It's in my over-long post high up the thread.

To be honest, Bill, while I get what you're trying to say, most people reading that will think it doesn't apply to them, therefore it gets you nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:35 PM

so basically - we can believe in God, as long as God agrees with Steve about everything.

sounds all right to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:37 PM

What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, I don't know whether there's a God or not. Neither does anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:44 PM

I think "conservatism" is a wide spectrum. A long time ago it merant people who wanted to preserve natural environments. It ranges from those who are willing to change but carefully and slowly, to those who use the label to cloak an almost rabid resistance to change.

In addition to rates of change and tolerance thereto, it seems as well to describe a spectrum of belief about how much tolerance toward other points of view an individual actually practices. The belief that every human being is part of the same rigid box and should comply with one's own moral precepts or perceptions is a hallmark of hard-over conservatism, in some labeling systems.

So it strikes me that one would have to identify exactly what behavior or conviction one was referring to in applying such a label,because the word itself has so many semantic branches attached to it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:00 PM

there is a god, its called spirituality, the belief in goodness,its little different from humanism. its difficult for scientists [in my experience] to get their head round this one,
they have the same problems as mathematicians, they always need proof, but spirituality is not about proof.
its the same reason why you can play the harmonica well but you cannot play slow airs its about feeling

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:03 PM

I come from a conservative religious background. I practise my religion. In some quarters this alone would define me as right wing. On the other hand I believe in evoloution, same sex marriage, a womans right to an abortion, I am vehemently anti guns, I cannot regard any country as civilized that does not provide free health care to all of the citizens and I support most social benefits programs. On the other hand, I am pro Israel, but not blindly so and am against some Israeli actions. But I do know that Israel needs to exist. I see some good in Capitalism but I think it needs to be cleansed of greed and stupidity. I am not against immigration, but I see a need for reasonable caution. I am not Islamophobic but I do recognize the threat of radicalized terroists.
   Like most people, I am a mix of both left and right. What bothers me is the broad sweeping statements about what constitutes left and right. Other than intolerant extremists on both sides, I think we are all a bit of both.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:03 PM

well actually you're wrong. lots of people 'know' there is a god, and their bloke is the top guy. knows all kinds of shit about everything.

just like you know your point of view is cock on.

when you set yourself up to be arbitrator of what is right wing and left wing. you assume that your insight is the one that 'knows' where the centre is.

when you get down to it - its all a bit solipsistic.

your insight might work for you, but it won't work for everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:27 PM

I'm still puzzled by why so many people seem to think that beliefs about religion have some instrinsic relationship to opinions about politics.

The fact that in certain societies religious views get attached to political issues is a matter of historical chance. The kind of religious beliefs, or hostility to religion, that in one kind of society might tend to coincide with the extreme right in another society might be associated with the extreme left.

There's a lot of different between the actions and beliefs of those running Isis and those running Saudi Arabia ( a lot of similarities too), but the understanding they have of the Quran is remarkably similar in theological terms.   And I don't know where you could place Isis on a left right spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:51 PM

I think most people would put IS on the extreme right.

"Scientists...have the same problems as mathematicians, they always need proof"

This is precisely the opposite of the case. Scientists never need proof.

As for practising your religion defining you as somehow right-wing, not in my book it doesn't. What could define you as right-wing is what you do with your religion with regard to influencing other people with it. Religion becomes a political issue when it ceases to be a matter that is exclusively private to the individual. Too many people of faith think that their religion is the only right one or that it is finding deeper truths for them (I suppose you can occasionally get to truth via lies...), and try to persuade or coerce others apropos of its veracity. I believe that Bill Shankly was the greatest football manager who ever lived, but I can't provide you with any evidence to that effect that would even remotely stand up. But at least he definitely existed, and did win one or two things. It isn't nearly enough (except for me, but I'm deluded), but it's more than any believer can claim, and at least I'm honest enough to admit that it isn't enough. To me, this is religion's main problem. But simply having a faith does not in itself place you on any political spectrum, as it has nothing to do with politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 02:08 PM

Well, Al, I am puzzled by your animosity. Never mind. Now lots of people in this thread have expressed views on what's right or left. I started off by saying that people don't mind being called lefties but, in my experience, no-one likes to be called right-wing. They are handles that we use whether you like it or not. I did not set myself up as an arbitrator because I'm not arbitrating. Maybe you meant something else. I also said it was a can of worms (I was bracing myself). Nothing is going to get people feeling more defensive than if they think they're being branded right-wing. So tell me what I got wrong. I don't mind, honest. Here it is again:

Being opposed to abortion doesn't make you right-wing. Campaigning to have it banned or restricted is right-wing behaviour. Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. Being religious does not make you right-wing. Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing. Forcing people to pay homage to your particular version of God under pain of mutilation or death is fascist. There are degrees. Believing in the continued existence of the state of Israel now that it's here is not right-wing. That happens to be my view and I don't think I'm that right-wing. Justifying the repressive treatment meted out to Palestinians by the Israeli regime (note careful inclusion of the word regime) is definitely right-wing. That is not to say that there should be no criticism of the other side, by the way. Building a wall that divides farms and families, stealing the best land, imprisoning a million and a half people in the world's biggest slum and making Arabs wait at road blocks for three days is fascistic behaviour. Which is not the same as calling people fascists. Clement Atlee was left-wing, but on his watch gay men were harassed and imprisoned and he didn't do much about it. If that were the case today, I should think we'd be calling him pretty right-wing owing to his presiding over an intolerable situation. These things have a habit of evolving.

We either have a conversation about this or we don't. If we do, it helps to define terms. Sometimes, illustration is an effective way to do that. So tell me which of my examples are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 02:41 PM

I'd see stuff like campaigning against abortion etc as being on a libertarian/authoritarian axis, nor politically left or right.

I'm sure a lot of people would put Isis on the extreme right, but I'm not at all sure they are right. It's a vicious and repressive regime in all kinds of ways, but that is just as compatible with being extreme left, or even being centrist. When Fidel Castro was cracking down on gays, I don't think that was being rightwing, it was being leftwing, but in a repressive and sexist way.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:30 PM

There are comments above that indicate that people think the conservatives at Mudcat are wrongly denying their conservatism. I think it's true - there are very few extreme conservatives at Mudcat. They all seem far more reasonable than many of the people who write letters to my local newspaper.
Current themes in my newspaper:

• homeless people are bad, so we shouldn't coddle them by giving them a homeless shelter
  
• guns are good, and people who speak against guns are bad
  
• the police are infallible, except when they give me speeding tickets
  
• immigrants are destroying the economy of the United States and are committing huge numbers of horrible crimes
  
• Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim and is therefore horrible
  
• and the beat goes on...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:44 PM

I can get my head around "left" or "right" wing as broad concepts about economic and social structures, but when you try to pin them on specific points of view, as Steve does, it seems to get more complicated.

Steve suggests that "Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. " OK, but what about harassing scientists who experiment with animals, or fox hunts, or badger culls? It appears to me that most of those would identify themselves as being on the left rather than the far right.

It's not difficult to think of a left-wing regime which built a wall dividing families, or which imprisoned millions. Or which persecuted gays.

It's difficult to apply these labels to very similar forms of behaviour, and the danger is that you apply them according to one's own prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:50 PM

Well Joe, I don't own this thread or the conversation, but you shifted the subject below the line because I made a comment on a music thread about Mudcat attracting some right-wingers. I didn't actually say "conservative". That was your take and I don't object, but personally I find the word "conservative" a bit too confusing to be useful in a discussion on political stance. I call Amos 12.44 pm as witness to that. I think that the examples you give are right-wing. I think I'm merely going along with the general current understanding of that expression. I've been criticised for what I've said (I'm OK cos I'm a big lad) and I'm perfectly prepared to be corrected. See above post of mine responding to Big Al. I await.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:50 PM

why do you think IS is right wing?

it was a labour government that set up the ayatollah and let the islamic fundamentalist genie out of the bottle. Remember David Owen going jogging with Andrew Stone in Hyde Park as they both agreed to drop the Shah off their christmas card list.

who bitches about the incursions into the civil rights of british citizens killed by drone strikes as they fight for IS?

Life isn't quite as clear cut as you pretend. that is our British heritage. as George Orwell pointed out chanting four legs good, two legs bad - left is right. right is wrong - it simply doesn't guarantee anything. it doesn't cut it.

except you betray our liberal and free thinking heritage.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:59 PM

I used to be a socialist but there was a time when I realized that "The Left" as it used to be, was long dead. These are a different species of nouveau fascists.

Conformism is important for lefties today, they can't allow someone challenging their propaganda that's why they resort to their childish behaviour of name calling and putting labels on those who do.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:17 PM

"except you betray our liberal and free thinking heritage."

Hear, hear Al!

Those who adhere to the dogma of the left or the right are no better than those who adhere to religious dogma even though they profess to be above it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:40 PM

Steve suggests that "Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. " OK, but what about harassing scientists who experiment with animals, or fox hunts, or badger culls? It appears to me that most of those would identify themselves as being on the left rather than the far right.

That is a good challenge and it's hard to respond to. The kneejerk and pretty useless response would be that abortion harassment is wrong but so are animal experimentation, fox hunting and badger culling. But saying that (in my opinion) the demonstrators have right on their side is not the same as saying that their violent tactics are right. I think that if they do that they are no better than the anti-abortion extremists. There are better ways of passionately informing people of your views than the use of harassment or violence. That is not to say that non-violent direct action can't be brilliant. I just don't think it's people you should be attacking, that's all. Many people work in jobs that fail ethically in my book. I'm opposed to Trident but I have to respect the fact that thousands of people who are employed in that industry are doing it, in hard times, to put food on their tables. I think that many farming practices are cruel and brutal, but in many ways the consumer society and demand for cheap food has forced that. I have many friends who work at CSOS Morwenstow, the listening station of GCHQ, which is just up the road from us. They have the ability to listen in to every telephone communication and email ever made in this country. I detest that but they are just bringing home the bacon, aren't they? Making the argument against does not require violence, and my view is that everyone who resorts to violent protest is in the same boat, whether I sympathise with their cause our not.

It's not difficult to think of a left-wing regime which built a wall dividing families, or which imprisoned millions. Or which persecuted gays.

This is not such a good challenge. Those regimes were not anything like approaching left-wing in my view. That label (or its variants, such as communist) was persistently applied by western regimes in the Cold War with an axe to grind and a foe to demonise. Very convenient, as "left", "reds" and "communist" were expressions that had been extremely successfully demonised for decades by US regimes in particular, culminating in McCarthyism, which still resounds with a good many yanks today, admit it. We regard Hitler as right-wing, Pinochet as right-wing and Franco as right-wing. So tell me what qualitative differences there were between the ways they treated their people and the way Stalin and Mao treated theirs. Not an easy one that, is it? More a case of a deliberately misapplied term, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:51 PM

I spend a long time on my posts, Al, which really ought to signify to you, whether you agree with what I say or not, that I don't think life is clear-cut. And I'm certainly not pretending. A couple of negative comments above from other posters don't deserve much time. The one about lefties conforming is about fifty years out of date. We don't all turn out on parade on May Day any more, goose-stepping behind vast arrays of military might, in case you haven't noticed. I even need a crib sheet to sing the Internationale or The Red Flag these days. Last time I sang it I accidentally broke into a verse about Christmas trees. By the way, you're not one of those who were outraged because Jeremy didn't, er, "conform" by singing God Save The Queen, were you? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:00 PM

' By the way, you're not one of those who were outraged because Jeremy didn't, er, "conform" by singing God Save The Queen, were you? :-)'

on first name terms already?

on the contrary i hope Jezza gives the tories a pasting.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:40 PM

McGrath said: "I'm still puzzled by why so many people seem to think that beliefs about religion have some intrinsic relationship to opinions about politics."

Because there are often similar thought processes and basic logical syllogisms involved. From a purely technical, philosophical point of view, an analysis of the form of many of such beliefs & opinions reveals similar structure. Of course it is not always the case.... but in some instances there are ways in which data is presented, authority cited and defenses mounted that use rhetoric to evade direct confrontation with strict rules of presentation. (Yes... we are all guilty occasionally).
This does not necessarily imply dishonestly or evil intentions.... it can just mean that someone learned a cultural or family bias, and automatically start with the assumption that it is 'truth'. (I read a quote once that said: (paraphrased) "Theology is the formal process of finding bad reasons for what you already believe."
   In politics the point was made in a joke about a Democratic politician giving a stump speech and being interrupted every few sentences by a guy yelling "I'm a Republican!". Finally the speech maker stopped and looked right at the offender... "And just WHY are you a Republican?..."Because, my daddy was a Republican, my granddaddy was a Republican, my great granddaddy was a Republican... and I'll always be a Republican!"
"So," asked the politician, "If your daddy, your granddaddy and your great-grandaddy had been jackasses, what would YOU be?"
   "Oh," said the heckler, "I'd be a Democrat!"

The point is, many people don't need or want clear, unambiguous logical reasons for what they believe... some things just 'feel' right, and they often can't begin to tell you exactly why they think that way. IF we could get their total family history, personal history, school history and a detailed psychological profile done by a team of psychologists, we 'might' have some idea of how & why they think as they do... and it would do little good in most cases.
In the awkward human process of learning to think, it takes a real effort to, as Socrates and others said, "Know thyself". Examining every decision critically is never easy.... and even running important decisions about religion & politics & science thru fact checking and logical analysis is not common. Those who DO make the attempt more often are just... different... from those who do not.... and that is why is is said that "beliefs about religion have some intrinsic relationship to opinions about politics".

It is a lot of damned work to even explain the issue in an succinct way..(as those who have read this far will agree)... and WAY too much work for "Joe Average" to follow Socrates' admonition. He'd just rather be a jackass... I mean, Republican...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:48 PM

You seem to take it that stuff like attitudes towards freedom and tolerance and so force are criteria that correlate with left right opinions, Steve. I don't see it working like that. If a left wing regime is tyrannical and repressive and intolerant, that doesn't mean it's less left than one which is the reverse. If a right wing regime is tyrannical and repressive and intolerant, that doesn't mean its more right wing than one which is the reverse. That kind of thing just means that that is the kind of regime it is, and gives good reason to struggle against it.

Many people, especially on the right, assumed that if Russia turned against aspiring to be a socialist regime, that would mean it would be safe from being an oppressive regime and an intolerant society.It didn't work out that way. It was a fallacy to think it would.

Poor old Gorbachev had a vision of it giving up the oppression and remaining every bit as committed to Socialism, and so did Dubcek before him. The tragedy was that on both cases, in different ways, the experiment wasn't allowed to run its course.

I don't accept the idea that all the different ways we have of seeing the world fit on a left right spectrum. I prefer the model in which left/ right and libertarian/authoritarian are plotted on different axes on the same chart. Except I think there are a good few more axes in play. There's religion, for one, and there's ethics for another, and various others. Multidimensional. But we all fit on there somewhere, and we all have some funny neighbours on some who are far away on others, and the other way round. Not appreciating that is a big reason why revolutionaries and similar end up tearing each other to pieces so often.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 07:32 PM

Steve's waiting for an answer from me, and I'm not sure I want to give the answer he wants to hear. I think this discussion, which I find very fruitful and interesting, illustrates that it's far harder to label people than one might think. It's much more productive and reasonable to discuss various issues separately, rather than to pre-assume the opinions of others based on the labels we've given them.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:03 PM

"I spend a long time on my posts" StevE Shaw,
Steve I wish you would not, in fact I wish you would not post at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:18 PM

I don't know what makes you think I want to hear particular answers, Joe. If, by now, you haven't spotted that I relish a good controversy, you've clearly mistaken me for someone else. As for labelling people, I've tried to be at pains to avoid that, and, instead, to try to sharpen up how we use labels like left and right. I agree that we should try to take issues separately, which, in my clumsy way, is what I was trying to tell Bill.

Kevin, I am definitely not trying to correlate ethics with left and right. In fact, I am trying to tease out the fault line between ethics and place on the political spectrum.. Like everyone else on the left, though, I'm clearly going to be suspicious of right-wing people who claim to be compassionate, etc., as one of the values I always associate with the right is self-interest. I freely admit that I can't help that. My mum and dad were (actually, still are, as they're both alive and kicking) lefties. Being a leftie for me is an accident of birth (note, believers, how I admit to that), though I'd like to think I'd have gone that way anyway.

I think that an outcome of this thread, if I'm honest, is that the terms left and right have become almost too controversial to be of much use any more. I say almost because I think there are still some useful applications of the terms. For example, it is entirely useful to say that Keith, Teribus and pete are very right wing. On the other hand, it is entirely undiplomatic and reckless of outcome to say so. Which is why I'm not saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:23 PM

"Steve I wish you would not, in fact I wish you would not post at all."

Well Dick, I hate to tell you this, but the one and only reason I ever post here at all is because I know how much you don't want me to post. Outcomes, dear boy, always consider outcomes...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:45 PM

For example, it is entirely useful to say that Keith, Teribus and pete are very right wing. On the other hand, it is entirely undiplomatic and reckless of outcome to say so. Which is why I'm not saying it.

This is the kind of shit the so-called left like to sling nowadays, totally pathetic, and they think themselves progressive....hah!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:51 PM

Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 08:53 PM

"Teasing out the fault lines between ethics and place on the political spectrum" sounds to me very much the same thing as correlating ethics with left and right. What I mean is it does seem to regard different ethical positions as being more or less left or right on the same spectrum.

So you aren't saying automatically "the left" is ethically superior to "the right" on the macro scale, but you do seem to say that ethically superior forms of socialism should be seen as more authentically left than ethically inferior forms. And I see tye difference not as lying in one being more authentically socialist than the other, but rather in being more ethical, and therefore preferable.

Genuine conservative beliefs - by which I mean a preferance for minimising change to what is seen as essential - are quite compatible with rejection of selfish self interest. But then attitude towards change in society should not perhaps be seen as in itself fitting on the left/right axis at all, but on another one specifically about such attitudes. After all in a
Socialist society which was working well, being suspicious about attempts to change it would be quite compatible with left-wing beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:02 PM

' By the way, you're not one of those who were outraged because Jeremy didn't, er, "conform" by singing God Save The Queen, were you? :-)'

on first name terms already?

on the contrary i hope Jezza gives the tories a pasting.

To be clear, Al, my comment was directed at Guest 3.59 pm, not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:06 PM

I love the banter, Kevin, but in your world and mine it's two in the morning, and I'm supposed to going to Bude's annual food festival in the morning. See you later!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:05 AM

I think that there needs to be some acknowledgement of BillD's brilliant post of 6:40PM; thanks, Bill, I'm more enlightened after that!

I loved your definition of theology: "Theology is the formal process of finding bad reasons for what you already believe."

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:24 AM

singing old songs, playing old tunes is preservation, in the sense that we sing/play as we think it should be played within our limited ability & conceits. There are those that try to re-create the rendition as closely as possible, they are nearer to conserving the original.

As I remember from my days in college. We were asked a lot of questions and noted our answers. Then they asked us to plot them on a 2D graph. What came out surprised me. Left and right were obvious but the vertical axis was labelled "Tough" & Tender". Labour & Tory came roughly where you would expect, liberal (UK flavour) somewhere central. BUT the Nazis were, if anything, left of centre but high on the tough side.
There is a problem with perception and therein (herein to be more pertinent) lies the arguments above.

OK, once you remember that "Nazi" was an contraction of National Socialist it just tells you: perceptions are about as perfect as you & I.

Would the perfect of this parish please reveal themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:25 AM

Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it. That isn't to say that you can't accidentally find truths with it, but it's a peculiar way of seeking truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:31 AM

I think that the very suggestion that the Nazis were left of centre is another time-honoured and disingenuous ploy for smearing the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Stu
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:35 AM

Following from Bill's earlier post (which as Shim says was very good) although many people do express an affiliation to a certain political party in truth a heck of a lot don't. Many people are far too busy with getting on with the job of working or raising a family to care about the machinations of the political class; I guess these people are co-opted by politicos into that section of society known by that awful term "the silent majority" (invariably used by politicians with no support for their argument and raised voices against).

Most modern political parties are coalitions themselves; in the case of Labour this encompasses a very broad church of opinion ranging from the (actual) hard left of the Socialists Workers Party and a myriad of communist and Marxist groups to the virtual tories like Blair, Campbell and Mandelson. What unites these people are broad aims and values rather than a shared vision of a socialist utopia.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:43 AM

I prefer the model in which left/ right and libertarian/authoritarian are plotted on different axes on the same chart. Except I think there are a good few more axes in play. There's religion, for one, and there's ethics for another, and various others. Multidimensional. McGrath of Harlow

Great post! I think the 'silent majority' understand that, but mainly express it as something like "it's complicated". It's a shame that it usually suites politicians and the press dumb things down.

That wouldn't happen here of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 04:49 AM

it's far harder to label people than one might think
Consider my example of the 2D graph. In reality people have more than 2 dimensions but we are hidebound by only perceiving 3 or at best 4 if you include time.

Now when you consider Jeremy of the clan Cobyn there are at least a million spin doctors on the loose. Plus one on his team, who didn't remain silent on the anthem.
I've got news for them, JC is a POLITICIAN. He is in parliament. His job is to unite a divided party AND convince a jaded public.
Michael Foot had a similar aura of integrity and a fine way with words, that "buttered no parsnips".
& That is why a goodly number of undeclared conservatives voted for Jezza.
And on this forum I would put money on there being many undeclared conservatives in this parish. Maggie the Thatcher knew there were many at large, they voted her in.

Some folks stay schtum when politics & religion rear their heads. They score heavily on the polite side of the Polite/Rude dimension.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 05:14 AM

I'd like to say that, assuming things don't go dramatically downhill from here, this thread should be preserved as a 'how to do it' exemplar. Lots of different viewpoints, many contradictory, but airing them in a considered and thoughtful manner. The occasional slip into abuse (or near it), which the abused calmly ignores or deals with quietly without getting into a slanging match.

Well done chaps!

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 05:23 AM

Just a thought but:

"There is a bit of polite in politics". A bit.

Ask: which bit are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 05:55 AM

Seve,
For example, it is entirely useful to say that Keith, Teribus and pete are very right wing.

No it is not.
Have I ever expressed a "very right wing view?"
No.
And nor have the others.
It is just your far left perspective.
We express centre views which are mainstream and the majority views in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 06:37 AM

I'm still clinging to left and right as terms that retain some utility. However, it jars with me when Stalin, Mao and even Hitler are described as left-wing. Even "state communism" doesn't cut it with me. And just because Hitler's party was called National Socialist doesn't mean he was a socialist. What happens with these guys is that, ostensibly, they start out with a utopian ideal of the massive state working as a big, single, well-oiled machine, filled with happy, enthusiastic workers with a common goal. North Korea still projects that to us as the only image of itself that is permitted. Of course, it's a damn sight easier in this world of mass, instant communication than it used to be for the rest of us to know better. These regimes (and they are regimes) always mutate into exactly the same thing as if they had been military dictatorships in the first place. Nothing to do with any socialist (aka, to me, true left-wing) ideal that I've ever harboured. If you are going to call the regimes of Mubarak, Salazar, Pol Pot, Pinochet and a dozen others military dictatorships, then the regimes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler turned into exactly that as well. They end up exercising extremely severe control over their citizens in almost every aspect of their lives, the ideal turned on its head.

To dumb down and cause trouble. ;-). Here are some buzzwords to go with left and right. I'm not even going to say which ones I agree and disagree with. Add your own with gay abandon. And I'm thinking of today, not Cold War.

LEFT: compassionate, spending, greater equality, trade unions, workplace democracy, more affordable housing, more welfare, more nationalisation, demilitarisation, tax-funded public services, public education, end to austerity, taxation of wealth, more financial regulation, republican, protest, big government.

RIGHT: self-interest, reactionary, emasculation of unions along with control of public sector pay, sell off council housing, military spending, less job security, blind workings of the market, removal of regulation, private schools, land ownership equals power, hereditary, low taxation, tax havens, tax evasion, austerity for the poor, an end to welfare, small government, especially at local level, God Save The Queen.

I couldn't bring myself to include anything about religion, gay rights, race or immigration because in my head I couldn't tease out any real left-right differences.

Biased? I should think so. Silly? Definitely! Fire away? Go ahead, my tin hat's on!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 06:48 AM

"Go ahead, my tin hat's on!"
A tin hat, A Condom would be more suitable, and a big one, to encapsulate the biggest pompous prick, and the pissy utterances that pour out of your orifice, stick to playing the harmonica your fairly good at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 06:56 AM

Steve I could give you two lists of good things pertaining to the RIGHT, and bad things pertaining to the LEFT in this society.
They would prove no more than your lists do.

Survival will have nothing to do with political ideology.
We will do what has to be done to secure a future.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:08 AM

On a left/right spectrum I'd see the Nazis as more or less centrist. "Third way" is actually very much a Nazi way of talking about politics. But the more significant things about them weren't anything to do with being right, left, or centre, they were to do with being way out authoritarian and and at the evil end of the ethical scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Smedley
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:34 AM

Speaking as a serial lurker (and very occasional contributor), this thread is a very interesting read. And civil, too.........mostly.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:26 AM

Steve, by your lists I am thoroughly left wing, so please refer to me as that in future.
I would just want clarification on "demilitarisation" and "military spending."
To be left wing, must I want the armed forces disbanded?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:43 AM

I didn't say which ones I agreed with. I also deliberately left out "authoritarian". Can o' worms, that one.

Cheers Dick. I'll commission Steve Bell to draw me wearing a condom on my head. Maybe they'll do what you've always failed to do, make a mug out of me. :-)

Keith, you voted Blair and are an avid supporter of one of the most right-wing administrations in the world, the one in Israel. Whatever else you are, you are not left-wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith, you voted Blair and are an avid supporter of one of the most right-wing administrations in the world, the one in Israel.
Most of the lefties on here voted for Blair with me.
Who did you vote for Steve?

Why do you say I am an "avid supporter of Israel?"

I am not.
Like you I believe it has a right to exist, so we are the same.

What I have done is put Israel's side of the story when almost all contributors were putting the version of its enemies.
Was that wrong or right wing?
How?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith, you voted Blair and are an avid supporter of one of the most right-wing administrations in the world, the one in Israel.

Most of the lefties on here voted for Blair with me.
Who did you vote for Steve?

Why do you say I am an "avid supporter of Israel?"

I am not.
Like you I believe it has a right to exist, so we are the same.

What I have done is put Israel's side of the story when almost all contributors were putting the version of its enemies.
Was that wrong or right wing?
How?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 09:42 AM

Earlier in this thread:

[i]'I notice rudeness and intolerance from people of all political persuasions on this site, some left and some right.
quite frankly they are boring' [/i]

Later on, same thread:

A Condom would be more suitable, and a big one, to encapsulate the biggest pompous prick, and the pissy utterances that pour out of your orifice[..]

Yawn...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 12:36 PM

Take no notice, Guest. I've already tried and I couldn't find a big enough condom (tsk -story of my life...)

Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. What you do is not that at all. You either deny or defend their leaders' wrongdoings. That is not putting Israel's side. I've done a damn sight more than you've ever done to put Israel's side, but your ears are covered. Anyway, don't get me going about Israel again. If there's one person who it's never worth talking about Israel to, it's you.

I just thought of another tricky word I left out: totalitarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 12:44 PM

Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side.

So it is clearly not right wing but centre and mainstream to do that.

You either deny or defend their leaders' wrongdoings. That is not putting Israel's side.

Yes it is because Israel denies the accusations of its enemies.
I have not defended any wrong doing.
I have put Israel's version of events, and as you acknowledge, all Western governments including the very left wing French government and our own Labour governments accept that.

You have failed to make a case that I am right wing.
I am not.
You can find no example of me expressing right wing views.
Centre, mainstream and majority is me.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 12:48 PM

I don't know Steve, you do have appreciate the irony of someone called dick giving advice about getting inside a condom.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 01:50 PM

"Centre, mainstream and majority is me."

That's what all right-wingers choose to believe!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 02:33 PM

Good point, Shimrod. Harks back to what I got told off for saying at the top of this thread, that right-wingers hate to be called right-wingers (I suggested there was no badge of honour in it, then HiLo misquoted me in speech marks, á la Keith, and had a shout). You can call me a leftie any time!

Oh, one word, Keith, before you bother asking me to prove that: Wheatcroft!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:38 PM

I wonder if a good right-left litmus test, might be one's opinion of Rupert Murdoch? I would guess that those Mudcatters labelled "right-wing" by our local lefties, are probably not big Murdoch supporters. That would put them in the middle, not the right.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 07:56 PM

Interesting thinking, Joe. But, having rather undeliberately ;-) put the cat among the pigeons apropos of left-right definitions, I feel that we first have to agree on whether Rupert is actually right-wing. It's been suggested that Hitler, Stalin et al. are actually not really that right-wing at all. Next to them, Murdoch, much as I hate the bugger, is actually a bit of a pussycat! The other thing about right-wingers, though maybe not so much the Mudcat right, is that they will often deny that they read the Murdoch press or watch Fox. You do have to wonder where they get their prejudices from in that case, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:09 PM

I didn't have a shout. I disagreed with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 08:44 PM

In a rather unfocused way. I did invite you to address your disagreements point by point. Just look at the flak I get in this thread (yeah, OK, for being idiotic enough to raise a controversial issue, but at least I have the skin of a rhino). See how unbothered I can be!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 10:24 PM

wonder if a good right-left litmus test, might be one's opinion of Rupert Murdoch?

That's not a left/right question, Joe. Its a question of who believes and supports the absolute lies, rubbish and bullshit that Murdoch/Ailes/Fux News vomits forth and those who prefer to deal in facts and reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 10:35 PM

I appreciate the compliments earlier, but must enlarge on one point to examine Steve's post:

"Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it."

I can't take credit for the original, even though it strikes a chord.... but its relevance is that it doesn't assert what premises are true OR false. It merely suggests that theological contortions of reason usually include some 'bad' reasons. We really can't demonstrate that its premise is "completely false".... but we can infer that IF you run into contradictions in logic and/or fact and discover that 2 or 3.... or many... conclusions that cannot all be true follow from the original premise(s), then at least one premise must be false.... and of course, perhaps all of them. **From false premises, anything follows**

An argument is 'sound' if it has both true premises AND correct structure. (It may be trivial, but that's another issue)

The real, simple, basic point is that there are certain claims that we cannot construct sound arguments for, because we can't determine what the required true premises are.... and "how the Universe began" ...or even IF it had a beginning... is just speculation and subjective opinion. It may be that we cannot even formulate the question correctly, given our mental & scientific limitations. But.... people being what they are, most WANT a satisfying answer, and all this 'logic' stuff is just tedious blather to most of them.
Somehow, I got the bug early on to try to figure out what made sense, not just sink into some comfortable belief system. Once I had a couple courses in comparative religion and saw how many competing 'comfortable systems' there were, none of them seemed comfortable. ;>)... so I post these long bits, mainly to sort out my own thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:49 AM

Shimrod,
That's what all right-wingers choose to believe!

It is also what centrists like me believe.

Steve,
Good point, Shimrod. Harks back to what I got told off for saying at the top of this thread, that right-wingers hate to be called right-wingers


I remind you that I have never expressed a right wing view, because I have none, so on what grounds do you make your malicious and vindictive smears?

Steve clearly believes that there is no centre position at all!
Anyone who does not hold his fringe far left extreme views must be far right!

He says,
"Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. " then says I must be far right for doing the same!

He says voting for Blair makes me far right, even though Blair got the majority vote and lefties like Musket voted the same way!
Steve chose not to answer if he voted Blair too!

You people have absolutely no reason to call me right wing, and until you find something, which you never will, please stop doing it.

When you have no reply, you smear and name call.
It is lying.
Stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:04 AM

Steve Shaw says: Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it.

Well, since my college major was Theology, I might tend to disagree. If a theology is built upon a mythology that is taken to be historically and scientifically factual, then I might buy your argument. But you're defining a fundamentalist theology, not all theology. Most theologies are an exploration built upon a perception of a spiritual nature or meaning of what we observe and experience in life. Most theologies call that spiritual nature divine, in one way or another. So, the basic premise is that we are surrounded by a universe that has a spiritual essence that is worthy of exploration, partly through tools such as mythologies and rituals and traditions and sacred texts.

I would submit that one cannot prove or disprove that some or all aspects of our universe have a spiritual nature. That's a matter of perception - of faith, if you will. I find that perception to be rich and worthwhile. I have no quarrel with those who do not share my perception - they just see things differently. But when they say my perception is "false," then I have a quarrel with them. My perception is NOT false - it is simply different from theirs.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:20 AM

I agree, Joe. There is certain mindset - and this is not an accusation! - which likes to think of the world in true/false terms. And there's good reason to do that, since it is the basis of much of the advancement of the last few millennia, whether we are talking science or philosophy. As an approach to life, it is pretty solid and I have built my own career on it as well.

But no-one should fall into the trap of assuming that mindset is sufficient for everything. It would be an odd stance to say Beethoven's Pastoral is true or false. [I pick music as less contentious, but I think these points also apply to religion]. You can build theories of music, certainly, but they are not like scientific theories because they can never be true or false; the best they ever get to is 'usually, often'. And to an extent they are also 'ring-fenced philosophies' (on the assumption I understood what that term meant). We might perform MRI scans and observe which parts or the brain are stimulated when certain music is heard, but I can't really see any composer doing what they do differently as a result of learning that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:22 AM

Careless phrasing on my part: I should not have described scientific theories as true or false, but everyone knows what I meant, so please don't pick me up on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:53 AM

Ha. I made a mistake there that let both Bill and Joe in to give me a bit of grief. What I should have said was "almost certainly an entirely false premise." Yes, I see you can get round that by studiously avoiding the word God from your riposte and speaking of "spiritual nature" instead. And "getting round it" seems to me precisely what theology has to do in order to legitimise itself. What you can't avoid, and I know I'm being facile, is that the word theology itself has God in it. And don't forget that I did not say you couldn't find truth via theology, just that it's a peculiar way of looking for it. Theology is doing a lot of thinking. Science is doing a lot of doing AND a lot of thinking, and we have the advantage of the null hypothesis. I love life and nature, etc, but it's all plenty beautiful enough for me from here on the ground. Spiritual if you like. You can't take that away from me, he sang.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 04:12 AM

Keith dearest fellow, once again if you insist. Putting Israel's side is not right-wing. I do that far better than you do and I don't think I'm especially right-wing. Defending a very right-wing regime's obvious atrocities or even denying their wrongdoings is what you do, and that is why you're right-wing. I don't like what Hamas do and have said so many times, and I never deny what is demonstrably the case. I defend the right of Israeli people to live in peace and security and I only ever castigate their leaders, wishing that the people would elect less bellicose ones. I've said all these things many times. Put it to bed now Keith or start another thread on it, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 04:54 AM

In my view - and I might be entirely alone in this! - I don't think that is what serious theology tries to do, Steve. Though I have to begin by saying what I think of as religious fundamentalists do precisely what you describe, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else.

The first question on religion should not be whether it is true or false, but whether the mindset of true/false is the applicable one in the first place. And for me it isn't. And it is where I part company with Dawkins because he believes it is the right one, and I don't. Once you do, you get into the situations where Abrahamic fundamentalists have to insist Adam and Eve is literally true, and that is in immediate conflict with science. Simultaneously Dawkins sits with fundamentalists in declaring anyone who claims to be a Christian (Jew, Muslim, ...) but does not assert Genesis as truth is a 'pick and mix Christian', choosing the bits they like and rejecting those they don't. I find this disappointing, Dawkins is far better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Long Firm Freddie
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:12 AM

For those who aren't sure exactly where they may be on the political spectrum, this test may help:

Political Compass Test

LFF

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:46 AM

I take it you're having a laugh LFF?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:46 AM

Well I agree that true/false is not applicable to religion. It's here, that's the thing. My point really is that you can try to get to grips with the wonderful universe we live in far better without adopting a mindset that has a creator at the root of its spirituality. To put it provocatively and rather brutally, you can be a damn sight more spiritual without a God than you can with him. He simply gets in the way. Get down on your belly and explore that daisy on your lawn for fifteen minutes. Think of the billions of years it took for it to evolve. Think of those millions of chloroplasts beavering away, converting light energy to stored energy (if only we were as good at it, and we're supposed to be brainy). See how the leaves avoid shading each other, all done without a brain. Admire the objective beauty of the colours and patterns of the ray and disc florets and don't forget to have a really close look at those miniature, perfect flowers. That little weed has more true spirituality for you (if you learn to be receptive to it) coming out of its pores than a thousand heavy theological tomes full of labyrinthine argument, big words and tortuous concepts that need college courses to get your head round, and all without the slightest strain. That's what Richard Dawkins is about, and I'm right with him. That daisy will dumb you up, not dumb you down.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:49 AM

there's a bit of theory in theology.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:00 AM

Well maybe there is, but not theory in the scientific sense. The word comes from Greek as I understand it and means "discourse about. God". Still, what's in a name?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:01 AM

Some fool put an extraneous full stop in there. Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:54 AM

I don't really understand what Theology has to do with Conservatism?

Is it simply an excuse for atheists to make insulting remarks?
It seems to me that a socialist system will be more open to spiritual views than a capitalist one.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Stu
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:27 AM

"Dawkins is far better than that"

The problem is, I'm not convinced that he is. The first thing a scientist is taught is that they're full of shit; they don't know much at all and whatver their hypotheses are, they are probably going to change. He is problematic in terms of science outreach by couching everything in absolutist terms; he allows his outrage at the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion to overwhelm the fact that most people in the world are actually kind, caring and compassionate beings regardless of their beliefs.

I don't believe Dawkins attitude to people of faith chimes with that of the wider scientific community which does of course have many people of faith within it. The main and most fundamental issue between science and religion is one of method, and when the results conflict with religious belief then problems arise. However, most people are more nuanced and sophisticated in their approach to religion than the headline-grabbing fundamentalists and can accommodate both theology and philosophy.

But also I don't believe that religion should be the sole source for our moral and ethical codes and has the sole claim to the expression of human spirituality; that way if fraught with danger as we all know from watching the telly every night. At the very basic level sciences tells us we are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself and as far as we know earth is the only place in the universe that exists where this is happening. That thought alone is so beautiful and profound in so many ways, not least the fact that every life is precious and should be valued and nurtured equally. Compassion is a universal value.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:44 AM

Defending a very right-wing regime's obvious atrocities or even denying their wrongdoings is what you do,

I have never defended any atrocity and never would.
You are making shit up now.

I have put their version of events and they do deny wrong doing.
I have also shown that their enemies tell lies about them, with proven examples.

As you said,
"Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. "

Every Western politician is not far right wing and nor am I.

I request that you stop calling me right wing and worse until I express a right wing view or you manage to find a specific example.
Good luck with that!

And Shimrod, your idea that denying being right wing proves that you are, is less than helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:06 AM

In the intro to The Greatest Show on Earth : The Evidence for Evolution (2009) Richard Dawkins is at some pains to point out the extent of his collaboration with leaders of World Faiths in the petitioning of governments to stop the teaching of creationism as a science.

Whilst Faith is not entirely incompatible with a more enlightened and humanistic viewpoint that will always be left-wing, Fundamentalist Belief, and all that entails, is an utter anathema to the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:13 AM

You do have to wonder where they get their prejudices from in that case, no?

And, pray tell, do tell us where you get yours from.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:17 AM

Take it outside, Keith. Start a new thread. Not here.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:38 AM

Almost 100% in agreement with your 05:46 AM post, Steve. I could even give a biblical quote to back you up: "Not even Solomon in all his glory was arraigned like one of these", you know! The only real difference is you find religion gets in the way of such contemplation, while those religiously inclined find the approaches accumulative, not oppositional.

And Stu: I stand corrected. I should have said Dawkins is capable of much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:13 AM

I respectfully remind you dmcg, that having an abrahamic faith is not in conflict with science, but with an (allegedly) scientific theory.   Until you are able to demonstrate the verity of said theory , that is a fallacy of false alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:13 AM

"And Shimrod, your idea that denying being right wing proves that you are, is less than helpful."

1. I didn't say that denying being right wing PROVES anything. I was just noting, what I perceive to be, a common pattern.

2. I don't think that, in making the observation, my primary intention was to be "helpful".

3. I obviously hit a nerve though!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:29 AM

that a small fraction of people of Abrahamic faiths take that view, but the vast majority do not wasn't something I needed reminding of, Pete. After all, it has been discussed ad nausium on lots of threads so there is no need to do so again. Let's try to avoid traipsing down that path again. We have probably got too diverted into religion for the thread as it is, since the only thing we were trying to talk about was the relationship if any between being religious and being right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:48 AM

When you're on your belly admiring that daisy, I can't help thinking that you will achieve a greater completeness of insight, understanding and spiritual fulfilment if you do all the intellectual heavy lifting, instead of falling back on the rather abject and inexplicable notion of a creator kicking it all off. It gets in the way by stunting your curiosity and staunching your line of enquiry. Your pat answer is complete before you've even asked all the questions. You allow your inexplicable supernatural being, ironically, to explain everything instead of making the struggle yourself. Well I quite enjoy the struggle.

The life so short,
the craft so long to learn,
Th'assay so hard,
so sharp the conquering

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:57 AM

Stu, I don't know where you get your ideas about Dawkins from. Read his books. Jack mentioned a bloody good one just there. The hundreds of YouTube clips of him, mostly attacking idiots, do not show him at his exacting best.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:03 AM

Never cease to amaze me. No person of faith spends their time on mudcat preaching except the atheist religion followers. Always the same people trying to get us to buy into their bullshit and accuse us. However look in mirror will ya and keep your beliefs to yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:04 AM

That's as much about temperament as anything , Steve. I'm a "heavy lifting" sort of guy myself, and one of the things that annoys me about articles in the New Scientist, for example, is when a specialist writing an article doesn't seem to have done the searching in the literature to be aware of things I have known about for years from other papers.   The way of thinking you criticise, as I would, is being satisfied with superficial interpretations when there is much more to learn if it is studied and thought about.


But in a way I give you the same answer as I gave Pete. I think we are getting too far from the purpose of the thread and all we are really trying to discuss at the moment is the relationship between religion and being right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:56 AM

"I respectfully remind you dmcg, that having an abrahamic faith is not in conflict with science,..."

Oh yes it is! Mainly because "faith" is the fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence. Now that's as about as far from science as you can get!

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:11 PM

Do you think Christians should keep their views to themselves too, Dan? Songs of Praise is on telly here in a minute on one of our main channels. When BBC Radio 4 came on my radio alarm this morning they were broadcasting a service. All the churches in Bude have little wayside pulpits (as well as big crucifixes showing an X-rated scene of violence). I passed them today on the way to the food fair. Have a word, will you, Dan... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:25 PM

"I respectfully remind you dmcg, that having an abrahamic faith is not in conflict with science,..."

Oh yes it is!

No it is not.
There are many people of faith among scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:30 PM

Steve,
Take it outside, Keith. Start a new thread. Not here.

Again you think it OK to toss out your insults, but not for anyone to repudiate them!

Why must you and your ilk make these baseless accusations and wrongly label people?
Most people just address what is actually said.

If your ideas are so vacuous that you are incapable of defending them, give up.
Insults are not a substitute for debate, outside a primary playground.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:36 PM

".... instead of falling back on the rather abject and inexplicable notion of a creator kicking it all off."

However, that is the one recourse for a believer to stay a believer and not run afoul of those pesky demands of science. If you simply say: "The creator started it, and science and logic are how we explore the Creation.", you'll be fine. You can even, like Joe Offer, adopt one of the classic formulations of theology as a comforting, metaphorical guide to spirituality without serious contradiction.

" No person of faith spends their time on mudcat preaching except the atheist religion followers. "

That's a mis-reading of what atheism is, olddude.... we've discussed it many times. SOME atheists become as ardent as some evangelical Christians and can come off as just as obnoxious, but atheism itself is simply refusing to accept the stated claims about ^metaphysical stuff.


As to Ake's question..."I don't really understand what Theology has to do with Conservatism?".... I tried to answer that in that earlier post. There are often 'similar' thought patterns and errors in logic when you examine the structure of both viewpoints. It IS the case that most religious folk are also conservative in certain areas. It's not any sort of one-to-one mapping that allows blanket statements, but like many stereotypes, there are obvious roots.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:16 PM

"There are many people of faith among scientists."

Another failure in logic. Just because 'some' scientists choose to profess a religious faith, it doesn't follow that religion is necessarily compatible with science. Just because a few policemen have occasionally been caught breaking the law, it doesn't follow that every police officer is bent.

Anyway, what do you mean by "many"? How many?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:43 PM

but it doesn't follow that, generally speaking, it is incompatable either. Certainly, a fundamentalist isn't going to do very well in the biology department, or astrophysics, but would probably have few problems in material sciences. A person who is not fundamentalist could fit in anywhere. It is back to this true/false mindset I was talking about. If you think both science and religion are competitors for truth then you will have problems. But if not, if religion is, as Joe put it, more about values than truth, there need be no more a conflict between science and religion than there is between science and being a vegan. There can be conflicts over the values of course, but you can have that in just about any other system of morals - animal rights clashes, for example, or whether NICE mechanisms to authorise a drug for treatment use adequate models.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:14 PM

"isn't it amazing that people who proudly proclaim their undoubted right-wing views here hate to be actually called right-wing"
.,,.
No I don't.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:17 PM

... but I remember, a while back, Jim was most indignant at my saying that his views were of the left. He seemed to think that in saying so I was associating him with some specific party alignment; which clearly was not the case at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:31 PM

Context, dear boy, give us the context. I called Jim a leftie up this thread and he didn't object.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:34 PM

Anyway, how's life on your holidays? Are you posting from the Costa Brava?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:48 PM

You are probably aware of the allegory of the two cows.

Galt's Gulch takes it further.

www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1dec2d/socialism-communism-fascism-nazismand-cows

I consider myself a conservative libertarion capitalist.
When it comes to voting I am a Jeffersonian.
Like most Republicans I cue off of Abraham Lincoln, The legitimate object of government is "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves."

When it comes to Mudcat....I am extreamly conservative......we need more collectors, and musicians, and technicians..politics be dam&d.

Religion - Calvanist, pre-trib, not by works but Grace alone, tri immersion, three-fold foot washing communion, evangelical, and this world was granted to Satan for his season and he has been a grim reaper on the innocents who have a right to life. However, eugenics is a very real science and has far science behind it than "climate change."

Sincerely,

GARGOYLE



Joe....you are far, far from being a Fascist. However, that book you have been so graciously researching....should be.....well you know....(quadruple the price for fear it falls into wrong hands)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:00 PM

Steve -- that was perhaps because I had already, as it were, "disinfected" the term in relation to him. It was some years back. I will see if I can locate the thread concerned and point you towards it, but it might take a minute or 3!

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:07 PM

Like most Republicans I cue off of Abraham Lincoln

Amusing, Garg. If Lincoln were presented with the Republican Party of today, he'd vomit. Ditto Teddy Roosevelt.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:25 PM

This thread seems to have wandered an awfully long way from politics. Which is fair enough, because thread drift can make for great discussions.

But trying to pin down religious beliefs as such in some political slot on a political spectrum is basically fallacious.

There is a relationship between religious belief and politics, but it's a lot more complicated than that. When religion comes together with politics it provides a different kind of motivation and energy. The word "enthusiam" is another that is built on the Greek word for God. But that can intersection can come at just about any political place. Pope Francis describing unfettered capitalism as "dung" isn't feeding into the same political place as the kind of religion that sees making lots of money as evidence of God's Favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:44 PM

"But trying to pin down religious beliefs as such in some political slot on a political spectrum is basically fallacious."

It is, but, as I've been saying, religious actions can be highly political. Even then, it's dodgy, as many actions purportedly done in the name of religion are perpetrated for reasons which have nothing to do with religion. Teasing politics and religion apart is hard work, but I think we've made slightly more progress in that regard than the US, and we've both done a lot better than some predominantly Islamic countries (some of whom haven't tried very hard at all). And definitely better than Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:54 PM

Steve -- Re my last post: here, with details of thread &c, is one sometime response by Jim to my having mentioned his leftwing views, which should elucidate the point I was making:

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM
"the insufferable self-righteous little lefty prig!"
What my politics are is none of your business and has nothing to do with what I say - I am not a member of any particular party - I have no political line - I haven't voted in a general election of well over a decade.
If anything, I am a humanist (with a small h) and a pacifist (with reservations).
Some time ago you bent over backwards to find my politics - no doubt to use a a smearing substitute for argument - I declined, to no avail - you have decided to use a fictionalised construction of my politics as a substitute anyway

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:39 PM

And definitely better than Israel.

Another typical antisemitic trope from Shaw.

Israeli government and religion are completely and totally separated. There is nothing in the governmental institutions of that country that require (or welcome) religious notions (even though its westernized freedom of expression means that the religious orthodox have their own party and thus one or more seats in the Parliament). Nowhere in that country's actions will you see or hear the claim that they are acting on the will of god, prophets, rabbis, the Bible or whatever, unless you listen to the extreme right or ultra-orthodox.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:01 PM

israel government and religion are completely and totally separated". So am I mistaken in understanding that there is no such thing as civil marriage in Israel?

And the claim that the basic justification for setting up Israel is a promise by God 5000 years ago does seem to crop up rather often.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:27 PM

Post 20 Sep 15 - 05:39 PM = Hogwash.

RE: Do you think Christians should keep their views to themselves too

Well, Kim Davis is a case in point.......

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:39 PM

Would our trollish Guest care to explain why successive Israeli regimes have insisted on calling their nation a Jewish state, in spite of the fact that millions of people live there who are not of the Jewish faith? Don't those two words, placed together like that, signify a tight bond between politics and religion? Just asking, Guest-troll, not judging. I support the Israeli state's right to exist and I support the Israeli people. What's yer beef, old chap?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:54 PM

Israel is a Jewish state, and this is primarily in a national sense -- similar to the way that Arab states are Arab, Chinese states are Chinese, etc. Many atheists have a Jewish identity and/or support the existence of a Jewish state.

Not all Jews are religious, in fact even in Israel, the majority of Jews are secular. And Israel does have separation of state and religion, already. Calling it a Jewish state has nothing to do with religion. Seems to me like you are confused, even though you don't think you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:02 PM

English..schminglish....

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:08 PM

Absolute nonsense. The regime clings to the term Jewish state, whether or not most people practise or not, because they know that the underlying religious connotation of the term contains an extremely powerful binding force. Now I find this difficult because I don't know whether I'm talking to one anonymous coward or two. So move along, will you please, one or both of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:19 PM

Michael, re Jim, quoth: "the insufferable self-righteous little lefty prig!"

Well, Michael, you might just have got away with "ooo Jim, you cheeky lefty you!" But, instead, you elected to embed the accusation within a tirade of contumely. So of course Jim took umbrage. Who wouldn't have? Have more consideration for outcomes on future occasions, that's my advice!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:11 PM

It's just a waste of energy getting all heated up about nasty little attacks online. It just rewards whoever attacks you.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:19 PM

Don't worry, I've moved along.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:40 PM

Right, it sure looks like you have!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 02:45 AM

confused is confused

ignorant is ignorant

lets not confuse the issue

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:29 AM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:30 AM

Damn! too late!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:38 AM

Steve, from the perspective of your far left perch you are incapable of judging the views of others.

You proved that by your claim that voting New Labour makes someone far right!
Risible.
Also that taking the same position as all Western governments makes you far right.
Only to you Steve!
You make the left look silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:47 AM

Nurse...

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 04:00 AM

@ S. Shaw Esq

Your 'advice', referring to an extract I repro'd, at your request, from a some-good-long-time-ago thread, is perhaps just an itzibitzi-teensiweensi bit behind the fair, is it not?; and I was, I repeat, simply answering a question you had asked, and do not recall having, in any way manner shape or form, solicited your 'advice'.

Kindly bear in mind that when I want your opinion, I will give it to you!

Best regards as ever

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 04:06 AM

Mr Myer quotes from Jim - and proves Jim's point. How nice.

It has been a commonplace in England for years to regard the Church of England as the conservative party at prayer. But recently the organised Church of England seems to have found its conscience, at least part of the time.

The overlap between religion and right-wing politicians probably arises, in my view, from the fact that organised religions are top-down organisations who believe that adherents (and others too) should do what the church (and thus God) tells them to do. This, alas, is not necessarily the same as pursuing justice or fairness. The two sometimes collide (see above).

The political right have no commitment to justice or fairness. They defend the liberty of the rich and powerful to oppress the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Stu
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 04:10 AM

"Stu, I don't know where you get your ideas about Dawkins from"

My issue with Dawkins is not his science, but the fact he drives people from science with an unnecessarily combative and sometimes downright insulting attitude. I'm certainly not against his campaigns to keep creationism out of science classes - that goes without saying.

We need to make science open to everyone regardless of personal beliefs or background, and when Dawkins fires off some ill-timed and ill-thought comment on a schoolboy arrested for making a clock (for example) this puts people off. My colleagues spend a LOT of time out at science fairs and in schools talking about our work to anyone interested; that's how to communicate science. Inserting your personality and personal views between the science and the people you're trying to communicate with isn't a help.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 04:36 AM

Quoting Steve Shaw re Israel..."millions of people live there who are not of the Jewish faith". The are eight million people living in Israel of whom seventy five per cent declare themselves as Jewish. Fewer than two million are non Jewish. Just to point out that there are not "millions" of non Jews in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 04:46 AM

"You proved that by your claim that voting New Labour makes someone far right!"

Did Mr Shaw actually use the term, "far right" in the context of New Labour", Keith? You might like to go back through this thread and check that. The term 'far right' usually refers to totalitarian dictatorships or racist parties such as the BNP.

"Also that taking the same position as all Western governments makes you far right."

Did he also use the term "far right" in the context of "all Western governments"?

That last statement also implies that you think that, ideally, one should align one's own political convictions with the current status quo(?) Perhaps you should bear in mind that current Western governments have presided over a steadily deteriorating environment, have embraced neo-liberal free market economics - which has led to one major financial crash already and has threatened the social cohesion of many of our societies. In addition they have made a profoundly horrifying mess of the Middle East. Any real democrat (as opposed to a servile, cringing, unthinking conformist) should be out on the barricades challenging this sad - and increasingly dangerous - state of affairs!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:02 AM

You can be Jewish but not of the Jewish faith. Secular Jews. That is not the first time in this thread that has been pointed out. There are millions of people in Israel not of the Jewish faith is what I said. A good number of them would still characterise themselves as Jews. Get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:06 AM

That's fine, Michael. Do you want my snailmail address to send a postcard to? Where did you say you were, the fleshpots of Marbella, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:21 AM

Shimrod,
Did Mr Shaw actually use the term, "far right" in the context of New Labour", Keith?

The term he used was "very right wing."
He justified describing me as that because I voted New Labour and because my of my position on Israel which he acknowledged was just that of all Western governments.

OK Shim?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:32 AM

Steve -- Sorry, but I find your last post addressed to me completely incomprehensible. I am here at home in sunny Cambs as usual. Not sure I have ever visited Marbella; certainly not recently anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:36 AM

You told us you were off for a bit but neglected to tell us where you were going! Damn. Don't bother with a postcard then. Unless you can find a nice aerial view of the M11.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:37 AM

I was expecting that Steve. So glad you have sorted out "Jewishness" for me. Yes , now I get it. You never fail to amaze.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:45 AM

Didn't say I was going anywhere, Steve; just taking one of my periodic couple of days' break from this forum when it seemed to me to be growing even more than usually obnoxious.

Thank you however for your interest and concern as to every movement of mine. Most complimentary of you. Has your agent found a publisher yet for the best-selling biography of me that you are obviously planning for when I finally fall off the twig?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:51 AM

Ge is also writing a potential best seller on how to Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:52 AM

Steve,
The regime clings to the term Jewish state,

It was defined in its declaration of independence as a "Jewish state," and the term appeared in the United Nations partition decision of 1947 as well.

What has changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:00 AM

"Thank you however for your interest and concern as to every movement of mine"

*Sigh*. Let's face it, Michael. The older we get, the more we have to be concerned about our movements.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:09 AM

HiLo, all you have to do if you wish to take up any point I've made is to read carefully what I actually said before you post. You are making a habit of not doing that. Twice now in one thread. Having to clarify what I've already couched in reasonably careful language is a pain in the neck, frankly. And I'm not attacking that phrase, Keith. I just expressed the opinion that it carries inevitable religious undertones which I think are deliberately intended. That's fine, as long as you guys don't keep denying what's obvious. I'm really not that bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:32 AM

"The term he used was "very right wing.""

The term "very right wing" may, or may not, be an exaggeration - depending on your point of view. Nevertheless, "far right" means something different.

In addition, Keith, you haven't justified why you think that unquestioning conformity to the existing political status quo is intrinsically a 'good thing'.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:38 AM

The term "very right wing" may, or may not, be an exaggeration - depending on your point of view. Nevertheless, "far right" means something different.

No it does not.
"Far" and "very" are "synonymous."

In addition, Keith, you haven't justified why you think that unquestioning conformity to the existing political status quo is intrinsically a 'good thing'.

I don't think that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:40 AM

Sorry.

The term "very right wing" may, or may not, be an exaggeration - depending on your point of view. Nevertheless, "far right" means something different.

No it does not.
"Far" and "very" are synonymous in this context.

In addition, Keith, you haven't justified why you think that unquestioning conformity to the existing political status quo is intrinsically a 'good thing'.

I don't think that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:45 AM

"No it does not.
"Far" and "very" are "synonymous.""

I beg to differ.

"In addition, Keith, you haven't justified why you think that unquestioning conformity to the existing political status quo is intrinsically a 'good thing'.

I don't think that."

I beg to differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 06:55 AM

Jesus! Shimrod, don't tell me you have joined the gang?

Pin dancing is so bloody boring, far right and very right wing are basically the same thing....could you explain any real difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 07:40 AM

" ... far right and very right wing are basically the same thing....could you explain any real difference?"

Yes, Ake, 'very' and 'far' have similar meanings linguistically but in a political context (particularly in a democracy) the terms 'right wing' or 'very right wing' tend to refer to political parties - like the UK Tory Party - who are economically and socially conservative. On the other hand, the term 'far right' is usually reserved for political parties who have strong totalitarian and/or racist elements in their ideologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 08:10 AM

I don't think it is surprising that those who find folk music supports their political leanings are more likely to be on the left than on the right (although some far right groups have tried to appropriate folk music to their own ends). That does not prevent people with different views from enjoying the music, and it is not necessary to agree with a song in order to appreciate it. However a concert is not an appropriate place to start a political debate. If people disagree strongly with a song they can walk out.

It is also unsurprising that it is the most extreme views, at both ends of the spectrum, which attract most attention and debate. However on Mudcat I see all shades of opinion expressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 09:03 AM

"Far" and "very" are "synonymous."

This isn't getting us very far at all, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 09:49 AM

Shimrod,
Steve has previously described me as "far right" and has never withdrawn it, so you can be quite certain that in calling me "very right wing" this time, that is what he meant.

Do you think that the criteria he cited prove me to be even "very right wing" Shimrod?

"I don't think that."

I beg to differ.

I know what I think rather better than you do Shimrod!

What exactly is your problem?
What is your issue with me all of a sudden?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 10:14 AM

Of course, then there's extreme right and ultra-right, not to speak of "somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan." We really are now in the realms of making the trains run on time.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 12:27 PM

"Jim to my having mentioned his leftwing views"
No - you did not "mention" them -= you demanded to know what they were - to tally out of context of what was being discussed at the time - somewhat different.
I have no problem being identified as a left-winger - if my support for the Palestinian people or for workers rights, or my opposition to Israeli State Terrorism, or homophobia or Islamophobia - (all expressed and supported on this forum on a regular basis) is being a "left winger" - I'm quite happy to be identified as such - I've never hid my views - I object to any label that may be attached to those views as an alternative to discussion - which all-too-often happens.
"Leftie" - or "bleeding heart leftie" - or do-gooder" is a regular replacement for argument.
Personally - I regard support for a British Prime Minister who befriended a mass-murdering South American dictator and described his actions as "democratic" as right-wing extremism.
In the same way, I regard homophobic terms like the "Gay Plague", or culturally linking all British Pakistanis to underage sex equally right-wing extremist.
However, I would much rather debate on their views than the politics behind them - much more satisfying.
People who express those views are what they are, no matter what label they attach to themselves
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 12:31 PM

There are millions of people living in exile from what is now Israel who have every moral and legal right to return to the homes from which they or their parents were driven, who are Muslim or Christian, and who are excluded from being citizens of the state.

Very much in the way that millions of black South Africans were declared to be citizens of various "native homelands". They were at least allowed to continua to live in the country that denied them citizenship.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 01:27 PM

" I regard homophobic terms like the "Gay Plague"

Jim, you have accused me of using this term several times lately, I am certain that I have not.

I think its about time you apologised.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 01:55 PM

You're very right wing in terms of the Labour party, Keith, probably leftish in terms of the Tory party. Either is I suppose centrist in a wider context. So you're left wing, right wing and centrist. It's all relative, hardly worth going on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:01 PM

has anyone else posted and it not appear ?   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 03:02 PM

well that one did !

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 04:16 PM

Pete, see the thread below.

thread.cfm?threadid=158181&messages=12

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:22 PM

"I know what I think rather better than you do Shimrod!

What exactly is your problem?
What is your issue with me all of a sudden?"

I'm just seeking to clarify some of your posts, KAoH - that hardly qualifies as having an "issue"! When something that you post raises questions in mind, or I don't agree with it, am I supposed to just marvel at your 'great wisdom', assume that your opinions are unassailable and bow my head in reverence?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 05:48 PM

Sorry.

So you're left wing, right wing and centrist. It's all relative, hardly worth going on about.

I do not go on about it Kevin.
Steve does.
I was just repudiating his assertion that I am very right wing.
I am not.
I have never expressed right wing views.
I have none.
My views are mainstream and centre.
He has failed to identify anything I have ever posted that is not.

When something that you post raises questions in mind, or I don't agree with it, am I supposed to just marvel at your 'great wisdom', assume that your opinions are unassailable and bow my head in reverence?

No Shimrod.
Just put to me specifically what you question.
Do not make assertions about what I think!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 08:07 PM

"Jim, you have accused me of using this term several times lately, I am certain that I have not."
You've used it at least once and have constantly refererd to homosexuality being the cause of AIDS
You have constantly presented homosexuality as a personal choice - like a pair of shoes, and have dismissed the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as the rest of us as (at least) an unimportant waste of time and in regard to single-sex marriage as a threat to our way of life.
Yours has been a one-man, long-term homophobic campaign - your homophobia is fully recognised on this forum.
"Keith, probably leftish in terms of the Tory party"
No public Tory figure (or any politician) has made the statements regarding Muslim Culture that Keith has - had they done so, they would have faced dismissal and possible arrest for incitement to race hatred.
Hardly to the left of anywhere!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 08:38 PM

"I am certain that I have not.""
Another of your pearls of wisdom
"if that is possible in today's climate, where we hand our children over to male homosexual foster parents, in some horrific social experiment.
Today, the needs and wants of powerful minorities come before the safety and welfare of our children."
And another
"Seems to me that the male homosexual act allied to the promiscuous lifestyle conducted by many homosexuals could be the trigger for the disease. Normal penetrative hetero-sex is very unlikely to cause internal injury to a woman, but penetrative sex between two men is very likely to, as the anus is not designed to tolerate sexual intercourse or childbirth."
Homophobia in anybody's book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 08:48 PM

The anus is not even designed at all, Jim, to add to his woes. It evolved. One thing we can be reasonably confident about - no anus will ever have to tolerate childbirth. And absolutely definitely not when the sex was between two men.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 09:13 PM

When something that you {i.e., KoAH} post raises questions in mind, or I don't agree with it, am I supposed to just marvel at your 'great wisdom', assume that your opinions are unassailable and bow my head in reverence?

Yes.