Be Excellent To Each Other

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.

Seriously! Does the word 'or' actually not exist in your lexicon?! It's right there in my post!

Are you for real? You fell through the ice several posts ago with this feeble argument. You're saying there's a giant differentiation between calling someone bad and saying they should accept being called bad if they associate with someone you think is bad?

You're either genuinely trolling here or are a great deal more dimwitted than I thought.

Yes, I totally do. If you willingly ally yourselves with people who carry out horrible acts, then you're either saying you support those acts or you're too stupid to find some other group of people who aren't utter cunts to rally behind. Not a challenging concept.

Are you two fighting over the EU or the Gamergate? I've lost track

There could have been a movement for greater ethical standards in games journalism. GG outright isn't it and never will be.

Sorry, totally cross threading. I blame women in the media.

Read these words slowly so you can fully absorb what I'm saying. I'm not knocking your desire to conflate two different types of people who operate differently under the same banner (although I could), I'm calling you stupid for trying to argue that you think calling one bad because you consider the other one bad is *different* from calling them all bad outright, which is the sentiment you were saying didn't exist in my earlier quotes. You've just contradicted yourself utterly and then tried to bafflingly dig your way out of your own hole.

Seriously, a person could go mad trying to unpick this pinhead-dancing bullshit, but instead I think it's time to call it a day.

I'm not conflating them! They're doing it themselves! I'm telling them to stop it and find something less toxic to rally around.

But you can think people are bad for different reasons, and at different levels.

A workshy benefits cheat, a tax evading millionaire, a rapist, an armed robber, a sexist pig, an internet troll, a murderer, someone who wilfully parks in disabled parking bays, someone who commits genocide.

All these people are bad, and you can distinguish that there are different levels of badness, and hanging out with these people might reflect poorly upon you. If you hang out with a murderer and implicitly condone his actions, then you are bad. Are you as bad as the murderer? No. If you hang out with him but don't know he's a murderer are you bad? Not so much... but if it's widely publicised and the murderer has shown no repentance, and everybody knows it, then yeah, that reflects badly upon you.

Saying that hanging out with a massive truckload of unrepentant, blatant misogynists reflects badly on non-misogynist Gamergaters is hardly a massive stretch. You seem to be saying that you think it is some kind of broad brush "Oh, they're all equally bad" generalisation. It isn't.

And it's not like you wouldn't think less of someone who was a frothing, rabid Cybernat, or who threw tons of money at Stuart Campbell, would you?

Craster said they're either bad, or should be accepting of the equal condemnation by mere association. I'm not broad brushing, he is!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124

Apparently the UK economy is doing well so the EU now want an extra 1.7 Billion

Its like they are on commission or something!

Hopefully Cameron will tell them were to go.

Is this something that's happened routinely in the past and sometimes in our favour and a complete non-story?

Either way, it just reconfirms people's view of the EU as remote and arrogant. Nobody's going to remember stories about regular readjustments of fees, just the demands for more money.

Incidentally, I'm still dubious about incorporating drugs and prostitution into GDP figures, but haven't got round to reading the methodology yet.

Just heard on the radio that Greece has been asked for more. Things have been going well for them recently, after all.

Yes, the demand is just a routine reevaluation and adjustment which all countries have agreed to. Doesn't mean it looks good though.

Thanks for your earlier posts Curio, much appreciated.
I've got a minor op today but will respond substantively on my return.

Cavey

Note that Germany and France are getting rebates, the two countries that milk the most out of the EU.

We should not be paying this, each country has had to get its economy in order via cuts, so if there is spare money it should be spent here.

Sure we signed up to this and may even have benefitted over the years, but Cameron should put his foot down

Hope it goes well.

Russell Brand is fucking absurd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29750948

"HERRR DERRR CHANGE FROM EVIL CORPORATIONS. But... erm, I can't come up with a well-thought out alternative. I'll just honk about the need for non-specific change whenever I'm in front of a camera. Politicians are evil! Yeeeer! "

Is that the same interview where he seemingly comes up with the revolutionary idea of charging businesses something like 20% tax on their profits? May be we could call it a corporation tax or something.

According to Wikipedia he has both AHD and Bipolar. He also has taken just about every class A drug going in the past. Although he is now sober, you never know with people.

That's not a good mix, so I suppose this sort of interview is to be expected. He will also be a good guest to have on TV as its almost certain he will say something that will make headlines of sorts.