Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Rich_cb wrote:
There are some parallels between the language used by Remain supporters in the aftermath of the referendum and the language of Trump but thankfully no attempts at armed insurrection by Lord Adonis and co!“Language of Trump”? Now that’s insulting!
Maybe things would be different if they hadn’t taken our guns…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Wait, what? I thought that was a red acorn?!… including a soviet style hat in your avatar) is at all a problem …Is this clearer?
Previous pic here:
What was Brexit about? For me personally it was about what the EU is.In my opinion, it was a power struggle by the far-right Tories who spotted a way to reduce people’s rights and funnel money towards themselves.
Sounds like an opening to put all sorts of horrible hateful stuff in a user name – would you draw a line anywhere at all?I can’t see how putting a political stance in a username (or by including a soviet style hat in your avatar) is at all a problem as long as it’s not generally offensive (e.g. Nazis).
I do recall someone once made a fake alias of BehindTheBikeSheds (an infamous poster here that veered between being very angry and very insightful) in order to ridicule them by having posts that looked to be from them. I’d consider that abusive behaviour.
Rich_cb wrote:
HarrogateSpa does it all the time and David9694 seems like they’re keen to follow that example. I think harassment is an appropriate description.Certainly having two posters do that must be very annoying.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s basically just harassment.I wouldn’t go that far, as I can only recall a few responses to NOtotheEU, and in this instance it was just a comment that referenced their username.
We’ve established with a little bit of wrinkling that he is indeed consistent with his handle, so and have met the test you describe.Consistent with their username, but not vocal about it and at least one post specifying no desire to get into a big Brexit debate.
I initially thought they could be one of our infamous trolls when I first saw the username, but their posts are interesting and informative at times – definitely not a troll in my opinion.
I don’t think it’s polite to
I don’t think it’s polite to respond to a user based purely on their username unless it’s to make a joke in friendly fashion. I think it’s better to respond to what people have written with the exception of the obvious trolls and I can’t recall NOtotheEU banging their drum about EU politics. Obviously, they are free to post anti-EU opinions which would then be appropriate to respond to, but otherwise it’s unfair.
Just thought i’d throw my oar in as an anti-Brexiter.
Rich_cb wrote:
[quote=Rich_cb]Has that report ever seen the light of day?Guido Fawkes asked about it multiple times but AFAIK it still hasn’t?
https://order-order.com/2021/05/06/exclusive-scott-trust-commissioned-report-into-slavery-links-covered-up-by-guardian/%5B/quote%5D
Can’t find it from a quick search. I’d’ve thought they should have released something by now, especially if there’s no evidence of direct involvement with slavery.
For a while now I have been proposing the definition of rightwing as someone who favours economical or financial interests over the safekeeping of the basis for life on earth.That’s just capitalism, though, not necessarily right-wing although they usually go together. Of course, the far left is typically anti-capitalist.
As I understand it, the right-wing traditionally promotes having different classes amongst society, often with different rules applied to those classes (e.g. a punishment that is fine-based effectively doesn’t exist for the monied classes).
Also, there’s this report
Also, there’s this report into slavery and the Scott Trust: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/17/scott-trust-commissions-research-into-guardian-founders-possible-links-to-slave-trade
Independent researchers have been commissioned by the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian, to look into any historical connections the newspaper may have had to the slave trade.The review will research any links between transatlantic slavery and John Edward Taylor, the journalist who founded the Manchester Guardian in 1821, as well as with his associates, their investments and business activities.
“We have seen no evidence that Taylor was a slave owner, nor involved in any direct way in the slave trade,” the chairman of the Scott Trust, Alex Graham, said in an email to staff on Friday.
“But were such evidence to exist, we would want to be open about it. In any event, we must acknowledge that as cotton and textile merchants, some of Taylor and his funders’ family businesses would almost certainly have traded with cotton plantations that used enslaved labour.”
And for some balance where The Gnarduia got it wrong: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/06/guardian-200-from-slavery-to-blm-the-ups-and-downs-of-200-years-of-guardian-race-reporting
Unsurprisingly for a 200-year-old institution, the Guardian has not always got it right in terms of race coverage. An early article from 1823 regretted the “cruelty and injustice of negro slavery”, but also noted that “amongst all the obvious disadvantages of slave labour, there is none more striking than its tendency to deteriorate the soil”. That set the tone for decades of coverage that often failed to empathise: during the US civil war, the Manchester Guardian was so concerned about the cotton trade that underpinned it that it sided with the slave-owning south.The arrival in the UK of Yemeni seamen after the first world war is marked mainly through the “indignation” felt by dock workers at increased competition for work. Race riots in south Wales in 1919 run under headlines such as “Serious racial riots at Cardiff: Three whites killed. Negroes attack with razors”. (In fact, four were killed, including the Arab seaman Mohammed Abdullah.) Remarkably, 40 years later, headlines about Notting Hill riots similarly focused on the antics of immigrant rioters, and not the more sinister angle of provocative white mobs, though one important article acknowledged the racism faced by Caribbean migrants.
However, Rich_cb is correct that The Gidunara is considered left or at least centre-left and I believe it was always intended to be a left-leaning publication.
Rich_cb wrote:
You might want to look at the environmental costs of communism. Under your system the USSR would have been very right wing.This is another argument against using left/right to categorise political viewpoints. To my mind, the biggest problems with the USSR was authoritarianism and the lack of freedom to criticise the Party.
If our current civilisation is to survive (c.f. fall of Rome) then we’re going to have to come up with other paradigms. Personally, I’d like to see politics modelled on open-source software where individuals are free to contribute and meritocracy is the overriding principle e.g. poorly run projects can be simply forked and then people decide which one becomes more popular – usually the better run ones. I’m not really sure how those principles can be used to run societies though.
Right, you’re the first name on my list! When I’m in charge . . . . . .Okay, then you’ll be the first name on my list for ensuring that your basic human needs are satisfied without infringing your human rights or suffering indignity*.
*there may be some seizure of capital though
Should I be worried? It was confusing and I didn’t really understand the questions!I think it’s everybody else that needs to be worried
I think the questions must be
I think the questions must be toned down a bit. There weren’t any questions about seizing the means of production, peasant revolts, putting debtors into work-houses or shipping immigrants to Rwanda, so they’re just focussing on centrism. Nothing about Universal Basic Income or NHS apart from that question about whether rich people should get better health treatments.