OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Andy_Faber]

Is ‘we need to remember’ at all condescending? I don’t think so…just an observation about there being two sides to everything and if you think the ‘left’ are currently less tolerant then you clearly haven’t been following current affairs very closely over recent years.

GP…as I remember it both sides of the example you quote - i.e. the miners and the police - were violent however, without going back forty odd years, I don’t recall anyone on the left trying to set fire to hotels full of migrants and I don’t recall Democrats in the U.S. storming Congress when Biden lost.

Yes it is. I took it as such. It?s one of many such phrases I?ve encountered in industry used as tactics to influence the weak or waving. ?I?m sure we all agree that??, ?of course it?s a given that??, ?the smart moneys on??. You follow it up by making an assumption about my following, and understanding of, current affairs. I was trying to politely offer a different perspective in order to promote debate, please don?t provoke another tiresome to and fro

[ramAnag]

Yes it is. I took it as such. It?s one of many such phrases I?ve encountered in industry used as tactics to influence the weak or waving. ?I?m sure we all agree that??, ?of course it?s a given that??, ?the smart moneys on??. You follow it up by making an assumption about my following, and understanding of, current affairs. I was trying to politely offer a different perspective in order to promote debate, please don?t provoke another tiresome to and fro

Well that’s me told. Apparently the fact that you ‘took it as such’ means that’s how it is. It doesn’t and you thinking it does seems a tad arrogant to me, but I really can’t be bothered with another ‘tiresome to and fro’ - as you put it - either.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Is ‘we need to remember’ at all condescending? I don’t think so…just an observation about there being two sides to everything and if you think the ‘left’ are currently less tolerant then you clearly haven’t been following current affairs very closely over recent years.

GP…as I remember it both sides of the example you quote - i.e. the miners and the police - were violent however, without going back forty odd years, I don’t recall anyone on the left trying to set fire to hotels full of migrants and I don’t recall Democrats in the U.S. storming Congress when Biden lost.

I did respond but seems my response has either been excised or been subject to a technological gaffe

[Andy_Faber]

Agree about the choice of words but it’s the sentiment that matters.

Tbf it’s something you’ve advocated for a while, although personally I find confronting racism and downright prejudice with politeness quite difficult. Of course we need to remember that those on the far right are generally amongst the least tolerant and most aggressive, so it works both ways.

Trying again to promote a constructive discussion, you might like to read about ?The Paradox Of Tolerance?, it?s a subject I?ve researched/discussed a lot (I don?t ?do? politics other than here but I consider this subject theological), my view (in general) being ?you can?t fight intolerance with tolerance? but I?ve spent a lot of time listening to the opposing view

[ramAnag]

Trying again to promote a constructive discussion, you might like to read about ?The Paradox Of Tolerance?, it?s a subject I?ve researched/discussed a lot (I don?t ?do? politics other than here but I consider this subject theological), my view (in general) being ?you can?t fight intolerance with tolerance? but I?ve spent a lot of time listening to the opposing view

Well if you really want a ‘constructive discussion’ rather than just being a bit rude then fair enough.

So, your view is ‘you can’t fight intolerance with tolerance’. It’s a view I’m inclined to agree with although I’m a little surprised you share it (that’s not a criticism).
Either way it’s a view that, interestingly perhaps, seems to be the opposite of the new AVAAZ approach I mentioned, which appears to condone attempts at understanding - if not tolerance - in preference to out and out condemnation.

[Andy_Faber]

Well if you really want a ‘constructive discussion’ rather than just being a bit rude then fair enough.

So, your view is ‘you can’t fight intolerance with tolerance’. It’s a view I’m inclined to agree with although I’m a little surprised you share it (that’s not a criticism).
Either way it’s a view that, interestingly perhaps, seems to be the opposite of the new AVAAZ approach I mentioned, which appears to condone attempts at understanding - if not tolerance - in preference to out and out condemnation.

I?m all for trying to understand, I used the phrase ?sit in the other fellahs chair? a lot at work, BUT there comes a time when it becomes clear that a behaviour or action is part of the DNA of a person or group and if you?ve tried to accommodate/ live with/ excuse etc that behaviour repeatedly and just received more of the same, then a more combative/ less tolerant approach is IMO essential. ?The West? failed miserably with Hitler, and didn?t learn its lesson in time for Putin to reinstate a mini-Soviet Union, I can offer other current examples big and small. Not sure why you?re surprised that this is my view?

[ramAnag]

I?m all for trying to understand, I used the phrase ?sit in the other fellahs chair? a lot at work, BUT there comes a time when it becomes clear that a behaviour or action is part of the DNA of a person or group and if you?ve tried to accommodate/ live with/ excuse etc that behaviour repeatedly and just received more of the same, then a more combative/ less tolerant approach is IMO essential. ?The West? failed miserably with Hitler, and didn?t learn its lesson in time for Putin to reinstate a mini-Soviet Union, I can offer other current examples big and small. Not sure why you?re surprised that this is my view?

Seeing as you’ve asked, let’s just say - without wishing to reopen old wounds - that, within the context of this forum, your regular reaction to the repetitive actions you speak of has been far from ‘combative’, rather one of failure to act, selectivity and appeasement.

[MadAmster]

Why is it that the press and right wing socials appear to be convinced Starmer has "given more fishing rights away"?

I've not seen any of them quote a source.

[Andy_Faber]

Seeing as you’ve asked, let’s just say - without wishing to reopen old wounds - that, within the context of this forum, your regular reaction to the repetitive actions you speak of has been far from ‘combative’, rather one of failure to act, selectivity and appeasement.

Sorry you?ve lost me

[ramAnag]

Sorry you?ve lost me

Fair enough. Possibly too difficult to explain to you without reigniting previous fall outs which I have no wish to do.
Suffice it to say that, in the tiny world of this forum, your levels of tolerance as a moderator are, imo, extremely selective.

[Andy_Faber]

Fair enough. Possibly too difficult to explain to you without reigniting previous fall outs which I have no wish to do.
Suffice it to say that, in the tiny world of this forum, your levels of tolerance as a moderator are, imo, extremely selective.

No sorry still lost, not sure what that?s got to do with my genuine attempt at discussion

[swaledale]

I'll forgive you the condescending nature of 'we need to remember', but whilst I'd agree based on very flimsy evidence that 'the right' might be more violent, I'd disagree with the tolerance bit, from what I can see 'the left' are currently far less tolerant, and I think that stems from the gradual reversal of / pushback against, things having gone 'their way' for half a century. I prefer 'liberal' to 'left' in this context

Your use of the word Liberal is crucial, here, though of course even that term is subject to interpretation. Because I see no evidence that the "left" have had things gone their way for half a century! Given that attitudes and political allegiances seem to ahve veered ever more towards the right in the last 3 decades.

But of course I forget as someone who considers their views not to be right of centre, I guess its inevitable you will consider that left or liberal views have dominated.

I'm intrigued, I know its considered natural for the average person as they get older to become more small c conservative and for their political views to be more right wing. But given your statements on matters as in the above post of yours it seems you are following this trend. But what exactly are the things that have gone in favour of the "Liberals"?

[swaledale]

Apologies, I just re read my post and it reads a bit sarcastic. not intended as such.

He's a bully, and we've had that discussion already. Very annoying when he's bullying the wrong way (IMO Ukraine for instance), leaves a bad taste in the mouth even when bullying the right way (IMO DEI, DOGE, returning (the correct) illegals). BUT there's still tremendous pushback to his antics, you wouldn't get that in China, NK, Iran for instance. He's dictating but IMO not a dictator. Maybe thats a nuance

So you think there is a "right way" to bully? Surely even you, who claims not to have right wing views do not think that?

Oh no you do, because it seems Diversity Equality and Inclusion is also a fair target, whilst summarily dismissing people from jobs and destroying government departments is acceptable to you? Whilst control of immigration isn't right wing, deporting people without due process certainly is.

In fact its a common right wing trope to claim that it would be much better if the inconveniences of law and basic humanity were dispensed with!

But you famously claiming not to hold right wing views, seem to be indicating that removing equal opportunities, an unelected billionaire destroying government departments and sacking people and the illegal deportation of people, doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth.

As I've said before, there were people who claimed that Hitler did some good things, I mean yes he killed millions but he did get good auto bahn's built!

[ramAnag]

No sorry still lost, not sure what that?s got to do with my genuine attempt at discussion

Okay, you’ve clearly got your hands full with Swale and I’ve got more important things to concentrate on. As I said, too difficult to explain without returning to previous disagreements, so I’ll leave it there.

[Andy_Faber]

Okay, you’ve clearly got your hands full with Swale and I’ve got more important things to concentrate on. As I said, too difficult to explain without returning to previous disagreements, so I’ll leave it there.

I have nothing in my hands. But I?m not surprised you?ve opted out of the discussion, although as youve claimed victory when I?ve withdrawn in the past I guess I should do the same.