Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mikey

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 February, 2017, 09:25:03 PM
Mikey, I get that you have suffered terrible things in your country. I'm not insensitive to that and in no way wish to belittle, marginalise or ignore the damage done and the lives lost.

My position is that governments of all stripes thrive on such horrors, bend them to their advantage and use them to justify their own existence. Governments cannot exist without violence, either threatened or applied. This is my contention and I have seen no argument to disabuse me of what, to me, is a solid fact.

I didn't exclude governments in my post did I? You have no idea. You'll never see an argument to disabuse you. A solid fact? Is that one of those alternative ones?

Your opinions do not equate to experience. It's not true because you thought it. And while I'm at it, it didn't take me as long to realise  the world was fucked as it did you. Maybe it was something that actually happened rather than what some half wit 'researched' and stuck on a blog.

I was on a bit of a high after the 2000ad 40th bash and had started to spend more time here again, but like an arsehole I had to look here and let myself get wound up again. But to hell with it, eh?
To tell the truth, you can all get screwed.

The Legendary Shark

#12136
I have no idea what your argument is. I said:

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 February, 2017, 05:14:29 PM
Governments love terrorism; it keeps us divided and at one another's throats, gives them an excuse to implement legislation that benefits the status quo and, perhaps most importantly, distracts us from watching what they're up to. Divide and rule. Oldest tactic in the book.

To which you answered:

Quote from: Mikey on 23 February, 2017, 06:02:22 PM

Did you get many bombings and murders round your from the late sixties to late nineties? Or was the bomb yesterday on your street? How about friends and family members killed or injured?

Fuck sake.


To me, that indicates you disagree that governments act in the way I asserted but the way you frame your counter-argument is by way of a woolly fallacy. Now your argument seems to be that because I haven't experienced what you have experienced, my opinion is invalid. Congratulations, however, on realising the world was fucked before I did, I didn't realise it was a competition. I do not, however, believe that the world is fucked. I believe that the world is eminently good and can be made so very much better - chiefly by stripping governments of their violent aspects. What is it, exactly, that I have "no idea" about? I did not say I'd never see an argument to disabuse me of my current opinion, just that I haven't seen one yet - which is an entirely different thing.

It is a solid fact that governments rely on violence. Try not going along with one of their orders and see how far you get before you start getting threatened. That is not an alternative fact, it is an actual, real-world fact. I know, because I've tried it.

And, although I have not experienced actual gunshots or bombs, I have experienced the violence of government and resisted it. My views and opinions come from both research and direct physical experience as, I imagine, do yours. We live in different countries, walk different paths and live different lives. One is no more or less valid than the other and the lessons we each have learned are obviously different. This does not mean that I hate you nor, I believe, does it mean that you hate me.

You disagree with my viewpoint; excellent, great - tell me which parts you disagree with, and why, and let's have a rational discussion from which we both might learn something. To disagree does not mean to hate or to deride or to belittle. Don't get wound up, that doesn't help and it's certainly not what I want to do. I don't want to insult you or wind you up, I want to get my point across in a clear and rational way. That does not mean I expect you to agree with it or are stupid if you disagree. Sure, I freely admit that sometimes I can get a bit carried away and frothy, be emotional and unclear, but then so can we all.

So, to begin again: Governments rely on violence, misdirection and lies and cannot function in their present form without them. If you want to discuss that, then I'm up for it. If you don't, well I can live with that, too. Either way, it's no big deal and certainly not worth getting upset about.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




COMMANDO FORCES

Not since '82 has an incumbent government taken a seat from the opposition in a by-election. Well done Corbyn!

TordelBack

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 24 February, 2017, 02:53:12 AM
Not since '82 has an incumbent government taken a seat from the opposition in a by-election. Well done Corbyn!

Sometimes I doubt his commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Despite having been pretty excited to see the British Labour Party electing a principled leftie (it wouldn't happen here!), I now find myself comparing him to the Warren Clarke character in Sleepers and only half-jokingly wondering if Putin's resurrected KGB has called in its marker.

Professor Bear

That's some mental gymnastics to be doing at nearly 3 in the morning, CF!
Amusing to see pundits trying to paint Copeland as a safe Labour seat when it's been hemorrhaging support for Labour since the Blair years, which you can tell because occasionally someone will mumble something about not blaming Blair or New Labour before they're quietly shooed along by their media handlers.  "We shouldn't blame Tony Blair or the New Labour government?  What an oddly specific thing to say..."

I'm interested in what this means for Ukip, though.  They haven't translated Brexit into any gains, so is there a petition somewhere to finally get them the fuck off the BBC?  I think we can finally call it a day with these single-issue losers and their Hillsborough-hijacking scumbag of a leader.

Old Tankie

They might be "single issue", but they won the single issue. Job done, I'm back in the Tory fold.

Professor Bear

The Tories won the single issue - although they didn't intend to do so, which is reassuring.

Jim_Campbell

#12142
Quote from: Old Tankie on 24 February, 2017, 10:55:13 AM
They might be "single issue", but they won the single issue. Job done, I'm back in the Tory fold.

The 'single issue' on which their official line was to stay in the EU? The referendum they effectively lost?

You're happy to support a party ideologically committed to (and actively carrying out) the destruction of the NHS, on which you rely, and decimating the benefits system, from which you presumably also receive support*, who are now pursuing a Brexit course that will demonstrably make almost everyone poorer (by virtue of the the plummetting pound) and lead to yet more austerity as government receipts fall from contractions to the economy**...

...All to free us from the tyranny of the EU, whose impact on the day-to-day lives of most UK citizens are so tangential as to be non-existent, beyond a significant improvement in workers' rights and substantial economic assistance to some of the poorest areas of the UK.

Not to mention the lack of any of the promised extra money for the NHS or public services, or David Davis' admission that Brexit will make not one jot of difference to immigration, since the UK relies on those immigrants economically.



I've tried. I've really tried, but this makes not a lick of sense to me.

*No judgement implied here. I'm assuming that since you legitimately can't work, you receive some kind of state assistance?

**Remember that the UK financial services sector is almost certain to lose its passporting privileges and contributes 12% of GDP for a start.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Old Tankie

Yes, Jim, I do receive state disability benefits. In fact, from a purely personal point of view, they are my only income (not counting my partner's pensions). Unless my muddled old brain is playing tricks on me, I'm pretty sure that some of the sickness and disability payments cuts were introduced by the last Labour government.

I did not vote to leave the EU because of immigration.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Old Tankie on 24 February, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
I did not vote to leave the EU because of immigration.

Then why did you? Anything more concrete than 'sovereignty', which the Govt's own white paper on triggering Article 50 admits is something that was never an issue, but that some people "felt that it was"?
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Old Tankie

Well, it was an issue for me, and continues to be.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Old Tankie on 24 February, 2017, 12:38:35 PM
Well, it was an issue for me, and continues to be.

That's it? Sovereignty? You're happy to impoverish yourself and almost everyone else in the country* over something which has literally no impact on your day-to-day life...? Surely there must be something more to it than that?

*Plus, you know, the very real possibility of unravelling the Union, and fatally undermining the Good Friday Agreement.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Old Tankie

Well, you asked me and I answered you, maybe we should leave it at that.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Old Tankie on 24 February, 2017, 01:01:02 PM
Well, you asked me and I answered you, maybe we should leave it at that.

I'm not having a go at you, I don't understand. I don't understand what benefits you think we'll be getting that outweigh the risk any of the things I've mentioned, never mind all of them.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Leigh S

For me, the crucial sticking point with trying to make the best of it is NI and to a lesser degree Scotland.  If we want to make ourselves poorer, knock yourself out, we will either realise the stupidity of it and vote the Tories out along the line, or more depressingly not and keep taking the kicking that we really dont need to be giving ourselves (but that was likely to happen anyway). 

Losing the Union though, and reigniting the Troubles? (I know there is more than enough smouldering going on anyway, but)...

But we will be able to have those bendy bananas that we could have had anyway? Is it a political version of the Mid Life crisis?  Feeling trapped in a marriage that is in all reality perfectly functional and overall beneficial, but wanting to be free to walk around in our underpants all day, spend money on that car you always wanted but spent the cash on the wedding and chase after unobtainable women?