Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

News, Banter and anything else non football!!
User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 293
x 371

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by Neville Bartos » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:01 pm

kingclyde wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:44 am
In my humble opinion, a pluralistic system of speech and ideals notwithstanding, it is beholden on each strata of society, in any human activity or interaction, where such strata exist, to exercise discretion and restraint in the means by which the communication of personally held philosophies or standpoints, regardless of their veracity, such that any position deemed as extreme – or at least capable of being deemed so to be – should be maintained solely with the optimum degree of consideration for those not occupying a similar philosophical standpoint, in that any solipsistic ethical notion, whether this seeks to claim representation of the wider majority or a narrowly-defined, or simply a marginal sector of the entirety, should never be utilised such that a sub-set of the wider societal diaspora is placed in a position from which they find the notion of insult or demeaning language or behaviour difficult to either support or allow to co-exist as an idea within the spectrum of what could be considered as acceptable in a mutually co-operative whole.

Ner ner ner ner ner. :D
Even extremists should respect other extremists views?
Doesn't happen, even in Narnia.
What we're seeing here is the rise of the ignorant and intolerant left. That's not to say the ignorant and intolerant right has gone away.
But what you have is a mass of people incapable of understanding bigotry. People who cannot differentiate between personal insult and racism, or homophobia, or transphobia.
And that to me is a dangerous thing.

I mean there are people, admittedly still at low numbers, who believe that a heterosexual man who doesn't want to sleep with trans women is transphobic. Now there's no doubt that that stance is indeed discriminatory, but discriminatory to the point of censure?
Isn't any personal preference, sexual or otherwise, discrimination?
And this is the path we're going down.

Comedy might seem a rather innocuous place to start, but once you start making beliefs sacrosanct it's a slippery slope, irrespective of whether it's the right or the left.

Rip Douglas Pearce.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
kingclyde
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:35 am
x 22
x 44

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by kingclyde » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:05 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:01 pm
kingclyde wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:44 am
In my humble opinion, a pluralistic system of speech and ideals notwithstanding, it is beholden on each strata of society, in any human activity or interaction, where such strata exist, to exercise discretion and restraint in the means by which the communication of personally held philosophies or standpoints, regardless of their veracity, such that any position deemed as extreme – or at least capable of being deemed so to be – should be maintained solely with the optimum degree of consideration for those not occupying a similar philosophical standpoint, in that any solipsistic ethical notion, whether this seeks to claim representation of the wider majority or a narrowly-defined, or simply a marginal sector of the entirety, should never be utilised such that a sub-set of the wider societal diaspora is placed in a position from which they find the notion of insult or demeaning language or behaviour difficult to either support or allow to co-exist as an idea within the spectrum of what could be considered as acceptable in a mutually co-operative whole.

Ner ner ner ner ner. :D
Even extremists should respect other extremists views?
Doesn't happen, even in Narnia.
What we're seeing here is the rise of the ignorant and intolerant left. That's not to say the ignorant and intolerant right has gone away.
But what you have is a mass of people incapable of understanding bigotry. People who cannot differentiate between personal insult and racism, or homophobia, or transphobia.
And that to me is a dangerous thing.

I mean there are people, admittedly still at low numbers, who believe that a heterosexual man who doesn't want to sleep with trans women is transphobic. Now there's no doubt that that stance is indeed discriminatory, but discriminatory to the point of censure?
Isn't any personal preference, sexual or otherwise, discrimination?
And this is the path we're going down.

Comedy might seem a rather innocuous place to start, but once you start making beliefs sacrosanct it's a slippery slope, irrespective of whether it's the right or the left.

Rip Douglas Pearce.
Mate, in my personal opinion, and it is just an opinion, there are two issues as far as I can see.

The first is the use of language. I have no issues with people saying that certain phrases or words are no longer acceptable. That’s been happening for yonks - and rightly so. It’s how we develop as a society. And how language develops. Many of those who cry in their beer about their loss of “free speech” really mean they are simply pissed off that they can no longer call all oriental people “Chinky”, or anyone brown skinned “paki”, and find themselves ostracised for using the N word. Well, just because a white, middle aged man deems a word appropriate and “harmless” has fuck all to do with how it feels to be on the receiving end. And when a member of the majority population, with no experience of racial harassment or prejudice, starts to witter on about how they would not be bothered if they were called “Whitey”, they are missing the point. It’s less of an insult, and no threat, if you are at the top of the pile. So this I have no issue with and support wholeheartedly.

The other issue is the blatant and irritating attempt to virtue signal all the time. It’s getting worse and worse all the time. I used to love The News Quiz on Radio 4. Smart comedians – people with brilliance and wit. Not just men, but to be blunt, mainly men. Don’t know why –male comedians tend to be funnier. Not on an individual basis. Zoe Lyons makes me fucking howl with laughter. Roisin Conaty too. But get twenty comedians together, and the top ten will be predominantly male. Maybe not for ever, but certainly for the moment, I think it is an inescapable fact. And putting poor female comedians on panel shows doesn’t make them funnier. It simply highlights the fact that they are not. So I can’t listen to it now. The maladroit attempts to introduce female comedians is so stupidly and clumsily executed it’s embarrassing. The problem is, on comedy shows, the panellists have to be funny. And many of them just aren’t. Yes, I’m looking at you Shappi Khorsandi. And someone needs to tell Angela Barnes that simply being inappropriately crude and swearing while being female is no funnier than if a bloke did it – i.e. not at all.

I used to listen to Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review. Can’t do it now. Because it has clearly become impossible to interview anyone without grilling them about their attitude to women in the film business and the inequality therein. About the lack of roles for women in fucking superhero films. About the lack of Oscar nominated female directors. It has become impossible to review a film without marking it down if it lacks a “strong female lead” with what they now call, (wait here while I am a little bit sick in my mouth at the thought of this stupid, stupid, stupid word) “agency”.

The problem is we have lost sight of something here. In our rush to be seen to be blind to gender, we have also become blind to the more important issue – talent and natural aptitude. We need to be blind to the former, and hugely protective of the latter.

So control, influence, encourage changes in language. Too right.

Try to force low quality talent on the world simply because of gender? Nope.

Some of the issues you highlight are extreme, and as such, can be ignored. There have always been those at the edges of any debate who wish to be noticed and adopt wildly controversial opinions to that end. They are irrelevant to the wider debate. Just noises off.
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 293
x 371

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by Neville Bartos » Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:59 pm

kingclyde wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Neville Bartos wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:01 pm


Even extremists should respect other extremists views?
Doesn't happen, even in Narnia.
What we're seeing here is the rise of the ignorant and intolerant left. That's not to say the ignorant and intolerant right has gone away.
But what you have is a mass of people incapable of understanding bigotry. People who cannot differentiate between personal insult and racism, or homophobia, or transphobia.
And that to me is a dangerous thing.

I mean there are people, admittedly still at low numbers, who believe that a heterosexual man who doesn't want to sleep with trans women is transphobic. Now there's no doubt that that stance is indeed discriminatory, but discriminatory to the point of censure?
Isn't any personal preference, sexual or otherwise, discrimination?
And this is the path we're going down.

Comedy might seem a rather innocuous place to start, but once you start making beliefs sacrosanct it's a slippery slope, irrespective of whether it's the right or the left.

Rip Douglas Pearce.
Mate, in my personal opinion, and it is just an opinion, there are two issues as far as I can see.

The first is the use of language. I have no issues with people saying that certain phrases or words are no longer acceptable. That’s been happening for yonks - and rightly so. It’s how we develop as a society. And how language develops. Many of those who cry in their beer about their loss of “free speech” really mean they are simply pissed off that they can no longer call all oriental people “Chinky”, or anyone brown skinned “paki”, and find themselves ostracised for using the N word. Well, just because a white, middle aged man deems a word appropriate and “harmless” has fuck all to do with how it feels to be on the receiving end. And when a member of the majority population, with no experience of racial harassment or prejudice, starts to witter on about how they would not be bothered if they were called “Whitey”, they are missing the point. It’s less of an insult, and no threat, if you are at the top of the pile. So this I have no issue with and support wholeheartedly.

The other issue is the blatant and irritating attempt to virtue signal all the time. It’s getting worse and worse all the time. I used to love The News Quiz on Radio 4. Smart comedians – people with brilliance and wit. Not just men, but to be blunt, mainly men. Don’t know why –male comedians tend to be funnier. Not on an individual basis. Zoe Lyons makes me fucking howl with laughter. Roisin Conaty too. But get twenty comedians together, and the top ten will be predominantly male. Maybe not for ever, but certainly for the moment, I think it is an inescapable fact. And putting poor female comedians on panel shows doesn’t make them funnier. It simply highlights the fact that they are not. So I can’t listen to it now. The maladroit attempts to introduce female comedians is so stupidly and clumsily executed it’s embarrassing. The problem is, on comedy shows, the panellists have to be funny. And many of them just aren’t. Yes, I’m looking at you Shappi Khorsandi. And someone needs to tell Angela Barnes that simply being inappropriately crude and swearing while being female is no funnier than if a bloke did it – i.e. not at all.

I used to listen to Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review. Can’t do it now. Because it has clearly become impossible to interview anyone without grilling them about their attitude to women in the film business and the inequality therein. About the lack of roles for women in fucking superhero films. About the lack of Oscar nominated female directors. It has become impossible to review a film without marking it down if it lacks a “strong female lead” with what they now call, (wait here while I am a little bit sick in my mouth at the thought of this stupid, stupid, stupid word) “agency”.

The problem is we have lost sight of something here. In our rush to be seen to be blind to gender, we have also become blind to the more important issue – talent and natural aptitude. We need to be blind to the former, and hugely protective of the latter.

So control, influence, encourage changes in language. Too right.

Try to force low quality talent on the world simply because of gender? Nope.

Some of the issues you highlight are extreme, and as such, can be ignored. There have always been those at the edges of any debate who wish to be noticed and adopt wildly controversial opinions to that end. They are irrelevant to the wider debate. Just noises off.
As always, mate, everything you say is very measured, well thought out and brilliantly communicated.

I do, however, think we are past the point where the words and phrases you mention were (in context) deemed unacceptable.
The Count Dankula court case is a perfect example of where we are at right now. A judge ruled that context was not a mitigating factor when determining whether or not something is hate speech.
Now to me that might be the most illogical thing I've ever heard this side of views on organised religion.
And there are other examples.

Language has become a minefield, simply because there is a section of society who discount things like context, reason, and error.
I think it was Benedict Cumberbatch who used the phrase 'coloured people' and was immediately accused of being a racist. Never mind what he was talking about (context), or that he may have meant to say 'people of colour' (error).
It's just a free for all of condemnation, and desperate apologising and spin control from the man himself.

Amazingly we seem to have reached a point where the language a person uses is more important than the message they intend to convey.

You pointed out the word 'Chinky'. When I was a boy my parents, and I'm sure many others, used that work as shorthand for a Chinese meal -- shall we have a Chinky tonight?
I don't believe there were any racial connotations in that particular context. It was merely descriptive shorthand.
To me using that word to describe an ethnic East Asian person would be racist, but a meal seems less clear cut.

The problem with most of these words is less that they are inherently racist and more that they are habitually used in a racist context.

I do think what you say about perspective is important too. It's a very easy thing to allow emotion and personal experience to influence judgement. Objectivity, or as close as we can get, is often cast aside in favour of the emotive or impassioned argument.
Not of course that; 'I don't mind you being racist, so you shouldn't mind me being racist', is any kind of logical or reasonable argument. It's something an idiot would say.


The second point you raise is interesting. Virtue signalling is everywhere. It's reached the point where you have (usually) young white people spouting racist views about (older often male) white people.
I assume the idea is to distance oneself from negative stereotypes by reinforcing them.

Female comedians being less funny is a tricky one. I think that has more to do with a forced representative equality.
Less women do stand-up ergo your talent pool is a lot shallower, yet, and the BBC is particularly guilty of this, there has to be a balance between male and female.
This is what happens if that balance is ignored...



Even allowing for the subjective nature of humour, and generally speaking, the more people that do something the better the quality at the top end should be.
I'd also suspect men are less likely to identify with a female comedians material.


I can't disagree that as a society we have lost sight of what the goal should be; equality of opportunity, in the self defeating pursuit of equality of outcome.
It makes no sense to me. It's an insidious idea that permeates and corrupts everything.
10 years ago I would've considered myself a feminist, now it appears to have evolved into an extreme ideology.
One where woman's honesty, virtue, and capacity to be the equal of men, in all areas, is something only a misogynist would question.

I think social media has changed extremism.
It's no longer disparate and divided voices plowing a lone, often localalised, furrow. Social media brings these people together and gives them a powerful platform.
The wider debate has shifted. It's now being fought further and further from the centre.
I think we allow that to happen at our own risk. The risk being that our choices at the ballot box drift with that debate.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
21212
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:56 pm
x 1
x 25

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by 21212 » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:20 am

kingclyde wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:05 pm
Neville Bartos wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:01 pm


Even extremists should respect other extremists views?
Doesn't happen, even in Narnia.
What we're seeing here is the rise of the ignorant and intolerant left. That's not to say the ignorant and intolerant right has gone away.
But what you have is a mass of people incapable of understanding bigotry. People who cannot differentiate between personal insult and racism, or homophobia, or transphobia.
And that to me is a dangerous thing.

I mean there are people, admittedly still at low numbers, who believe that a heterosexual man who doesn't want to sleep with trans women is transphobic. Now there's no doubt that that stance is indeed discriminatory, but discriminatory to the point of censure?
Isn't any personal preference, sexual or otherwise, discrimination?
And this is the path we're going down.

Comedy might seem a rather innocuous place to start, but once you start making beliefs sacrosanct it's a slippery slope, irrespective of whether it's the right or the left.

Rip Douglas Pearce.
Mate, in my personal opinion, and it is just an opinion, there are two issues as far as I can see.

The first is the use of language. I have no issues with people saying that certain phrases or words are no longer acceptable. That’s been happening for yonks - and rightly so. It’s how we develop as a society. And how language develops. Many of those who cry in their beer about their loss of “free speech” really mean they are simply pissed off that they can no longer call all oriental people “Chinky”, or anyone brown skinned “paki”, and find themselves ostracised for using the N word. Well, just because a white, middle aged man deems a word appropriate and “harmless” has fuck all to do with how it feels to be on the receiving end. And when a member of the majority population, with no experience of racial harassment or prejudice, starts to witter on about how they would not be bothered if they were called “Whitey”, they are missing the point. It’s less of an insult, and no threat, if you are at the top of the pile. So this I have no issue with and support wholeheartedly.

The other issue is the blatant and irritating attempt to virtue signal all the time. It’s getting worse and worse all the time. I used to love The News Quiz on Radio 4. Smart comedians – people with brilliance and wit. Not just men, but to be blunt, mainly men. Don’t know why –male comedians tend to be funnier. Not on an individual basis. Zoe Lyons makes me fucking howl with laughter. Roisin Conaty too. But get twenty comedians together, and the top ten will be predominantly male. Maybe not for ever, but certainly for the moment, I think it is an inescapable fact. And putting poor female comedians on panel shows doesn’t make them funnier. It simply highlights the fact that they are not. So I can’t listen to it now. The maladroit attempts to introduce female comedians is so stupidly and clumsily executed it’s embarrassing. The problem is, on comedy shows, the panellists have to be funny. And many of them just aren’t. Yes, I’m looking at you Shappi Khorsandi. And someone needs to tell Angela Barnes that simply being inappropriately crude and swearing while being female is no funnier than if a bloke did it – i.e. not at all.

I used to listen to Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review. Can’t do it now. Because it has clearly become impossible to interview anyone without grilling them about their attitude to women in the film business and the inequality therein. About the lack of roles for women in fucking superhero films. About the lack of Oscar nominated female directors. It has become impossible to review a film without marking it down if it lacks a “strong female lead” with what they now call, (wait here while I am a little bit sick in my mouth at the thought of this stupid, stupid, stupid word) “agency”.

The problem is we have lost sight of something here. In our rush to be seen to be blind to gender, we have also become blind to the more important issue – talent and natural aptitude. We need to be blind to the former, and hugely protective of the latter.

So control, influence, encourage changes in language. Too right.

Try to force low quality talent on the world simply because of gender? Nope.

Some of the issues you highlight are extreme, and as such, can be ignored. There have always been those at the edges of any debate who wish to be noticed and adopt wildly controversial opinions to that end. They are irrelevant to the wider debate. Just noises off.

Pickled Onion Monster Munch or Salt and Vinegar Discos?
0 x

User avatar
mkhammer
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 11:12 am
x 174
x 191

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by mkhammer » Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:43 am

Think it's a need to pigeon hole people...to categorise them,your this.. your that.
i.e I Consider myself a Nationalist..I Love this country and want the best for it and its people,
(thats black,white,yellow,green purple...don't give a shit) I'm the least Racist bloke you will meet, but certain people can't/wont separate the two..
Oh your a Nationalist and want tighter controls over immigration...therefore your a goose
stepping fuckin Nazi...no I'm not.

Another example...The Footie Lads alliance thing...."look at that bunch of right wing thugs.."
half the guys in that were Middle of the Road Labour voters......But The Press tell everyone it's
a NF march and everyone believes.....thing is most know it's not,every MP will,but it doesn't
suit their agenda...so the BS Spin gathers momentum.

Free Speech, there has to be limits....we touched on this before,with the Grenfell Fire Party thing,
some people thought it would be accepted as funny and OK,to burn a replica,whilst
laughing at Children/Babies being burnt alive....yeah that's a knicker wetter that one...FFS.

That's not free speech....that's people being Evil C**ts Big difference,Fuckin big difference,
we need to separate the two,and don't let people get away with the...oh its a free country
crap.
It's not a Big Brother thing making these people answerable for their actions,it's called
being a decent citizen ,who wants to live in a decent and respectable country to bring
children up in...not to have to tell them ...it's ok they're just having a laugh it's allowed.

Goes for all these so called comedians as well....taking the piss out of less fortunate
people,cos they want their 15 mins of fame and knock out some more tkts for a gig.
So go for the Shock Value hit..
Politics fair game tho,you should just laugh that off,I'm not a Ludite.... :lol:

But People have to be answerable...there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed..
Who judges that is the hard part..

Political spectrum is all outta kilter now....need something more than just your a
leftie commie....your a right wing facist ....it's ridiculous..trouble is that this is
how some people view politics,they don't/wont take the time to read and understand it.
Understand being the operative word.....disagree on stuff,but understand what the other
person is saying.
I honestly don't know who or what the Labour party are or stand for anymore,thats not
being argumentative, I just don't....Higher taxes to raise money...that seems to be it.
Hoping this breakaway thing works...politics needs a shake up....changed my attitude
completely after this brexit crap.....A Proper Democratic MOR party for people to vote
for would be a great idea.

Me I would have been a Strong Labour/Socialist guy up till prob 70s.....but now we read
more,are better educated,have access to so much more information,and decided on a
System that works best for the working classes is not a socialist based one...
Doesn't mean I go off celebrating Hitlers birthday by the way... :lol:

Who referred to himself as a Socialist....that's one to stir things up these
so called comedians could use...
0 x

User avatar
kingclyde
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:35 am
x 22
x 44

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by kingclyde » Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:52 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:59 pm
Female comedians being less funny is a tricky one. I think that has more to do with a forced representative equality.
Less women do stand-up ergo your talent pool is a lot shallower, yet, and the BBC is particularly guilty of this, there has to be a balance between male and female.
This is what happens if that balance is ignored...
Not sure what you mean there Nev.

Are you saying it is laudable that a panel of funny male comedians is replaced by one of unfunny female comedians for no reason other than it achieves a gender balance?

The list of funny female comedians is lamentably short. Don't get me wrong, here are many female comedians. The issue is whether they are any good.

Whether that is because they have historically not entered that field is a moot point. Saying someone is unfunny but it's not their fault does not improve the quality of a panel show. It just apportions blame.
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 293
x 371

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by Neville Bartos » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:06 pm

kingclyde wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:52 pm
Neville Bartos wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:59 pm
Female comedians being less funny is a tricky one. I think that has more to do with a forced representative equality.
Less women do stand-up ergo your talent pool is a lot shallower, yet, and the BBC is particularly guilty of this, there has to be a balance between male and female.
This is what happens if that balance is ignored...
Not sure what you mean there Nev.

Are you saying it is laudable that a panel of funny male comedians is replaced by one of unfunny female comedians for no reason other than it achieves a gender balance?

The list of funny female comedians is lamentably short. Don't get me wrong, here are many female comedians. The issue is whether they are any good.

Whether that is because they have historically not entered that field is a moot point. Saying someone is unfunny but it's not their fault does not improve the quality of a panel show. It just apportions blame.
No, I'm not saying it's laudable.
What I am saying is that a number factors make this a tricky thing to assess.

I know people who find everyone from Jethro to Josie Long hilarious, but both, and plenty in-between leave me cold.
Are they unfunny? To me, yes. But then again any panel show they might appear on is aimed at a broader audience than just me.

I'd say any comedian who can make a living out of their comedy must be funny, even if I'm inclined to think otherwise.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say a shallower pool mitigates a lack of talent.
What I think it comes back to is the point I made earlier about equality of opportunity Vs equality of outcome.
The latter being forced through without first achieving the former creates a discrepancy in both talent and craft.

In short, given funny/not funny is entirely subjective it's hard to argue on that point alone.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 293
x 371

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by Neville Bartos » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:41 pm

mkhammer wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:43 am
Think it's a need to pigeon hole people...to categorise them,your this.. your that.
i.e I Consider myself a Nationalist..I Love this country and want the best for it and its people,
(thats black,white,yellow,green purple...don't give a shit) I'm the least Racist bloke you will meet, but certain people can't/wont separate the two..
Oh your a Nationalist and want tighter controls over immigration...therefore your a goose
stepping fuckin Nazi...no I'm not.

Another example...The Footie Lads alliance thing...."look at that bunch of right wing thugs.."
half the guys in that were Middle of the Road Labour voters......But The Press tell everyone it's
a NF march and everyone believes.....thing is most know it's not,every MP will,but it doesn't
suit their agenda...so the BS Spin gathers momentum.

Free Speech, there has to be limits....we touched on this before,with the Grenfell Fire Party thing,
some people thought it would be accepted as funny and OK,to burn a replica,whilst
laughing at Children/Babies being burnt alive....yeah that's a knicker wetter that one...FFS.

That's not free speech....that's people being Evil C**ts Big difference,Fuckin big difference,
we need to separate the two,and don't let people get away with the...oh its a free country
crap.
It's not a Big Brother thing making these people answerable for their actions,it's called
being a decent citizen ,who wants to live in a decent and respectable country to bring
children up in...not to have to tell them ...it's ok they're just having a laugh it's allowed.

Goes for all these so called comedians as well....taking the piss out of less fortunate
people,cos they want their 15 mins of fame and knock out some more tkts for a gig.
So go for the Shock Value hit..
Politics fair game tho,you should just laugh that off,I'm not a Ludite.... :lol:

But People have to be answerable...there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed..
Who judges that is the hard part..

Political spectrum is all outta kilter now....need something more than just your a
leftie commie....your a right wing facist ....it's ridiculous..trouble is that this is
how some people view politics,they don't/wont take the time to read and understand it.
Understand being the operative word.....disagree on stuff,but understand what the other
person is saying.
I honestly don't know who or what the Labour party are or stand for anymore,thats not
being argumentative, I just don't....Higher taxes to raise money...that seems to be it.
Hoping this breakaway thing works...politics needs a shake up....changed my attitude
completely after this brexit crap.....A Proper Democratic MOR party for people to vote
for would be a great idea.

Me I would have been a Strong Labour/Socialist guy up till prob 70s.....but now we read
more,are better educated,have access to so much more information,and decided on a
System that works best for the working classes is not a socialist based one...
Doesn't mean I go off celebrating Hitlers birthday by the way... :lol:

Who referred to himself as a Socialist....that's one to stir things up these
so called comedians could use...
You don't strike me as a nationalist, mate.
Nationalism has certain Uber alles connotations that I'd imagine a fair minded chap like yourself wouldn't be seduced by.

Organisations like the FLA and EDL are ALWAYS going to attract troublemakers and extremists. It doesn't matter if 80 or 90% of the participants, or members, of those groups are neither. That is not newsworthy.
That said what do these groups do about ridding themselves of those extreme members?

Free speech already has its limits. There are laws the protect us from all kinds of things people might say or write.
Fortunately bad taste isn't illegal, nor is it evil.
Social media already runs a kangaroo court for the kind of stuff you're talking about. We can only hope that's as far as it goes.

I wouldn't dismiss socialism entirely. I've always thought the best way to run a country is with an ideological pick and mix.
Socialism here, free market there, that should be privatised, this should be nationalised.
Trouble is it's always one or the other.

I wouldn't mind a new centrist party. Maybe one that draws in moderates from both sides.
There's certainly space and appetite for it. Before Nick Clegg scuttled the Lib Dems they were making some real headway, and against far more centrist opposition.

The Hitler socialist thing is a lovely little red herring. After all the East Germans called themselves a democratic republic. A rose by any other name...
1 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
mkhammer
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 11:12 am
x 174
x 191

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by mkhammer » Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:19 pm

Ah it's that definition of a word again aint it.....some People hear Nationalist.....straight away they're
oh..National front...right wing thugs...Nazi salutes...Thanks mainly to our press/media for that,
To Them theres no such thing as a moderate Right Winger...straight away the term "Far right" is
used.
Thats why I used the FLA thing...that was an across board political march,yes there was guys
from groups that we don't want around,but prob 90% plus were just average guys right across
the political spectrum....YET....it is referred to as a Far Right thing....heap of shit,lies,propaganda,
(fuckin hell I've become an anarchist... :lol: )
But makes a great story......Press aren't the least bit interested in a peaceful march....
But Deep down EVERYONE knows that.

I use the proper defined meaning...someone that is proud and supportive of their country,wants
to keep it's sovereignty and be self-governing,to have an identity,to maintain its institutions and
culture.
It's not an extreme view in fact it's very Basic....you can be anything, have any political view,
and still be a"Nationalist".....Don't let people hijack the word for ulterior motives.

Our country by definition is one of tolerance....our Culture is built on immigration,thats fact,
being a Nationalist doesn't make you anti immigration,all it means is you want to protect the
people that are here...irrespective of race or colour,controlled immigration isnt
anti immigration as the press/media like everyone to think.

The Hitler Reference was an example of the Political circle....you keep going in one
direction away from each other and you'll end up meeting each other...
Like some clever Bastard said, can't recall...show me a revolutionary leader,and I'll
show you a Dictator.....
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 293
x 371

Re: Is ultra liberalism the new fascism?

Post by Neville Bartos » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:14 pm

mkhammer wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:19 pm
Ah it's that definition of a word again aint it.....some People hear Nationalist.....straight away they're
oh..National front...right wing thugs...Nazi salutes...Thanks mainly to our press/media for that,
To Them theres no such thing as a moderate Right Winger...straight away the term "Far right" is
used.
Thats why I used the FLA thing...that was an across board political march,yes there was guys
from groups that we don't want around,but prob 90% plus were just average guys right across
the political spectrum....YET....it is referred to as a Far Right thing....heap of shit,lies,propaganda,
(fuckin hell I've become an anarchist... :lol: )
But makes a great story......Press aren't the least bit interested in a peaceful march....
But Deep down EVERYONE knows that.

I use the proper defined meaning...someone that is proud and supportive of their country,wants
to keep it's sovereignty and be self-governing,to have an identity,to maintain its institutions and
culture.
It's not an extreme view in fact it's very Basic....you can be anything, have any political view,
and still be a"Nationalist".....Don't let people hijack the word for ulterior motives.

Our country by definition is one of tolerance....our Culture is built on immigration,thats fact,
being a Nationalist doesn't make you anti immigration,all it means is you want to protect the
people that are here...irrespective of race or colour,controlled immigration isnt
anti immigration as the press/media like everyone to think.

The Hitler Reference was an example of the Political circle....you keep going in one
direction away from each other and you'll end up meeting each other...
Like some clever Bastard said, can't recall...show me a revolutionary leader,and I'll
show you a Dictator.....
Bloody hell, mate, if you don't expect people to jump to the most negative conclusion possible then you're out of step with the world we live in.
The problem is the far right have co-opted and corrupted many of the symbolism of the English nation. At least the Nazi's had the decency to design and use their own flag.

As for definitions? There's no 'proper' definition. Nationalism covers a range of views, everything from national self interest to independence to rabid xenophobia. I'd say it's up to you to define what you mean when you say you're a nationalist, because we know most people will think the worst.

I think that 'history of tolerance' stuff is often misused. Our history, and human history in general, is one of conflict and intolerance.
Yes, most of the time there's an uneasy status quo, but it doesn't take much for it to bubble over.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

Post Reply

Social Media