THAT letter

Leigh S · 28 July, 2003, 03:28:31 PM

Play the ball and not the man.

I think PVS has summed up my feelings on this. If you dislike the man's opinions, or the way he has expressed them, argue the points - show the guy why he's wrong/misinformed/mad in the head.

If all you do is name call, you aren't likely to change any opinions nor actually involve yourself in any debate that might shift entrenched opinions (on either side). The issue of Asylum and migration is a huge hot potato, and it's easy to avoid controversy or accusations of racism by saying anyone with negative views is evil or influenced by the right wing press.

The Government needs to allay peoples concerns by action and information. The system has to work and be seen to be working, and neither is the case at the moment. My fear is that if they don't, we'll end up with IDS or worse running the country into the ground. Telling people they are ignorant and evil is a sure fire way to get to that unhappy state.

Asylum (the series) didn't address any points about the nature of Asylum - it just had a big fight and a loopy vicar - and it's here I think the letter writer made a point that's not only on the topic of 2000AD, but I think merits more than a swift dismissal. Asylum could have been a classic series if it had shown even a bit of research had gone into it and had made some sensible points about the issue. If it had, maybe it might have made this fellah think about the issue from another angle.

Floyd-the-k · 28 July, 2003, 04:26:25 PM

I thought I did address the actual points raised. The letter conflated econonomic migration and asylum seeking and assumed that the former was bad. I addressed those points. The letter also made or tried to make points about asylum seekers taking money from pensioners. I read that point.
So, because we arent in Stalinist Russia, I cant question your misreading of my posts (ie saying that I and others want to scrap immigration controls)? I wish someone had told me.
You are correct in saying that Asylum wont change any opinions.
anyway,o sweet voice of reason, what are the fears? I havent read any factual ones, either in the posts or in the original letters. How many asylum seekers are there in the UK? How many economic immigrants are there? If they are a problem, why is this the case?
Since nobody has answered any of these questions, the wholediscussion has been about perceptions.

yours non-Stalinistically,

Floyd

Queen Firey-Bou · 28 July, 2003, 04:38:15 PM

name calling? nah your all big poopers.

"The only issues that I object to are of people coming here looking for an easy ride "

well hell, i wouldnt mind going somewhere for an easy ride financially> the problem here is the mess the welfare state is in, where we're all peed off at anyone sitting on arses getting bru money while we work our proverbial fingers blah blah. inequality breeds hatred, poverty breeds hatred. Lets not forget theres plenty indiginous 'scrounging' false benefit claimants, surely the folk from other countries claiming is a drop in the ocean compared to this? i personally don't care where someone comes from, but i don't like people sitting on bums, when theres so much to do, like mebbe dole could be conditional upon doing training courses & voluntry work etc? ( as long as its tailered to peoples skills & not some fashist made-up community work farce )

buts thats all a silly idea as our society is built upon inequality, greed & needing to be amoral to get a decent slice of the pie.

& as for being devils advocate, yup theres 20 ways of seeing any side of an arguement. This subject mirrors the long running battle between 'locals' ( & rich incomers who no-one objects to) and 'travelling folk' in my village. really, both camps have been behaving rather dodgily.
BUT i chose to come down on the travellers side, to balance out the disgusting bigotry & hysteria on the local side. Ive have had a lot of flack from this & lost standing & possibly work. BUt sometimes one has to stand up. Theyve gone now after they were too terrified to stay, Everyone locally from kids to oldies was going on about how they had a good mind to torch the caravans; one night half the shinty team went down to the camp with shinty sticks, one of the traveller mums got her ribs broken trying to protect her home & little uns. However the local ouytcry is that one of these redneck thugs got coshed by the bobby & pepper sprayed. everyone's baying for the police man to be sacked.
This is what happens when zenophobia is tolerated & people are allowed to forget that others are human beings just the same as them.

a sensible rational 2 sided debate cannot be held until this happens, so i choose to plonk myself firmly on the left hand side of the picture.
besides , in our local example, the travellers were definately better company, i feel privilaged to have known them.

longmanshort · 28 July, 2003, 05:06:09 PM

Mmmm, further to PVS's and Floy'd comments, I realised that so much of the debate around asylum seekers (bogus/real) centres around a lack of numbers. The BBC has been running some excellent coverage of the issues (ignore the big Asylum night thing, which was utter shite) on its webiste. Please find below two articles that I found fascinating and illuminating. Hopefully, they will shed some light into the dark corners of this argument...

FAQ about asylum seekers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3087615.stm

'Aren't we just a soft touch'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074129.stm

paulvonscott · 28 July, 2003, 05:18:07 PM

I agree, your two points about Asylum/Immigration and Pensioners would have made a perfectly good response.

As it is, I think I've summed up as well as I can why I find some of the reaction and comments about the letter as bad as the letter itself.

Sorry about the Stalinist joke, it was my light hearted way of saying damning people with vague 'suspicions' can be a serious matter, but that I was trying not to take it seriously.

Paul

Floyd-the-k · 29 July, 2003, 10:42:28 AM

Paul,

thank you for that well-reasoned post. Restores my faith. Your apoligies for the Stalinist joke are accepted.
I guess I`ve said all I have to say on the subject so until my next post. Hoo rooo!

Keane · 22 October, 2003, 01:32:24 AM

'So he's equating a group of genocidal, swastika-saluting Nazis to "anyone to the right of Marx"? Who's being "hysterical" and "reactionary" now, John?'

Er, well, YOU are. You're the one who wrote a story conflating American libertarian conservatism with Nazism, not me!

Plus - what's the 'sic' all about? I was paying you the complement of having created phenomenologically 'subsistent' characters who are quite capable of inferring things themselves.

For the record, I think you're a good editor. Because I (and others) thought your story offensive probably owes more to the intrinsic limits of the comic book form than any malicious intent on your part.

Tiplodocus · 22 October, 2003, 07:51:17 AM

Welcome aboard "the board", Mister Keane.

We have lots of conflicitng view points here.

We welcome them all even if we don't agree with them.

So long as people aren't unnecessarily rude.

Discussion is healthy. This board should be a win/win place to be.

Let's strive to make it so.

(Was that a bit too Devon's Daddy - God bless?)

MOONSHINE · 24 October, 2003, 05:46:33 AM

Apparently immigrants (i do hate to generalise but it halps the point) in this country collectively pay more in taxes than they obtain in benefits. Which means we're actually running at a profit. To me thats the end of the argument.

Life Boat Britian my arse.

MOONSHINE · 24 October, 2003, 05:46:54 AM

Apparently immigrants (i do hate to generalise but it helps the point) in this country collectively pay more in taxes than they obtain in benefits. Which means we're actually running at a profit. To me thats the end of the argument.

Life Boat Britian my arse.

Dudley · 24 October, 2003, 06:13:12 AM

To me thats the end of the argument.

Bet you a fiver?

Jared Katooie · 24 October, 2003, 06:02:32 PM

Technology is the real problem. We should all convert to anarchy! Who's with me?

Andy Diggle · 25 October, 2003, 05:25:44 PM

You're the one who wrote a story conflating American libertarian conservatism with Nazism, not me!

Er, no, I was conflating Nazism with Nazism. Tiger is an American libertarian conservative, and he's the hero who kills the Nazis. See how that works? :)

The only people in the story with plans for "the mass liquidation of humanity" were uniformed, swastika-saluting, white supremacist Nazis. I'd be interested to hear how you can claim that I'm conflating those individuals with "anyone to the right of Marx".

Plus - what's the 'sic' all about?

My understanding was that you wrote "inferring" when you meant "implying". Apologies if that's incorrect.

I was paying you the complement of having created phenomenologically 'subsistent' characters who are quite capable of inferring things themselves.

What does "phenomenologically subsistent" mean? Not being sarky, I genuinely don?t know.

For the record, I think you're a good editor.

Well, I haven't been an editor for almost two years now, but thanks.

Link: http://forums.delphiforums.com/andydiggle/start" target="_blank">The Andy Diggle Forum

Queen Firey-Bou · 25 October, 2003, 08:07:41 PM

ha ha, tsk you know like phenominallogically subsistant , thats subsidies based on a phenomenological interpretation... er yes?

Dudley · 27 October, 2003, 11:17:27 PM

What does "phenomenologically subsistent" mean?

This has been narking me for a couple of days (I hate it when someone's cleverer than me). Anyway I've been doing some digging about on dictionaries & philosophy sites for the last half hour.

Phenomenology - the study of things "as they are". Therefore "phenomenologically", as well as being a hard word to spell, must mean "in a phenomenological manner".
Subsistent - having the essential characteristic qualities of something that exists.

Adding the two together, I'm pretty sure that by saying that the Snow/Tiger characters are phenomenologically subsistent characters who are quite capable of inferring things themselves, he means -

"They are so realistic that the reader believes they have a life, thoughts, and feelings beyond the story we are reading."

(Which means realistic, as far as I can see).

I'd offer a dissenting viewpoint as a deleuzoguattarian deconstructionist interested in the multiplicity and hetereogeneity of desiring flows across the reterritorialised strata of discourse, but I can't be bothered.