O/T When did the right wingers....

[ragingpup]

Jordan Peterson says it more articulately than I can:

"We're making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression. I think it will bring down our civilization if we pursue it. We shouldn't be playing that game. So what is the alternative?"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...left_wins.html

I think I can agree with the general thrust of what Peterson is saying: that if any group makes their collective race, ***ual identity the most important thing about you, it is not a good thing.

But it's a question of extents isn't it? And reactions from people not of their political identity.

On a basic level, is it a good thing for people who identify themselves in whatever group of people - let's say "Women" - to express their protest at what they perceive to be unfair/unequal treatment compared to other people in society. For example, the they should ask that they receive equal pay for doing the same job as a man?

Would you say that this is a fair and reasonable thing for "women" to ask for? And receive? Yes/no?

Moving on, and focusing on the movie that fundamental Christian movie Stardson posted about: it's on a very contentious theme about a form of 'therapy' that, objectively speaking, has been shown in some studies to cause harm to some people and has been banned in some countries. I've already stated that I am not against censor of this movie, so let's not go down that route - but does anyone who finds it offensive have a right to write to the cinema and advise them that they will withdraw their custom if they show it? Again, Yes/No?

And now further, do any of these protesters have a right to, if the film gets the go ahead and is shown, to gather at the door with placards (should they get rushed permission from the authorities to do so!) and stand peacefully, with placards summarising their opposition to the film? Yes/no?

Further still - do these same protesters have a right to verbally abuse anyone who wants to go and see the film? Or push/kick them? Or damage the cinema? Yes/no?


I think the exact same questions can be asked about any 'identity' group - I would argue that the vast majority of any such group are peaceful, rational, normal people who are aware of their identity, their particular cultural differences and where these differences are discriminated against by wider society, either just accept it (as the majority of us lazy people do - to much other stuff to do!) or at most, write letters/tweets etc expressing their feelings and occasionally, if they feel strong enough, form an action group for protests that are, from the VAST majority of such people, peaceful. This isn't something that I engage with but, as long as they keep their expressions peaceful and lawful, surely we can agree that they have a right to do so? Yes/No?

But to talk of Stalin? Mao? Mass murder?? The whole point of me posting this (for me) one off thread was to provoke thought about what I think are huge, hysterical over reactions to normal, peaceful people some of whom are engaging in peaceful arguments for what they believe in that, crucially, cause no harm to any other person.

Of course you get isolated d*ckheads in every 'movement' that take it too far (the Mogg protesters on the left, the race hate criminals on the right) but for the most part it's just the ebb and flow of society and personally I rather weary of your relentless hysteria on the matter. Hence this thread. You gret jessie!

[animallittle3]

We live in challenging times to say the least .

Mandela when he was released from prison and his approach to uniting SA was something we can all learn from , myself included .

Should be the blueprint for us all .

[WanChaiMiller]

Its 50 60 70 year old working class wannebe Thatcherites that whinge most.

They were sold the dream in the 80s they would find untold wealth if they bought their council house, went private on their pension and bought BT shares (a euphemism for privatisation).

The reality is very different. They havent got enough pension so need to work till 70, the majority of council houses are in the hand of private landlords and utility bills are sky high. Neoliberlism mean their kids cant get the 'job for life' luxury of previous generations or cant get on the housing ladder.

They must blame someone. So its immigrants (blaming Labour when the truth is its Tory industrialist that want cheap labour) and the EU (blaming Labour, forgetting it was Thatcher and the Tories that took us into the single market and closer union in the first place).

Their whinge forgets it was them that, by voting Thatcher, created the situation they imagine as being problems today.

[great_fire]

Its 50 60 70 year old working class wannebe Thatcherites that whinge most.

They were sold the dream in the 80s they would find untold wealth if they bought their council house, went private on their pension and bought BT shares (a euphemism for privatisation).

The reality is very different. They havent got enough pension so need to work till 70, the majority of council houses are in the hand of private landlords and utility bills are sky high. Neoliberlism mean their kids cant get the 'job for life' luxury of previous generations or cant get on the housing ladder.

They must blame someone. So its immigrants (blaming Labour when the truth is its Tory industrialist that want cheap labour) and the EU (blaming Labour, forgetting it was Thatcher and the Tories that took us into the single market and closer union in the first place).

Their whinge forgets it was them that, by voting Thatcher, created the situation they imagine as being problems today.

We joined the EEC in 1973.

Thatcher became Tory leader in 1975.

So how did she take us into the single market?

It was that liar Heath who told us it was just a customs union we were entering, but he knew what the final destination was.

[KerrAvon]

Its 50 60 70 year old working class wannebe Thatcherites that whinge most.

They were sold the dream in the 80s they would find untold wealth if they bought their council house, went private on their pension and bought BT shares (a euphemism for privatisation).

The reality is very different. They havent got enough pension so need to work till 70, the majority of council houses are in the hand of private landlords and utility bills are sky high. Neoliberlism mean their kids cant get the 'job for life' luxury of previous generations or cant get on the housing ladder.

They must blame someone. So its immigrants (blaming Labour when the truth is its Tory industrialist that want cheap labour) and the EU (blaming Labour, forgetting it was Thatcher and the Tories that took us into the single market and closer union in the first place).

Their whinge forgets it was them that, by voting Thatcher, created the situation they imagine as being problems today.

I can't agree with your view of history.

It was the unions that put Thatcher into power and kept her there.

The 70s were marked by an inflationary spiral that was driven by unreasonable and unsustainable wage demands by the unions. When Heath took on the NUM and went to the country on the question of 'who rules the country' the electorate decided to give Labour and their union paymasters a narrow victory. Labour promptly caved into the NUM and other unions so feeding the inflationary spiral that was destroying the value of savings and rendering British industry hopelessly uncompetitive. It also stored up ‘real wage unemployment’ in the economy.

Labour demonstrated its usual fiscal incontinence to the point where the country was close to bankrupt by 1976, when the government was forced to go cap in hand to the IMF for what was the biggest loan ever given to a country by that body.

In return for the IMF loan, the British government was required to exercise restraint in its spending. The spending cuts that followed caused it to have to take an unusual step for Labour, which was to stand up to the unions, leading to the ‘winter of discontent’ and the decision by the electorate in 1979 to put Thatcher in power.

In the 1983 election, the electorate were faced with either voting for a Thatcher government that they didn't particularly like or a Foot led Labour Party that seemed keen to return to the inflationary policies of the 70s. The Tories were also helped by the Falklands effect and for the distaste of many for the unilateral nuclear disarmament policies of Foot and gained a substantially increased majority.

In 1984/5, Thatcher fought and won the inevitable decisive confrontation with the unions in the form of the NUM and was rewarded with another three figure majority in 1987.

Thereafter, the Tories ran out of puff and begin a slow decline that still took until 1979 to end in defeat by a rejuvenated Labour Party under Blair.

It is nonsense to suggest that anyone was promised untold wealth should they purchase their council house. People were given the opportunity to own their own property rather than rent from a council. They did it in droves not for untold wealth, but out of personal aspiration.

I'm not sure what you mean by going 'private on their pensions'. Anyone in a company or government pension who decided to give it up should have taken advice and thought it through. I was employed in the 80s and it never occurred to me to get out of the schemes that went with that and nobody sought to persuade me to do so or offered untold wealth if I did.

Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing. I'd be surprised if there was anyone who didn't understand that they were doing so as a part of a privatisation.

The reality is that standards of living moved on rapidly after the Tories stabilised and reinvigorated the economy. Foreign holidays and two car families were the preserve of the privileged when Labour left power. Now they are well within the reach of the majority of people. Some pensions – private and otherwise- have failed to deliver what they were expected to, but the majority of people in their 50s and above will enjoy a level of provision that was undreamed of by previous generations and will be sitting on a substantial asset in the form of the value of their homes. If people subsequently sold their homes to private landlords then that was their choice. The houses they sold still exist. Jobs for life are indeed a thing of the past for some, but is that a bad thing? I have chosen to make significant changes to my work on three occasions and am in the process of seeking to do so for a fourth time. I've done it out of personal choice and an aspiration to improve my lot. Utility bills have risen but how much more or less would they have done without competition and the drive for efficiencies that the need to make a profit brings? You don't know and neither do I, but I do remember the overmanning and restrictive practices of the state owned monopolies that existed in the 70s.

I’m sceptical about people blaming immigrants for pension problems, reduced job security, increased utility bills or the growth of private landlords. I am confused about your comment about people being unable to get on the housing ladder a few sentences after criticising Thatcher for allowing people to do just that. In my experience, hostility towards immigrants is rarely based upon rational considerations such as the potential for an increase in the supply of labour to reduce wages. Seeking to explain it away in those terms is, in my opinion, more about attempting to excuse the prejudices that many – perhaps particularly in the Labour core support – hold. I recall one poster on Tyke’s mad whose most significant contribution to the Brexit debate was that he didn’t like people talking Polish around in him in his work place.

I'm intrigued by the current fashion for Labour supporters to hark on about industry wanting cheap labour - of course it does - but the many Eastern Europeans that have come to this country haven't been trafficked and are free to leave when they want to. They come out of choice from countries with economies that are still maimed by the decades of Socialist policies that were imposed upon them after WW2. Is Labour truly intent upon keeping workers out of the country when they want to come? Is there now a nationalist element to Socialism? Marx and Trotsky in particular will be turning in their graves.

I’m uncertain where you are going with your comments about the Single Market. It was indeed upon the Tory watch that we entered it, but, insofar as Labour are willing to talk about their European policies, remaining within it appears to be their preferred option.

Of course, student didn't have to pay fees in the 70s, which is a good thing until you take into account that the consequence of that was that there were so few university places on offer that going to university was the realm of the wealthy and lucky few.

[WanChaiMiller]

We joined the EEC in 1973.

Thatcher became Tory leader in 1975.

So how did she take us into the single market?

It was that liar Heath who told us it was just a customs union we were entering, but he knew what the final destination was.

Heath, Common Market. Thatcher proactively led the negotiation to introduce the Single European Act 1985 (that led to Single Market 1992). Major signed the Maastricht Agreement.

[great_fire]

Thatcher did get us a big rebate though, which Blair partly gave back.

Mayor is a Bildenberg member and a globalist so no surprise there.

[mikemiller]

Thatcher did get us a big rebate though, which Blair partly gave back.

Mayor is a Bildenberg member and a globalist so no surprise there.

I don't even care who said what. Get off this site you Nazi scumbag - your general racist/fascist views are an embarassment to RUFC. Please FECK OFF! ...and take IdiotbarstewardKempo with you - you won't be missed

[great_fire]

I don't even care who said what. Get off this site you Nazi scumbag - your general racist/fascist views are an embarassment to RUFC. Please FECK OFF! ...and take IdiotbarstewardKempo with you - you won't be missed

Don't drink and post.

Bilderberg I meant of course, autocorrect.

[great_fire]

I don't even care who said what. Get off this site you Nazi scumbag - your general racist/fascist views are an embarassment to RUFC. Please FECK OFF! ...and take IdiotbarstewardKempo with you - you won't be missed

What an extraordinary outburst that was by the way.

You must be John Major's biggest fan.

Also, contrary to popular opinion on the left, calling people "Nazi", "fascist" or "racist" doesn't actually mean you've won the argument.