TheCat

Some reflections on this thread: So throughout this thread Blah Blah has labelled me some sort of stalking horse for the alt-right, deviously using my sophisticated debating tricks to lull the EDF into a false sense of security. And before you know it?BAM!....you?re all stark raving, immigrant hating nutjobs. I, of course, have attempted to bring the conversation back to the realms of reality and have denied these accusations, claiming that I?m genuinely just a liberal centrist myself, increasingly concerned by the growing intolerance I see from my overwhelmingly left-leaning circle of friends and acquaintances. None of this is meant to suggest that intolerance on the right is not also a problem, of course it is, but for the most part, I view right wing intolerance as easily identifiable and certainly not mainstream. Whereas, I believe left-wing intolerance in quite mainstream in our corporations and institutions (albeit perhaps not in our government). Therefore, its something I think is reasonable to discuss it, as I am concerned about the direction that sections of the left are heading. But of course, Blah Blah is live to my tricks, and knows that the more that I deny my underhanded intentions, the more I just confirm my guilt! Anyway?I?ll let anyone reading this decide which version of TheCat sounds more plausible. But?fortuitously enough, Blah Blah?s characterisation of me has given us a fantastic example of the exact things Im concerned with, regarding intolerance on the left. Let?s use an evidence based approach?. ? I have asked questions about left-wing intolerance ? and according to Blah Blah that simply must make me someone attempting to sanitise alt-right views. Therefore, the things I want to discuss are from ? the fringes?, and should be dismissed out of hand ? He/she also has referenced a number of times my seemingly evil use off ?nuance? ? like that is a bad thing? Because it seems that in the world of the intolerant progressive there is only black and white. Only with me or against me. ?Nuance? is the work of the alt-right apparently and should be warning sign to dismiss someone?s views. ? There has been the attempts to again rubbish my questions, as they are ?unbalanced? - because I am not also questioning all the right wing generated problems in the world (because every thread on the EDF should address every possible issue for the sake of balance). But when specifically challenged on why similar claims for balance were note made on two threads I?ve started which were critical of the current right-wing government we have ? there was typically no response. Blah Blah is seemingly too clever to ?rise to it? and seek to explain or defend his/her own statements. ? Finally, there is of course the obvious point, that he/she has focussed on smearing my motivations/the source of the questions, rather than actually attempting to address the questions themselves. It appears the approach is that if the source is sufficiently discredited, then the questions don't need to be answered. We see this one used constantly by both side of any debate of course - but this thread is a good example. Perhaps Blah Blah has been burned before by interacting with various alt-right/racist nutjob loons, and views any questions as a gateway to extreme views ? so aggressively objects to any questions or discussion on that basis. I come from a genuine position of wanting to discuss this issue. I believe that by refusing the acknowledge the problems the left has in this regard, the left is basically driving away well-intentioned centrists who would naturally be socially progressive, but grow tired of the rigidness of some of the left?s mantras. This then opens the door for our government to feel emboldened to stick Charles Moore and Paul Dacre into key positions at the BBC and Ofcom, respectively (which I find somewhat concerning). Yes?if we look at those potential appointments in isolation, they seem like a ?right-wing created problem?; but I genuinely believe that the only reason why the government can make such moves without large backlash, is because the left are indeed driving people away, and we are seeing a backlash to ?woke-washing? which has occurred across many parts of society. I personally think that?s worthy of discussion. I have started a number of threads on similar ?culture war? issues in recent months, as I believe the EDF would be the perfect place to have those discussions, given that it is largely populated by liberal centrists/left of centre posters who might feel some inclination for self-reflection (there?s no point talking about intolerant progressives on a right-wing chat group?.we know exactly what is going to be said!). It seems though that clearly not all progressives are interested in any form of self-reflection?.or even respectful discussion apparently! As an aside, its really not my style or desire to single someone out the way I have above. But since the poster in questions has repeatedly made accusations on my character and political stance (all of which are untrue), a little bit of retort, I felt, was justified.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope, not rising to it. > HAHA...brilliant. You couldn't make it up. You spend a whole thread p!ssing all over my apparent political stance/motivations, and generally accusing me of attempting some devious, covert, manipulation of political debate - then when asked to defend or explain those accusations - you're 'not rising to it'???

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > a reflection of the political stance of the > poster. In other words, a deliberate exercise in > nuanced bias. I find it hypocritical. > Im intrigued Blah Blah...please educate me as to what my political stance is? you've already claimed multiple times you know my motivations for posting better than I do...so it will be a relief to have you fill in the blanks....

FFS. Have a listen to yourselves DR and Blah Blah... I'm not raising unreasonable topics. And all the two of you can do is wax on about 'right-wing man', 'alt-right', 'Tommie robinson', QAnon'.... This is totally preposterous. I am not hoodwinked by your continued, pathetic attempts at whataboutery. I've openly acknowledged that yes, on this thread I specifically wanted to raise left-wing intolerance...I'm not hiding from that. I don't see what the problem is. But anyway, I'll stop now, as you've successfully managed to 'silence' me and this thread with your ludicrous exaggeration, obfuscation, and strawmen. So job done for you guys. Any criticism of your mantras doesn't see the light of day, and thankfully you've saved the EDF from a massive wave of Qanon cranks and rascist nutjobs. Thank God you guys are here to tell us all what we should be thinking about or discussing. By the way?.isn?t it intriguing that you?ve both been positive contributors on two recent threads I started (blah blah on both and DR on one of them), one asking whether this Government?s leadership can handle dissenting voices to sense check their missteps (/forum/read.php?20,2140935), and another questioning whether Boris is fit to lead the country (/forum/read.php?20,2114560)...... I mean why didn?t you berate me for not asking whether the Opposition can handle dissenting voices? Or asking whether figures on the left are fit to lead the country?!!!!!.....seems strange, as you guys are you?re so keen on balance, right? Oh?maybe it?s because those threads align with your pre-existing worldview, so you?re happy to engage on those topics?but this thread doesn?t, and asks some uncomfortable questions?...so we?ll just label TheCat a trouble maker and highlight his ?devolution? towards being ?racist nutjob?. Quite hilarious really.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of us have spent a lot of time trying to > engage in sensible discussion around these exact > topics with Unclegelen barking the same fringe > tripe and never budging an inch. So spare us the > pompous lecture. Your final line sums it up > exactly. You have no interest in any kind of > sensible discussion around polarised intolerance > on both ends of the spectrum (the only sensible > and genuinely bias free approach to this issue), > you just want to have a go at the left. The > pretence fools no-one and nor do you get to say > who challenges what on your thread. As someone who purports to be liberal', your myopia and close-mindedness is quite astonishing, blah blah. The only pretension here that's fooling no one is your own I'm afraid. I've provided you with ample engagement on this thread to say something (anything?) constructive but you'd prefer to just sit and remain 'above' it all apparently, while at the same time taking pot shots at me personally? (and you have the nerve to call me pompous??....that's a proper laugh my friend) In anycase, I can think of no greater validation of my original concerns than your clear un-willingness to address any criticism, and clear willingness to name call and muckrake when someone asks questions that you don't really like. So for that, I thankyou. Have a pleasant evening...I hope the weather is calm inside your bubble.... PS: just case you're confused. I am NOT uncleglen. So I don't really get why you keep using your objections to his posts as a retort to things I have said. I assume it's becuase you don't want to think critically about what's been said, and prefer to smugly roll out old tropes. I may be wrong, but since you don't want to engage, I guess we'll never know.

"And to you TheCat. You can never bring people on these extremes (of both left and right) in from their irrational extreme thinking. But you already know that didn't you ;)" Sigh. Think what you like Blah Blah, but I'm afraid you're way off base on this one. Why on this green earth would I purposely want to invite outlandish/irrational/hateful views into a discussion such as this? Surely even you can admit that my history on this forum shows I am keen to have a proper discussion, whether you agree with my views or not is a totally separate issue. As you yourself pointed out above - this forum is full of 'liberal centrists'...so if some of those people (yourself included) had of actually had a go at discussing the topic raised (sure maybe a prickly discussion), then the occasional snipe from the fringes wouldn't really be much of a concern now would it? I mean this thread had 4 or 5 people who I would have thought might provide some worthwhile discussion on the actual topic, instead just lament how offensive they find UncleGlen...if instead of doing that, had they actually addressed the topic, then no-one would remember this thread for something that uncle glen said! I refuse to believe that we cant reasonably discuss important cultural/social/political issues without the more extreme views taking over. For example, I would guess that you and I are on slightly different sides of my OP - im sure we could have a (albeit heated) discussion over it (I beleive that was achieved on the BLM/racism thread I started where you were quite active)...but instead we've got a thread of you questioning my choice of topic rather than actually discussing the topic itself!! A shame, I think, that you let fear of random comments from the 'fringes' stifle what could be a reasonable discussion...... If anyone does care to comment and doesn't want to read the OP (seems like this might be a bit too fruity for some!) - in a nutshell - the topic is 'Growing leftwing intolerance and its increasingly pervasive influence on modern society/politics/culture' If you want to discuss another topic, kindly go and find (or create) a thread on that topic....

Uncle, I think it's reasonable that a a lot of people don't like a lot of what Tommie has said. And by suggesting that he's totally reasonable and well-considered, just turns people off. I think one of the issues with much of this debate. Is that too many people focus on WHO is saying something, rather then listening to WHAT is being said (I guess this is unfort in keeping with the 'identiarian' shift in the way society seems to think) So Tommie Robinson and Farage have said many things that many people disagree with. But this of course doesn't mean that EVERYTHING both have said is not worth listening to. Similarly with various divisive leftwing/progressive figures. We see it in this forum constantly. Someone posts a link to an article or video, and the response is something like "seriously, you're relying on what Joe Boggs is saying??" And instant dismissal- so the source is attacked, rather than actually addressing what is being said on its merits (sounds remarkably like the majority of this thread:)!!) To go back to my original post, I referenced Trump (bad) saying liberal (good) things; and I mentioned trans-activisits (good) attempting to silence dissenting views (bad).... And it seems the idea that I would question the 'accepted' goodness or badness of people/groups is seen as trouble-making by people who refuse to judge individual comments objectively....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > seenbeen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Give Cat credit, he does provoke discussion and > doesn't revert to just putting links up. Thanks Malumbu. I would have thought my constant engagement after starting a thread (rather than just starting a provocative thread and p!ssing off) was supportive evidence that I want a two way discussion. But I guess not enough evidence for some.

I agree with all that. And picking up on the 'sunnier disposition' comment.... Regardless of whether you loved him or loathed him prior to his bout of Covid, there is not doubt at all that he is a different man since his illness. As I alluded to in the OP of this thread, I have ongoing reports from people I know that work in Whitehall that cognitively he is toast, and before he may have had the fortitude to push back against these divisive aides, now he doesn't stand a chance. I think the change is most highlighted when former supporters start to turn on him - see the article link below from Toby young in the spectator, admitting he was wrong to back boris. Again...regardless if wether you love or loathe Toby young, he makes some stark observations about boris's demeanor.... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-admit-it-i-was-wrong-to-back-boris Most colourful extract below: "What on earth happened to the freedom-loving, twinkly-eyed, Rabelaisian character I voted for? Oliver Hardy has left the stage, replaced by Oliver Cromwell. His government has even said it wants to lower the speed limit on motorways to 60 mph. Didn?t Boris once say that voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3? Where did that guy go?"

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry TheCat, but I don't think you are intending > for anything of the sort, and on this forum, that > is broadly speaking, liberal centrists fending off > the likes of uncleglen with his Tommy Robinson > book of opinions. Well I've said what I hope for. You believe I'm lying? That's your prerogative. If you honestly think that by even discussing these issues, we'll suddenly all be inundated with nazis and thugs.....then I recommend you stay away from this thread. It has been done to death on the > Brexit threads in fact already. What has brexit got to do with the topics im raising? Nice shoehorn/distraction/whateboutery Odd as well, how > you are targeting left intolerance when the right > are equally guilty of that. Nothing to say about > that? Yes, I am targeting left intolerance. In general, because most people I know are left-leaning, and I am concerned about the direction they are heading with much of the unthinking/intolerant discourse they come out with. Particularly since they would claim to be so tolerant and caring (at least the right wing tw@#s embrace and admit to their intolerance for the most part!). In anycase, if you want to start a thread about right wing intolerance (of which there is indeed plenty)....be my guest....i'll contribute if I have something to say, and I'll try not to interject with various whataboutery like you have on this thread.... It is not the left that are driving the > World towards isolationist populism at the moment > is it? Let's have a conversation about that > instead. About the jingoism of the likes of > Farage, that has emboldened racists and thugs. > Let's talk about the disregard for law and press > and Parliamentary process those populists are > displaying, from Trump to Oban, not to mention > Boris driving to break an international treaty. All fair topics for discussion. As I said, go and start a thread on them if you want to talk about them. As you clearly have nothing of any substance to say on this topic.... 8 posts in for the thread, and all you've done if try and have a pop at me/my motivations/my topics.....what was that about changing the record?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing is everybody these days has an echo > chamber - and the Spectator echo chamber say they > are going to boycott the co-op and subscriptions > increase - I not sure they even shopped there to > start with. Meanwhile the Co-Op is quietly > continuing it's expansion. The strange thing > about spats between people with echo chambers is > both sides seem to benefit as they play to their > own base. Absolutely. And just to reinforce what I said above....my motivation behind starting threads like this is to see if we can get some cross-echo chamber discussion - surely for everyone's mutual benefit?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So now you want to play word salad TheCat, pitting > the sanitisation of the inroads being made by > ideas from the harder right into the mainstream, > while in the same breath, drawing analogies > between trans activism and fascism? You only have > to look at the next post to see what door you are > opening. The only question is, are you doing so > deliberately? Yes, I have a specific interest in what some call 'culture wars'. So I do deliberately ask these questions, as I am interested in broader perspectives. I personally would class myself as a traditional liberal, but am increasingly terrified of the direction we are headed - whereby what used to be 'the left' are becoming progressively (no pun intended) intolerant of any view that is not in total agreement with a certain worldview. I acknowledge that these are very emotive topics, but they are of huge significance, so why should they not be open for discussion? You seem to be suggesting that by asking any questions on these issue, that I must be doing so just to cause trouble? Furthermore, you've gone for the most common tactic of conflating a specific comment with a broader position - you're suggesting that im equating trans-activism with fascism? - when im doing nothing of the sort,a dn its just bad-faith commentary to suggest otherwise. Yes, i've drawn analogies about a specific set of activists methods, who happen to support trans-causes - I disapprove of their methods; and believe that they are trying to stifle debate, and silence views they disagree with. I'll concede that perhaps im being somewhat provocative on this front....but go look up fascism in the dictionary.... If you have something refute the specific instances that I refer to above, then happy to hear your views. If you just want to dismiss me and my comments as the ramblings of some hard-right/gammon/ignorant/regressive, then fine....but if that is the case, thank you for basically reinforcing my broader concerns...

In the context of this article below.... https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/24/trump-is-now-more-progressive-than-the-left/ ...do we need to reassess 'traditional' political terminology? - i.e. Right Wing, Left Wing, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist - in the context of the modern reality we live in.... I think Trump is as odious as the next person....and has said (and done)some horrendous things....but in objectively reading the wording of the comments specifically referenced in the article above, one would surely have to call them 'liberal' views in the traditional understanding of the term.... At the other end of the spectrum, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectator-the-co-op-and-cancel-culture-a-cautionary-tale we have well-meaning/'progressive' Trans-activists, using organised tactics to censor/silence views they disagree with being publically aired. Is that not a core tenent of 'fascism'? in the way we traditionally understand it? So we have a 'Right Wing' Demagogue expressing traditionally 'Liberal' views....and 'Progressive' activists promoting 'fascism'..... Is it what's being said that is being misunderstood? or the labels we ascribe to what is said?

hang on...were they laughing AND joking??!!...shocking. and in raised voices? The monsters. IN all seriousness....I get pushing back on the size of the groups socialising, and people should act more responsibly on this front for sure. But lets not lose all sense of perspective here.....

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fantasy doesn't have to be scientifically accurate > or we'd all have hated 'Back to the Future'. Are you talking about the fact that Marty didn't have Parkinsons's in the future? [too dark?]

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > (my position on SK is that he has largely been > underwhelming, even before covid. The arrival of > Johnson and his open hostility and obvious > maneouvres to deprive Khan of power have given me > some sympathy towards him. And then there is the > obvious point about how he acts as a ligntning rod > for the.....less savoury elements of society. I > don't think anyone who criticises Khan (often with > good reason) should ignore this element. > So yes - he hasn't been great. But he was up > against Zac Goldsmith (no!) and next Shaun Bailey > (no x 2) So....) Red letter day. I happen to agree with all of this Sept, nice summary. It does seem a little like the conservatives aren't even really trying with their candidates the past 2 elections. One could argue they weren't trying with Boris, but that's a whole other discussion!) Perhaps they don't think it's worth the effort, but I would think if they put a higher profile candidate in this time they would be in with a shot.

Clutterqueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting to see the OP's links are not valid or > come to nothing I don't know how 'interesting' it is....(loaded comment?).....but apols, the first link didn't work for some reason......

Has he done a good job for London? I'm not sure myself, so interested in views..... I know the role is more figurehead, than actually has powers to change many things....but we do need to vote soon..... There's an article on the spectator about Sadiq which the link seems to be broken to when I try to post it. But u can search on their site if you want https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/16/sadiq-khan-has-failed-londoners/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sadiq-khan

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk perhaps you misunderstood The Cat's comment: > ?Would it not be better to engage this person? > Attempt to prove how foolish, ill-informed, and > prejudiced these views are...?? > > The Cat (IMO) is making a suggestion. Not telling > anyone to do anything. > So he/she doesn't need a raft of empirical > evidence and catalogue of historical examples just > to qualify themselves to make a suggestion. > That's why I asked you the question I asked. Of course 99% of people would interpret it exactly as you suggest KK. But obviously whenever I post anything PK gets excited, and in PK's haste to label me a 'prat', he/she's just missed the questions marks in the sentence which imply its a suggestion/idea/topic for discussion, and came out looking like a prat him/herself..... Anyway...apols to the OP that this threa has been somewhat hijacked by someone with no real interest in discussing the topic, but just with a desire to have a pop at me.

"Every single prediction made by leavers in 4 years has been a lie, whilst everything remainers said is proving true " sounds reasonable and open minded....but apparently im the one who's arrogant....i have to laugh or i'll cry. I understand you're defending your actions, that's natural, but I stand by my post above...this is not a pleasant or civil debate most of the time, it bullying, cherry picking, trolling, and strawmen (yes, you guys do all those things too). I can (and have) admitted things that are negative about brexit, I can (and have) acknowledged this government's many mistakes in implementing things. But as the quote above shows, some on the 'other side' seem totally incapable of similar...which is why there is no real debate here Seph. More fool me for regularly getting drawn back into it, after I regularly promise myself not to bother.....

Sigh....chalk that up as the 3000th time in the past 4 years when the remain crew on this forum can't gets their head around someone else's perspective, they resort to the trusty old 'troll' label... There's no debate here ja, there's you guys all circle jerking about how self-righteous you are and how stupid people who voted leave are. Occasionally some of us try to engage, but it's really not worth it to be honest as most of you don't want to hear a different view, you just want to hear something that you can mock. So you can smugly sit and reflect on how stupid the other side is....

I think they should have a special emergency number to call if anyone spots a group of 7 pregnant women in a group, each having a half-pint of shandy... ...sounds like the work of organised crime syndicates to me with the amount of laws being broken....

I know that even if a kitchen seems 'oven ready'....it may actually require some adjustment, but only in a 'specific and limited' way.....

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > your original post was poorly worded. > > ?Would it not be better to engage this person? > Attempt to prove how foolish, ill-informed, and > prejudiced these views are...?? > > So I ask you how you do that yourself > > It?s quite simple I do it all the time. Probably 90 percent of it is when I engage with you on here....

your original post was poorly worded. "who have you engaged with and proved that their views were foolish, ill informed and prejudiced?" That reads like you saying those views weren't all of those things. My Apologies for that accusation. I now see that you were trying to have a crack at me in a different way to I first thought. But in your true to form style its still rather pathetic, as I've said in my last post above.