 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
|
|
|
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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:51 PM Heheh. |
|
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 - 08:23 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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:
|