The 'Have Your Say' Summary Project

[Sheldon Finklestein]

I just object to the idea that I'm not allowed to express scorn for ill-thought out and bigoted viewpoints, just because of a supposed 'right-wing consensus' amongst the working class, who I, as a wishy-washy fascistic liberal communist, obviously hate.

[Felatio Imperative]

In fact, S?S! fucked up big-time by calling you a 'nazi', because it's  fuelled your abnoxious view that anybody left of yourself is a hysterical nazi-name-caller, and you're the one who can 'cut through the shit', when in fact you've offered very little to the debates in terms of ideas, solutions or even data, referring to an extremely dubious right-wing think-tank with extremely dodgy statistics and a very suspicious political agenda.

What, then, is reasonable about the HYS posts made on the previous page? Please don't spare the details, other than a vague resentment towards 'the left', whoever they may be these days.

The migraion debate happened in a different thread. Yes, I was badgered into producing 'evidence' for my position and so I reluctantly offered something I knew would be ridiculed simply because it offered a different point of view. Why is it only those who you disagree with that have a 'dubious political agenda'? I could argue that the Labour Party is made up of closet communists who want to undermine this country and all it stands for. Or that bodies like the CRE are actually making a living from finding often fabricated or exaggerated  racial disharmony in our everyday lives, and so wouldn't for a minute want to see it eradicated.
The posts made in 'Have Your Say' are usually man-on-the-street type opinions. Why should they be held up to ridicule by the likes of you? Why do you assume they are uneducated opinions garnered from reading the tabloids, that are less valid than your own? The gulf is widening between left and right, and you aren't helping to achieve any kind of understanding.

[Still Not George]

FI has a point, however, even if he's not put it well. There is a remarkably large pool of people who genuinely believe this stuff.

Case in point: A friend of mine yesterday posted an extended LJ entry bemoaning the welfare state and all these evil druggies who seem (in her strange world) to be controlling everything and being given anything they want. When I took her to account on some of her more absurd assertions, she pulled out this wonder:

"I have a friend with a 11-year old child living in a caravan in Penparcau. She wants to get a house, but she has to go on a waiting list. Meanwhile a methodone addict and her addicted kid gets fast-tracked straight into a rent-free flat. How is this fair?"

Well, even from her somewhat biased account, you can immediately see the problem. She doesn't seem to understand that some people can genuinely be in need. She doesn't make the immediate leap that others make - "So what you're saying is that the council fast-tracked an ill person with nowhere to live over a well person with somewhere to live? Whoopedoo." As far as she's concerned there are Good People and there are Bad People, and whenever a Bad Person gets something it automatically must mean that a Good Person is missing out.

As if the housing market is that simple. As if anything is that simple.

Herein lies the problem. It's not really a matter of "dumb people on HYS", it's the inexorable rise of the blinkered; perfectly rational people with perfectly irrational worldviews. And these worldviews come from somewhere, do they not?

And that's what scares me. Al Franken said in one of his books (while talking about something entirely different, but bear with me), "The real question here is not why the tone is so unpleasant. The real question is who sets the tone?"

[Sheldon Finklestein]

(In response to FI's previous post) O.K. A man comes up to you in the street and says 'All lions come from Antartica'. Should you:

A) Reply, 'No, actually, the majority come from Africa.'

OR

B) Accept that theirs is a valid and important viewpoint, so helping to heal the a rift of understanding between you. And anyway, who are you to judge whether their opinion is right or wrong?

I simply will not be told to respect arguments that don't deserve it.
(P.S. A set of good points, there, Still Not George)

[Felatio Imperative]

(In response to FI's previous post) O.K. A man comes up to you in the street and says 'All lions come from Antartica'. Should you:

A) Reply, 'No, actually, the majority come from Africa.'

OR

B) Accept that their's is a valid and important viewpoint, so helping to heal the a rift of understanding between you. And anyway, who are you to judge whether their opinion is right or wrong?

I simply will not be told to respect arguments that don't deserve it.

Surely you don't need me to point out that you are talking about established facts, whereas subjects such as the best way to deal with spiralling crime and immigration are a matter of opinion. Quite a lot of people think prison works, in that it keeps those criminals away from society. And statistics show that reoffending rates of early release prisoners are quite high. So why is the 'prison works' opinion, for example, deserving of contempt?

[Sheldon Finklestein]

I was referring less to the difference between established fact and opinion and more to my problems with this idea you have that we should respect any views spewed out on Have Your Say. I don't necessarily disagree with the example you cite. But when I see that someone has bashed out something along the lines of 'bring back the death penalty, then no-one will commit crimes', I want to be able to be as affronted, contemptuous and (as you would have it) sneery about it as possible. Opinions can be wrong. And some snide insinuation of class prejudice doesn't change that.

[Purple Tentacle]

The migraion debate happened in a different thread. Yes, I was badgered into producing 'evidence' for my position and so I reluctantly offered something I knew would be ridiculed simply because it offered a different point of view. Why is it only those who you disagree with that have a 'dubious political agenda'? I could argue that the Labour Party is made up of closet communists who want to undermine this country and all it stands for. Or that bodies like the CRE are actually making a living from finding often fabricated or exaggerated  racial disharmony in our everyday lives, and so wouldn't for a minute want to see it eradicated.
The posts made in 'Have Your Say' are usually man-on-the-street type opinions. Why should they be held up to ridicule by the likes of you? Why do you assume they are uneducated opinions garnered from reading the tabloids, that are less valid than your own? The gulf is widening between left and right, and you aren't helping to achieve any kind of understanding.

Oh look! You're putting literally thousands of words into my mouth!

1) Yes, how awful to be asked to justify your opinions with something more than anecdotal evidence.
2) Believe it or not, I think Stop The War, the Labour party etc. have dubious polititical agendas. However, figures produced by civil servents are more credible than unreferenced figures produced by a self-professed 'right-wing think-tank' called 'Migrant Watch' for fuck's sake.
3) And again with the implications of class war, that the 'lefties' in this thread are sneeeeeeering at the working class. Sneering at the uneducated maybe, but 'uneducated' is not synoymous with 'working class', and if someone ventures an opinion, be it on the internet or in conversation, they should expect it to be countered. Just because something's 'an opinion' doesn't make it in any way valid.

I never mentioned the tabloids, by the way. I think closeted, unthinking intolerence based on spurious evidence is based on ignorance, which the tabloids exploit to sell papers.

Why are you suddenly the poster of compromise when you use such unwieldy terms like 'left and right'? Apart from the question of whether you should compromise with someone who is clearly wrong, we live in a democracy where parties of all persuasions have the right to say what they like, and form their own parties.

The notion that the good honest right-wing man on the street is somehow disenfranchised when not only do they have 90% of the right-wing press to fall back on, but also has the BBC printing their execrable bile without moderation, is absolutely laughable.

[Felatio Imperative]

Oh look! You're putting literally thousands of words into my mouth!

1) Yes, how awful to be asked to justify your opinions with something more than anecdotal evidence.
2) Believe it or not, I think Stop The War, the Labour party etc. have dubious polititical agendas. However, figures produced by civil servents are more credible than unreferenced figures produced by a self-professed 'right-wing think-tank' called 'Migrant Watch' for fuck's sake.
3) And again with the implications of class war, that the 'lefties' in this thread are sneeeeeeering at the working class. Sneering at the uneducated maybe, but 'uneducated' is not synoymous with 'working class', and if someone ventures an opinion, be it on the internet or in conversation, they should expect it to be countered. Just because something's 'an opinion' doesn't make it in any way valid.

I never mentioned the tabloids, by the way. I think closeted, unthinking intolerence based on spurious evidence is based on ignorance, which the tabloids exploit to sell papers.

Why are you suddenly the poster of compromise when you use such unwieldy terms like 'left and right'? Apart from the question of whether you should compromise with someone who is clearly wrong, we live in a democracy where parties of all persuasions have the right to say what they like, and form their own parties.

The notion that the good honest right-wing man on the street is somehow disenfranchised when not only do they have 90% of the right-wing press to fall back on, but also has the BBC printing their execrable bile without moderation, is absolutely laughable.

1) I have no problem with justifying my opinions or backing them up with 'evidence'. I try to do so where possible, but on issues such as immigration, as I explained at the time, no reliable figures exist from which to draw data.
2) The role of the civil service has been undermined by New Labour to such an extent that they are no more reliable than a 'right wing thinktank'. I checked the Migrationwatch website and it states that it is a "voluntary, independant, non political body." Take that with as big a dose of salt as you like, as I will with figures from the 'impartial' civil service.
3) Sneering at the uneducated? But for uneducated, read "has different opinions to me, and so must by definition be ignorant, as I am unquestionably right because I read this book and that book which backs up my opinions." What has grammer and punctuation got to do with it anyway? It just comes across as, well, sneery.
"Just because it's an opinion, doesn't make it valid?" I would strongly disagree. All opinions are valid, expression of which brings debate and hopefully compromise. It is the arrogant dismissal of opinions that is invalid.
You never mentioned tabloids? I apologise. I never mentioned 'working class'.

"I think closeted, unthinking intolerence based on spurious evidence is based on ignorance, which the tabloids exploit to sell papers."

So where is the evidence that suggests children do better if they are all thrown in classes together regardless of ability? Where is the evidence that multiculturalism works? Where is the evidence that being soft on crime makes us a far more civilised country? Where is the evidence that we will financially implode if we withdraw from the EU? It isn't just the tabloids exploiting these 'spurious' cases, it's the controlling government, with the help of their various bodies and leftwing thinktanks.


"The notion that the good honest right-wing man on the street is somehow disenfranchised when not only do they have 90% of the right-wing press to fall back on, but also has the BBC printing their execrable bile without moderation, is absolutely laughable."

I'd suggest that they have 100% of the right wing press to fall back on, as you have 100% of the left wing press. I'm being facetious. Do you really believe that the BBC is right wing? Can you back this up? I typed 'BBC bias' into Google and it seems there is a general perception of left wing bias. Perhaps the right controls Google too?

[Borboski]

The posts made in 'Have Your Say' are usually man-on-the-street type opinions. Why should they be held up to ridicule by the likes of you? Why do you assume they are uneducated opinions garnered from reading the tabloids, that are less valid than your own? The gulf is widening between left and right, and you aren't helping to achieve any kind of understanding.

If you come across a position which is clearly uninformed by any evidence whatsoever then you absolutely should ridicule it.  If you have the opportunity you should try and help that person see how their conclusion isn't based on any real understanding of the facts.  But if not, you should draw this shoddy small-mindedness to others attention.

[Borboski]

All opinions are not valid, and only a silly twat would say such a thing.





Are you Madeleine Bunting?

[Purple Tentacle]

1) I have no problem with justifying my opinions or backing them up with 'evidence'. I try to do so where possible, but on issues such as immigration, as I explained at the time, no reliable figures exist from which to draw data.

So.. what do you base your unpleasent views on immigration on then?

2) The role of the civil service has been undermined by New Labour to such an extent that they are no more reliable than a 'right wing thinktank'. I checked the Migrationwatch website and it states that it is a "voluntary, independant, non political body." Take that with as big a dose of salt as you like, as I will with figures from the 'impartial' civil service.

The civil service get their figures from the Passport Office, Customs and Excise, The Police... unless you're insinuating that they are literally making figures up, what makes them less reliable than MigrantWatch? Where do MigrantWatch get their figures, exactly?

3) Sneering at the uneducated? But for uneducated, read "has different opinions to me, and so must by definition be ignorant, as I am unquestionably right because I read this book and that book which backs up my opinions." What has grammer and punctuation got to do with it anyway? It just comes across as, well, sneery.

Help help! I am literally vomitting words you've stuffed into my mouth. Please stop doing that.

"Just because it's an opinion, doesn't make it valid?" I would strongly disagree. All opinions are valid, expression of which brings debate and hopefully compromise. It is the arrogant dismissal of opinions that is invalid.

An opinion that is based on ignorance is not a valid opinion. I can have a hunch that the Sun orbits the Earth based on gut feeling, that doesn't make it a valid opinion.  In the same way, I can have a hunch that having Polish children in the same class as my children will have an adverse effect of their education.  There is a definite answer to this, and an opinion based on nothing more than a fear and suspicion of outsiders is utterly invalid.

So where is the evidence that suggests children do better if they are all thrown in classes together regardless of ability? Where is the evidence that multiculturalism works? Where is the evidence that being soft on crime makes us a far more civilised country? Where is the evidence that we will financially implode if we withdraw from the EU? It isn't just the tabloids exploiting these 'spurious' cases, it's the controlling government, with the help of their various bodies and leftwing thinktanks.

I, and most people, and the government, agree with setting. (Not streaming).  Children are not simply thrown together and left to fend for themselves in comprehensives. My wife is a teacher, but she's also more left-wing than I am, so maybe she's lying.

"Soft on crime", nice use of tabloidy (and Blairite) terminology. Is rehabilitating criminals being 'soft', or are you talking about the luxurious hotel prisons?  If it's the former, you might as well execute criminals if you have no interest in rehabilitating them and want to send them back into society, and if it's the latter, well, I suggest you spend a couple of weeks at her Maj's pleasure.

I'd suggest that they have 100% of the right wing press to fall back on, as you have 100% of the left wing press. I'm being facetious. Do you really believe that the BBC is right wing? Can you back this up? I typed 'BBC bias' into Google and it seems there is a general perception of left wing bias. Perhaps the right controls Google too?

Hmm, the left-wing press.... The Guardian (wishy-washy crap, no kidding), The Independent (nimmy nimmy environment nim), Channel 4 News and.... who else? Let's forget about the Socialist Worker and Morning Star, don't pretend they're anything more than loony-rags.

However, the right have The Mail, The Express, The Sun, The News of the World, The Telegraph, The Times, ITV News, SKY TELEVISION, The Star.... god I could go on forever.

Don't pretend there's a 50:50 split with the 'left-wing press'... you've got it really good, you should be happy, appreciate it. Your right-wing views hit the homes of the vast majority of the British public every day. Shame you're not doing better.

And as for the BBC being 'left wing', the same BBC that prints unmoderated racist crap on its discussion board every day... well, since its inception both the left AND the right have accussed it of working for the enemy, and the jury's still out. You may be convieniently forgetting Hutton, but the BBC is no friend of the trotskite marxist left-wing government we have at the moment. God knows what you'd prefer in its place.

[Purple Tentacle]

Heh, just for you Fellatio, I took the 'Political Compass' test to determine just how much of a screaming lefty I apparently am.



That surprised me that, I thought I was more right-wing and more libertarian. Apparently I'm closest to Gandhi. Perhaps I should seize control of Up Your Arts.

Link:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

[Mister Cairo]

Sneerity sneerity sneer. "Plebs!" Sneerity sneerity sneer. "Right wing!" Sneerity sneerity sneer. "Can't even spell!" Sneerity sneerity etc, etc, etc....
That should put the uneducated masses back in their boxes for another couple of elections. Righteous pats on the back all round.

Unless you have learning difficulties or are in a rush, I think you should make the effort to contrust a well-ordered argument with good sentence structure, spelling and grammer. No doubt the irony of this post is that I have not done so.

It's worth noting that the BBC can't piss off the Goverment too much, as Tessa Jowell sets the licence fee. I do agree with HYS on one point, that the BBC can't just piss licence fee money away on huge salaries for Ross and co. I find it rather revolting, the idea of Capita bullying people up and down the countries into paying over £100 a year so Ross can be loaded. I do think there should be more control of the licence fee-they've just wasted loads of people's money on new "idents". Why not reuse old ones? Such waste these days.

Don't pretend there's a 50:50 split with the 'left-wing press'... you've got it really good, you should be happy, appreciate it. Your right-wing views hit the homes of the vast majority of the British public every day. Shame you're not doing better.

I don't agree with this. They may hit home with the majority of those who consume the loud tabloids, but I don't believe most British people are bigoted and racist. There haven't been any major race riots for a good five years now, and unlike many countries we don't have a mainstream far-right party. It's easy to overhear a couple of bigots and think everyone is like that.

Anyway, here's some HYS on prisons

I can't believe we are willing to pay £2500 for foreign criminals to voluntarily leave the UK. I guess this is the Human Rights Act tax. This is absolute nonsense, we should withdraw from this stupid treaty and restore some sense to laws.
Ian Baildon, Bradford, United Kingdom

In fact, it was an idea annouced by John Reid last week or so. The sheer racism of Reid's idea "Let's dump these criminals on the country they came from, who cares if crime goes up abroad?" isn't mentioned.

make the punishment fit the crime give criminals
tents on ex tip land with armed gaurds must be
cheaper than more prisons less likely to re offend take lessons from the us
darren, doncaster

Let's put them all on spoil tips!

[The Duck Man]

I do think there should be more control of the licence fee-they've just wasted loads of people's money on new "idents". Why not reuse old ones? Such waste these days.

What, like this one?


Bit old hat. The old ones were getting tired, new ones were needed.

[Catalogue Trousers]

Sooner THIS



than THIS, quite frankly



- I'm with Mister Cairo on this one.

[Catalogue Trousers]

Should armed forces get extra payment? Step forward Thompson from York. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

"Political correctness has been allowed to reduce the esteem in which British troops are held by their country. They are no longer regarded as heros serving from a sense of duty and deserving the gratitude of their nation but more an armed wing of the civil service. Having removed pride and patriotism as motivation, the Goverment must now find other means to recompense servicemen. Tax incentives may help in the short term but more permanent measures will need to be found."

First sentence - ooh, so it's all the fault of PC. Surprising take there from an HYS contributor. Anyway, how exactly are we holding our troops in less esteem? Haven't seen much of that in my part of the World. Contempt for politicos, maybe, but not squaddies.

Second sentence - but they ARE an armed wing of the civil service. And as a low-ranking civil servant trying my best to help out farmers struggling to get payments on their hard-worked land, I resent the implication that somehow being a civil servant can't be equated with "a sense of duty and deserving the gratitude of their nation".

Third sentence: apart from times of war - "Your Country Needs YOU" and all that - show me when any Government has ever seriously deployed "pride and patriotism as motivation" for the armed forces. Although, any worker in any job could claim "pride and patriotism" as valid motivation if they wanted to. It ain't just "our boys" who might consider doing something for the good of the country.

The rest makes a vague sense - I don't envy the armed forces their calling, and given what they may well be ordered to do I don't begrudge them better pay - but the pervasive feeling of "BRITAIN PROUD AND FREE WITH A NO-NONSENSE ARMY AND STUFF THAT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS BOLLOCKS" oozes unpleasantly from just about everything that good old Thompson says.

[Mister Cairo]

I do think there should be more control of the licence fee-they've just wasted loads of people's money on new "idents". Why not reuse old ones? Such waste these days.

What, like this one?
(picture)

Bit old hat. The old ones were getting tired, new ones were needed.

There have been so many idents I'm quite sure we could have stopped making idents five years ago and still had a good selection.

Besides, most people don't really care about the idents as long as they get good quality programming which involves ideas that wouldn't get onto the commercial channels. With a glut of BBC1 reality shows, we're not seeing anything near the BBC's remit.

[Mister Cairo]

Why is the north fatter than the south?

Why this matters I have no idea.

Living in the South of England is like living in Cuba, dictatorship, only thing is Fidel is passionate in what he does and believes itsmfor the good of Cuba, the UK government just want to show they are in control, it gives them power. My son was born here but now lives in Mexico where people are human, he works but lives too, English especially south of England should learn to live not just take commands about everything from microchiping the dustbins stupid, to food, eat what you wantbe normal
Anna Rios, London

Rubbish and the council:

SOME PEOPLE REALLY DO HATE FAMILIES & CHILDREN. There are plenty of people who are totally anti-family these days, which is why I lovingly encourage my children not to have children of their own.
This world's cycle seems to be coming to it's end anyway, so what's the point in bringing children into it to suffer a life that's filled with hate, pain, doom & gloom. I hope my children hare wise enough not to have kids. No kids = no worries.
Denise Kettle, Romford, United Kingdom

"Oops, ive just had another intake of Air, how much has that cost me, and who do I send it to?"
jason gower, Hull/Fareham, United Kingdom.
Please feel free to send your Breathing Tax (with extra VAT) to Mr. G. Brown, 11 Downing Street, Whitehall. I'm sure that he'd be only too happy to receive it.
I have no doubt that we WILL be paying breathing tax one day...
Lynn Harvey, Tyne & Wear, United Kingdom

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I just took that Political Compass Questionnaire and ended up right where PT was, but a little bit more to the centre.

Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

No doubt Felatio imperative will think the study is skewed to a left-wing agenda.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

In fact, S?S! fucked up big-time by calling you a 'nazi'

I didn't. I reminded him that he sourced his opinions from Migration Watch, the same people who the BNP (a fascist organisation) source.

In fact the past week is littered with him attempting to reduce my arguments into me branding him things I'm not branding him with. If I link him to the BNP then it is because he says some of the same things they do, he uses the same source they do to support his opinions.

I'm doing it because he finds the idea of being close to the BNP repugnant, but laughably he supports an amount of what they say.

[Purple Tentacle]

Heh, are you more right-wing than me, Shoulders?  Fascist!


Anyone can agree with parts of what the BNP say. I believe they're against arming the police as a matter of course, so am I. Although their solution is to kick all the trouble-making darkies out of the country.

I just don't think throwing swastikas around in an argument, especially when someone is sabotaging themselves by laughably talking about 'the left' as a unified subversive entity, is particuarly helpful.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's regarding this particular issue though, not gun control. I do find some of his opinions and his methods for justifying them worryingly similar, that's all.

I think the BNP want to bring back free milk for schoolchildren. Boiled from the bones of executed blacks. But still!