Be Excellent To Each Other

I was annoyed at you the other week for celebrating with glee at the apparent end of "benefits culture" which is some straight out of the Daily Mail bullshit and is what prompted that comment. Also you went off at me specifically at the point where I pointed out that the Tories were only very briefly ahead in the polls after they announced a tax break (and all that stupid, populist bullshit about the Human Rights Act). This was what you had predicated your jubilation upon. I then went on to say that it actually looks too close to call at the next election. But, no, anything other than your analysis that it was a dead certainty of Tory victory in the next election could only be the conclusion of someone blind to the facts and definitely not a cool-headed, dispassionate view like yours.

I'm acutely aware that I shouldn't have fallen for your blatant trolling and button-pushing that day (and don't even bother trying to deny it) but there you go, you got a rise out of me. Can't be bothered any more, though. I've seen it too many times before now, trolling people one minute and then calling them "mate" the next, really can't be fucked with it any more.

It's not a peripheral point though, in any proper recovery wages increase and tax receipts increase, and neither are happening in this case. (Or at least, they're so small as to be negligible, and inflation may be low but wage growth is even lower, so in real terms people are getting poorer. And the government's borrowing more because they have to pay so many benefits and tax credits to people who are earning fuck all.)



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nances-tax

Since the media became aware of the concept of 'trolling' the word is now one of the most misused of the human race.

'He disagreed with me and is therefore a blatant troll'.

'He called me a twat and is therefore trolling'.

'Harsher jail terms for trolls'.

I mean, really, it's fucking ridiculous.

On a forum I have always taken it to mean making posts that are primarily intended to get a rise out of people rather than to start or contribute to a debate.

Politics will always get a rise out of people who disagree with the point, whether it's intended or not. If Cavey is indeed a troll then he's putting a fantastic amount of effort in.

Also I totally agree with what EBG said.

I wouldn't characterise him as a troll, like how someone can act like a dickhead without actually being one.

Also how can a word with such a vague definition be "the most misused of the human race"?

This is blatant trolling right here

I sometimes worry that Twitter is creating a nasty atmosphere in politics. Seems everytime someone says or does something, a chorus of disapproval goes up, but in 140 characters you really can't discuss nuanced or complicated issues and instead just react to short excerpts. The general response is a scream of 'we don't like X, ban it!'. So, er, ban Twitter.

Eh; as with any argument or discussion you can present your points in any number of ways and some ways of doing it will just piss people off to the degree that the likelihood of any genuine discussion goes right out the window. There's nothing special or different about political conversations in that regard.

Oh well, that's something at least. I'm taking it.

I don't do Twitter and thus don't really get it, but it's this very aspect that's always made me wonder why it's taken seriously as a forum for anything. It's bizarre ubiquity has meant that everyone has just accepted the character limitation and are now cramming debates into these tiny little text squirts as if it wasn't a fucking insane thing to do. Looking at it from the outside makes all the participants look like delusional mentallists.

...... ANYWAY, tedious troll-calling and character assassination aside, the EU then?

I'm with Kern, basically. Very well put.

On the EU thing, I was impressed by just how many things in asfish' post were spectacularly wrong.

Like the idea that asylum seekers at Calais are all skipping through country after country, just because the UK is a supposed soft touch.

This despite France, Italy, Sweden and Germany all accepting more asylum seekers than the UK.

The laws for non-EU nationals emigrating to the UK are completely under our own government control, and we are actually more harsh and more selective than a lot of other countries. Even the Daily Mail has moved on to worrying about EU immigration instead.

markg is the resident Daily Mail expert; I feel we need his input on this.

I haven't really got the time for this constant moving-of-goalposts and widening/straw manning of the debate (ergo, where precisely did I say this was a *perfect* recovery, in *every single respect* and/or there have been no losers, no shrinking of incomes in real terms etc.

However, you might be interested to note that in Germany, real terms wages shrank for years throughout the 2000s, as they reformed their economy and hitherto ludicrously over unionised, socially democratic labour practices:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... VM20121029



Funny how despite being mocked by your pals within the Labour government at this time ("old fashioned German economy" etc.), they're now the powerhouse of Europe, huh. Do you people EVER stop to consider, less still question why actual stuff actually happens, and/or question your own ideologies and belief systems as a result?

For someone like me, who would become the biggest Communist on the forum within a millisecond, if I actually thought that would work and there was decent empirical evidence to suggest this - it's all just so weird and perplexing. How very odd, a bit like football supporters I suppose.

I think the problem is in the belief that you can, if not win them over, at least talk to a person about the objective aspects of your opinion and have them give some kind of partial, qualified agreement.

You think you're being perfectly reasonable but come up against immovable brick walls that insist you're wrong wrong wrong. You've offered discussion and possible compromise to people who have rigid opinions that logic won't alter. It's easier to call you a far right Tory because that puts you in a handy straw-man box so that their brain doesn't have to stretch against the possibility that it's not quite so simple.

If the GamerGate thread is anything to go by, this forum is filled with such people.

Once again mate, I'm forced to agree.

This is also why I found it impossible to debate with cybernats. They wouldn't give an inch, and if you made even the smallest concession about anything they'd just use it as a rod to beat you with in the ongoing argument. Makes it much easier to simply entrench deeply in your ideology and refuse to talk to anyone that doesn't absolutely agree. Less intellectually valid but so much less frustrating.

Did you know that the incidence of "straw man" has increased a kegiligion since this thread was introduced?

I don't doubt it; perhaps people should stick to what their opponents have actually said and claimed, rather than ascribe a whole bunch of other stuff to them that they never said at all, and then take them to task over it. (Or for that matter, claim that stuff they've posted, either generally or even specifically in response to someone else entirely, was actually intended to "push their buttons" - which is actually quite worrying)

EBG is right; this forum, never far from being stupidly left-leaning as an unfortunate legacy issue, but at least hitherto open to debate - is now pretty much an uber-PC, ultralefty, ultrafeminist, teatime revolutionary echo chamber. If you don't subscribe to such ludicrous views you're a "troll", a trouble maker or whatever; even those with whom I've been able to do business with in the past here are no longer receptive and/or are spouting the same totally uncompromising drivel.

It's sad, but that's people for you I guess. They get inflexible as they get older; views become more entrenched. Most here are now older than I was when the "old man" of WoS in my mid-30s at that time, back in the day.

Well, you're right about one thing... it *is* teatime.

I don't have anyone on my 'foe' list. My psyche is not so fragile that the very sight of a post of someone I disagree with is too much for me to cope with.

Much more robust than the 'fingers-in-ears' defence others seem so proud of.

I agree; I guess it's all part of growing up, and growing a pair.
Boasting that you can't read what someone's posted always seemed somewhat self-defeating to me (and frankly a bit embarrassing).

Things?? You have only quoted one and even then you assume its from the Daily Mail.

I read it here http://calaismigrantsolidarity.wordpress.com/

There are thousands of people there, last time I looked France wasn't sharing its borders with any none EU states aside from Switzerland so I would guess these people have travelled through several places to camp in Calais.

So if they don't want to settle in France and the next landmass in a forward direction is the UK where would you suggest they want to go?

The UK accepted 3000 more asylum seekers in 2013 than Italy did, the rest of your figures are correct. So your not spectacularly wrong just a little wrong.

Ireland?

That's a long time to hide under a lorry but I guess you could get there!

So there was a very small amount of people you could talk to before and now you can't even talk to those people. Why are you still here talking then? And I honestly don't mean that as a rhetorical invitation to leave, I'm left genuinely wondering why? If it's as pointless and miserable an experience as you've been saying for the last few pages of this thread then why would you carry on? Why would anyone? Unless you're some kind of forum masochist.

I've said this before; some of us don't just seek out internet havens where everyone else agrees with you. With no self-congratulatory ego to stroke I can't think of anything more boring. Only speaking for myself there.

Sorry to disappoint, but as EBG says, some of us welcome the chance to have our views challenged, indeed ripped to pieces on occasion. That's what actually helps to fashion those views over time.

Plus, y'know, I like being here, or at least I used to. It's hard to let go of something you've been part of, and people you've known, for 10 years or more.

Except it's not what Cavey said. His post there said "even those with whom I've been able to do business with in the past here are no longer receptive" i.e. there's no one left he can even debate with.

I actually thought that was pretty clear but as there's no way you'd have purposely misrepresented it just so you could post a pile of smug self-congratulatory nonsense yourself I can only assume I somehow didn't explain it very well.

Doesn't that contradict your previous post bemoaning the fact that there's no one left here you can 'do business with'? Both these things can't be true.

Cavey's sentiment is a little more depressing than mine, although I agree - he thought there were people worthy of genuine debate here but over time it has transpired that there probably isn't. There isn't too much value in just flinging unreconcilably opposing views at someone else when neither one will be convinced or moved in either direction.

Fuck sake. I didn't even say there was NO ONE I could 'do business with', your words, not mine (again). I merely had specific individuals in mind who hitherto, in years past, have had reasonably mainstream, moderate views but have now hardened considerably, but I clearly do still have people to debate with, as evidenced by this very thread.

Ok?

Having said that I have plenty of time for at least Kern, Curio and Trooper still. Thoughtful musings on subjects where we probably don't agree are still very valuable.

Heck I even have plenty of time for Hearthly when he's talking about Hearthstone, so context matters too.

Yeah, you really did:



You've answered my question though so thanks!

All EU states take in non-EU migrants. Sweden takes in shitloads. Are you suggesting that whoever borders non-EU states should take them all in? That seems a bit harsh if you're on the edge of the union!

And none of that changes the fact that the UK's stance on non-EU migrants is entirely the UK's own policy and nothing to do with membership of the EU!

Yeah Cavey should deffo start playing Hearthstone

No I'm just saying that in getting to France they must have come through a few other EU states, I'm assuming most of them don't have the money for a plane so walk or drive?

As for the UK none EU migrant policy I don't disagree I didn't really know we are tighter than most (which surprises me given how much millage UKIP gets from saying the opposite)

Back on topic, the opinion of José Barroso that a cap on EU migrants could be illegal is rather disquieting.

I understand we've signed up to a basic principle of free movement, and yet the seeming inability to limit the number of people ingressing to the country for any reason (economic seems the most politically credible) doesn't seem right. If we'd want to limit it for non-EU migrants for a given reason, it seems reasonable to be able to apply that limit to the EU as well. If for some reason we're unhappy with our current arrangements then I'd advise the renegotiation that is promised, rather than unilaterally contravening the current principle.

We can debate the virtues of letting in loads of migrants from anywhere in the world, but to not have direct, local authority over ones borders in the event we do want to impose restrictions strikes me as not good. If the target is 100k and the current rate is 250k, then something is clearly going seriously amiss.

I think you've gone a little mad today (in the nicest possible way).

In the GG thread, pretty much everyone acknowledges and agrees that not everyone in the GG 'movement' is a horrible misogynist person, and says there are people in there who do care about gaming ethics, but have attached themselves to something inherently misogynistic by mistake. That's all that people are saying; that the overall movement is an inherently misogynistic one, not that every single person is misogynistic. Several people have repeatedly said this to you, so I'm not sure why there's even a discussion.

Which brings us to this thread, and politics and the economy.



I agree it's not so simple; Cavey didn't even vote Tory last time round, FFS. But equally the economy is not so simple that one single statistic means that everything is awesome. An economy has hundreds of indicators, many of which differ in importance to different people. Arguing that because growth or GDP is up that means the Tories have done a bang up job is not an empirical fact; it's an opinion based on a statistic. Saying that unemployment has been improved is another opinion, because the overall headline stat is very, very misleading.

In this thread I am saying, and several others are saying, that you cannot take a simplistic look at things like the economy and take a single stat or two and declare everything fantastic. The world is more nuanced than that. And yet people get shouted down in exasperation for it.That, to me, is perplexing. It's like curing a patient of cancer and heralding it a success, even though they've just lost two legs to gangrene and are midway through their third heart attack.

We are potentially in a recovery. In several key macro-economic indicators we're doing well. But this is far from being everything the country needs right now, which is sometimes conceded, but which means that there really shouldn't be much triumphalism around. If GDP goes up but it all falls into the hands of a sole individual, that's not good. Somewhere along the line of one person to all the people there has to be an area that is of more benefit to the country. Now, we can argue literally forever about where to draw that line, but I think the left wing reaction on the forum occurred and occurs because of the way the more right wing arguments are presented, like some kind of fait accompli.

Speaking as someone to the left of Cavey/EBG but to the right of markg, I like hearing from all of you, and would happily buy any/all of you a drink. In short, I'd like both sides to continue to post opinions, as they make me examine my own, and whether or not I've said so at the time, I have taken on board stuff from all of you.

And I bloody well forgot to go to that EU lecture at lunch. FFS!

One last thing on immigration before I go to collect the child:

I actually agree that we need to examine immigration, and that unfettered EU immigration is probably not the best way in the world of doing things. UKIP still talk a fuckload of nonsense, and pretty much all of their stats are completely made up, but it can still be a concern. Where this makes me examine my own beliefs is that it is very easy for me and people like me to put our Guardian hats on (and I say this lovingly; it's my favourite newspaper, even if the comment section is full of nonsense) and say that it's all nasty xenophobes and racists who want to limit immigration, but in reality it isn't (though some of those people are racist, etc, if only via the law of averages).

Why it is easy for people like me to say that is because it really doesn't affect me. If it does then it is generally in a positive way, with cheaper menial services and a nicer selection of stuff in my stupid middle class deli. Immigration is great for me, but not for those working in other jobs. And now the balancing act becomes trying to understand and have sympathy with the working classes without sounding like a completely condescending thundercunt for even saying such a thing. But that's the crux of the problem, IMO.

I want to remain in the EU for stuff like human rights, ease of borders, and massive, seriously fucking enormous business benefits, and for being a leader in the world by being at the forefrotn of a massive trading block rather than being a passenger trying to influence things without getting near a steering wheel (to torture a metaphor). I do think the immigration aspect needs to be looked at though, with sane comment and proper statistics from people who don't have a massive axe to grind. The problem, I suppose, is finding such people.

You must be reading a very different thread to me chap. My multiple posts were aimed at extracting that exact concession (which was not forthcoming), and not even about the GG movement, but rather on the principle of anyone involved or associating with an ideological body that others vehemently disagree with - a meta level above the actual subject matter. The response was merely to tell me I had a lack of knowledge about GamerGate specifically otherwise I'd know that in this instance they were ALL inherently evil and had no excuses. I say again, sheesh.

The forum's two most notorious serial flouncers trying to reassure each other that they are the ones capable of serious chin stroking debate and above those pathetic individuals who would use something like an ignore function. That's a priceless fucking spectacle that is.

Also wrt to my hardening left wing views could anyone give me a single example of what the fuck they are even talking about? Unless maintaining the position that the NHS should remain publicly owned or worrying at all about the trajectory of wealth distribution now makes someone a far left lunatic then I would love to be pointed in the direction of anything I have ever said that would make someone conclude that I'm some sort of communist or even that I love the Labour Party. The only thing I can think is that it's because of how much I despise the current Tory government.

markg has manfully stepped up to the plate here to show that he is indeed an exemplar of careful, considered debate, whose opinion demands respect.

Your ability to read sentences as something completely other that what's actually written is powerfully impressive today.

You're right, it's mental to think anyone was saying anything like that. I'm clearly addled in the head.

Well yeah, you actually are. Because not a single one of the quotes you've pulled out says that anyone thinks that everyone involved is inherently evil. It says precisely what you're ignoring - that the movement had no benign motive whatsoever, and as such everyone involved is either bad, or tacitly condoning their actions, and as such should either accept the condemnation or differentiate themselves ASAP.

Well that was unexpected.

What you're ignoring is that is just your opinion, and there exist plenty of people who believe that the movement has plenty of legitimacy. They don't need to bend to your demands for differentiation because you're personally not satisfied that anyone associating with the hashtag isn't implicitly... evil. Ok, you've got me - you said 'bad' there and not 'evil', but I think 'evil' is a fine characterisation given the level of condemnation expressed throughout the thread.

You're trying desperately hard here to try to make out I've misrepresented the sentiment of the thread, but I haven't.