The Rise of the Centrist

The English 'cult of the gentleman' and its impeccable manners developed because our ancestors drank beer instead of water and carried edged weapons.

If you didn't want to get in a fight to the death over a minor difference of opinion or a misunderstanding, you communicated politely, respected differences of opinion, and wisely agreed to disagree. That pragmatic approach to communication is immediately conducive to constructive dialogue and an ongoing learning process.

I wonder if much of the shrill intolerance that we witness today stems from the fact that the chattering classes and most of the younger generation have never had to tread lightly around dangerous men.

They've never had to deal with the consequences of being a mouthy crunt. Nanny has always been there to save them from the bad man, wipe their arses and tell them they're speshul snowflakes.
 

anglo

LE
Wasn't what you said though was it?

Again wasn't what you said, it's a label is all.

The othering is implicit. Hence my advice to choose your words more carefully.

So why bring colour into it?

Are you sure you weren't bullied for verbosity?

I'm going by what you say, not what you retrospectively say you said. Not hard.
The othering is implicit. Hence my advice to choose your words more carefully.

Are you trying to censor what words can be used in a debate, sounds like it,
You don't like the fact he used the word black
Going by your usual posts, why don't you just call him a racist and have done with it,
 
Wow - you’ve now started multiple arguments with no regard to accuracy or strength of your argument. Looks like you’re gish-galloping…
Looks like you're talking bollocks again.
I used hate crimes as an example of how a neutral view (assaulting people is bad) gets twisted into a “supporting racism” counter argument.

And you proved me right.
You're rewriting what you wrote .Again. For clarity, you specifically used "black" didn't you?
But it was what I said. I criticised the hate crime concept (“it’s the smacking someone that’s the problem”.)
And once again, if the smacking is because someone is black that's part of the problem.
I disagree. At no point have I offered any criticism of black people.
It's implicit as I've already said, once you single out black people that's it.
It is you who have chosen to conflate a dislike of the hate crime concept with an “othering” of black people. Your interpretation, your problem.
You need to choose your words. You specified blacks didn't you? Not hate crime as general concept
I didn’t. I bought the hate crime concept into it.
You brought your reverso cycle and pretended that was your sole intent.
A pointless ad-hom from you. I suspect you chose to do that because you can’t conceding that there could be a non-racist reason for disliking the hate crime concept.
Perhaps you use 10 words when 1 will do?
No, you’re going with what you believe I said.

I’ll assume you’re being a parody today to highlight the behaviours that need challenging if we are to have a reasoned, sensible centrist movement. Well done - you’ve played the destructive twisty twister role very well.
I've always assumed you're a parody account. You're not real surely?
 
I wonder if much of the shrill intolerance that we witness today stems from the fact that the chattering classes and most of the younger generation have never had to tread lightly around dangerous men.
There are now many ways of screaming your particular flavour of intolerance at people, (nigh-on) anonymously, across the world, as soon as it comes into your head.

I don't think "dangerous men" comes into it.
 
The othering is implicit. Hence my advice to choose your words more carefully.
You might want to up your quoting skills.
Are you trying to censor what words can be used in a debate, sounds like it,
You don't like the fact he used the word black
Going by your usual posts, why don't you just call him a racist and have done with it,
I pointed out the fact that he used black. He did didn't he?
 

anglo

LE
You might want to up your quoting skills.

I pointed out the fact that he used black. He did didn't he?
You might want to up your quoting skills.

Why, you understood perfectly

I pointed out the fact that he used black. He did didn't he?

So, what's the problem, with him using the word black
 
You might want to up your quoting skills.

Why, you understood perfectly

I pointed out the fact that he used black. He did didn't he?

So, what's the problem, with him using the word black
Because it looks like you're shouting at clouds and is a bit of an incoherent mess. Probably are mind.
 
CSM's Despair.. said:
'Scuse the SNIP

I wonder if much of the shrill intolerance that we witness today stems from the fact that the chattering classes and most of the younger generation have never had to tread lightly around dangerous men.

Not @Graculus, that's a given.

I don't consider him to be a member of the chattering classes.

Nor the young...
 

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
Some very good points you raise.

I think it goes beyond voting, that's only a small part of it and like I said, I only vote for the ones least likely to make the country worse - I imagine this is true for many?

But sticking with the political argument for now, I actually believe the entire country needs a massive overhaul. People argue PR vs FPTP but that's usually in response to being on the losing side (for example, the argument that only x-amount of the population voted for Brexit therefore it wasn't a majority). But I'd go further than that...

It would involve decentralisation of Westminster. Instead of having an elected MP who's only in town for a few days a month and his/her snout in the Westminster trough for the rest of it - they are based where they represent and live the way the locals live and endure the pain their locals suffer. That way they really would be of the people, by the people, for the people.
Interestingly, a small, democratic 'European' nation that operates this way, with Members of Parliament living in and bound up with the greater population - the man next door - in practise usually has a broadly 50/50 balance between left and right in the vote and Parliament. Close to the centre ground ideal.
Unfortunately it is also deeply mired in corruption with a corruption perception index in the low fifties on a 0 - 100 scale and deteriorating, despite EU membership.
The MPs in general and Government Ministers in particular say the problem they have is being too close to the constituents they live next door to, raises the expectations that they can and will do 'favours' because they 'know' them and are probably some distant cousin.
The culture is debased by an expectation that if an MP refuse to do his neighbour a favour, it can only be because someone else paid for that favour first, or paid more, the concept of an honest politician doesn't really exist even if one is to be found.

It's history took it there and so it has been for a long time, that is not to disagree with your proposal, it is to say that it would have to be a plank in a bridge of many carefully aligned planks to avoid the law of unintended consequences.
 
You have no answer, just minor insults,
have a nice day
It really does look like you're shouting at clouds. If you can't be arsed to make it legible it isn't my issue.
 
Last edited:
Because it looks like you're shouting at clouds and is a bit of an incoherent mess. Probably are mind.

Normally I would not, bother to engage as I tend to scroll past and ignore most of what you write in many threads, much of what you post when i do glance at it is to try and derail a threads purpose. Yet you screech when called on it, that your only pointing out others fact free, untruths, misrepresentations, bigotry, racism, homophobia etc. Need I go on. I also know that trying to ask you to reign it is is pointless.

@Boris_Johnson The above said I am grateful to say, that 'Graculus' is absolutely proving my and a few others contention that 'Centrism' need to be prepared to push back. While trying to just ignore the disingenuous bad actors and their malfunctions as tedious, as is trying not to get drawn into a tiresome bad faith debate.

Sometimes you just telling them to get "---" and then not bothering to engage further. Now I believe that you started this thread in current affairs to try and reduce the trolling etc. but they are using the very rules designed to enable debate to disrupt debate.

I have also to say this is predominately a tactic employed by the malformed left, you rarely if ever see the right using such weak and cowardly tactics. The right tends to call a spade a spade.

edited to eradicate rouge rogue commas and again to eradicate rogue spellinks
 
If you can't understand this,

"You have no answer, just minor insults,
have a nice day "
I was referring to your prior post, as I say, if you're too lazy I can't help.
It's you that has the problem
I don't even know what you're saying. Do you have apoint?
 
Normally I would not, bother to engage as I tend to scroll past and ignore most of what you write in many threads, much of what you post when i do glance at it is to try and derail a threads purpose. Yet you screech when called on it, that your only pointing out others fact free, untruths, misrepresentations, bigotry, racism, homophobia etc. Need I go on. I also know that trying to ask you to reign it is is pointless.
Can you show any screeching?
@Boris_Johnson The above said I am grateful to say, that 'Graculus' is absolutely proving my and a few others contention that 'Centrism' need to be prepared to push back. While trying to just ignore the disingenuous bad actors and their malfunctions as tedious, as is trying not to get drawn into a tiresome bad faith debate.
You don't want anyone to disagree and want your own disingenuous bad actors to be able to say what they want?
Sometimes you just telling them to get "---" and then not bothering to engage further. Now I believe that you started this thread in current affairs to try and reduce the trolling etc. but they are using the very rules designed to enable debate to disrupt debate.

I have also to say this is predominately a tactic employed by the malformed left, you rarely if ever see the right using such weak and cowardly tactics. The right tends to call a spade a spade.
Cowardly? You seem to have a problem with free speech.
edited to eradicate rouge rogue commas and again to eradicate rogue spellinks
I don't generally bother about typos or spooling unless someone else brings it up.

To be clear, my initial post was in response to this:
Take hate crime for example. If you point out that the actual problem isn’t the smacking a black guy whilst insulting him (it’s the smacking anyone that’s the problem) then you get called a racist (and therefore automatically an extremist).
And was to say that not seeing that the colour of a person is relevant if an attack is racially motivated is part of the problem. I've had lots of "yeah but, no buts" in reply but there's nothing which has addressed that. Is there?
 

Latest Threads

Top