If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Hurrah for the site, haven for right wingery
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Is anyone apart from me more than a little disturbed by the prevailing mood of the political forum?
People seem to seriously believe:
in capital punishment
in military service
in taking away child benefits from needy parents
in sending children to jail
that immigrants are all 'scroungers', to use a favourite word of the reactoinary right
in execution for blasphemy
(I made the last one up, but it's not far off.)
I'm not even particularly left wing. God - this is meant to be a fairly youthful site by and large. If people hold these views now, what are they going to be like when they get old?
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Prufrock ]
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Prufrock ]
People seem to seriously believe:
in capital punishment
in military service
in taking away child benefits from needy parents
in sending children to jail
that immigrants are all 'scroungers', to use a favourite word of the reactoinary right
in execution for blasphemy
(I made the last one up, but it's not far off.)
I'm not even particularly left wing. God - this is meant to be a fairly youthful site by and large. If people hold these views now, what are they going to be like when they get old?
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Prufrock ]
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Prufrock ]
0
Comments
Well....yeah...we need a Military of course. Anyone who says we don't would be naive to say the least. I assume you mean it being voluntary? I think it should always be voluntary.
I support taking child benifits from parents who let their kids run riot and truant. Why the fuck should taxpayers help these deliberate nuisances who make only negative contributions to society?
I abhor the idea of sending children to jail. But I think the whole prison system is a bag of wank as it stands anyway.
I think that most people, children especially, can be rehabilitated. Baldy would disagree there though <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I don't think anyone here would seriously state such a generalisation. I'm all for immigration if it's done in the correct manner. I think we need to tighten laws on the section of illegal immigrants who are by your definition, "scroungers".
I don't know of anyone who posts here who I could consider to be extreme right wing. I know of an extreme left wing person though...not mentioning any names... <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
...*cough*Stealgate*cough* <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I consider myself to be fairly left wing. I'm not at all surprised or appauled at the views of most people on here.
I don't quite see the real problem you have <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Stracha_Khan ]
My social policy teacher would describe me as a middle way supporter. I am neither left wing or right wing in general, however I have some strong views about particular subjects.
I believe in capital punishment in THEORY. However I am also aware that in countries with the death penalty it isn't a deterrent, and is also more expensive than leaving someone in prison.
Military, I believe that to keep our nation strong we need an armed force. I also believe that young people could benefit from national service. I'm not saying they should be shipped off to the front lines, I'm suggesting they are given the training, then used in a support role unless they WANT to become infantry men. Usually they will probably choose another role, Id be fine with this, it would mean they would finish their service with a useful qualification, be it medical, engineering, logistics, management. They are all useful in the outside world.
Benfits. I think people should earn them. If they are unwilling to work then they should be punished. If someone shows a willingness to find a job, and keep it then they deserve all the help they can get. If they repeatedly get sacked, leave or are permanantly unemployable for reasons in their control, then they should be made to do voluntary work, or turfed out on their arse.
Parents who are unwilling to keep unruly children in check should face the burden that the rest of society has to bare when they cause trouble. It's only fair, they're their kids after all.
In 99% of cases sending children to jail is not an option. However I believe that for persistant, violent offenders, jail should be a real possibility. People who have shown an inability or unwillingness to be rehabilitated should be punished as if they are an adult.
Immigrants aren't scroungers. ILLEGAL immigrants are. Genuine immigrants usually have a job or education lined up BEFORE they arrive here, or have come here in response to a call for more qualified workers. I've no problem whatsoever with this.
The illegal immigrants however know full well that for 6 months they will live on benefits, in a free house and recieve free education and healthcare, which WE have paid for. There have been many reported cases of illegal immigrants being employed on the black market, recieving cash as well as benefits.
To me, these people are leeches. They leech of our prosperity and generosity. Why shouldn't I have the right to call them scroungers? It is my country after all.
Let me repeat:Genuine immigrants=good Illegal immigrants=bad
Hardly surprising since you've only posted 11 times <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
My own political views are usually right of centre, but my views on certain things make me a lefty. I disagree with most of the points on your list.
Not really. I would expect a wide variety of views to be expressed, some of which I agree with and others which I don't.
<STRONG>in capital punishment</STRONG>
Are you sure? What have you based this assumption on? I think you will find a fiarly even split.
<STRONG>in military service</STRONG>
Is there something wrong with having a military then?
<STRONG>in taking away child benefits from needy parents</STRONG>
No. In taking away benefits from parents who take no responsibility for the actions of their children. There is a difference.
<STRONG>in sending children to jail</STRONG>
So, regardless of the crime committed, no child should be sent to jail? Including Jamie Bulger's killers?
<STRONG>that immigrants are all 'scroungers', to use a favourite word of the reactoinary right</STRONG>
Again a massive assumption based on little fact. I think you'll find that they were talking about <STRONG>illegal</STRONG> immigrants.
<STRONG>in execution for blasphemy
(I made the last one up, but it's not far off.)</STRONG>
Its a long way off and really undermines your basic argument.
What you seem to have failed to realise is that there are people here who will argue for, and against, many of those political positions that you have put forward. People aren't so easily pigeonholed as you would like to think.
Are you suggesting that older people are more likely to be right-wing, or that as you get older you realise the folly of left wing politics, or are you just predjudiced?
Or is this another generalisation?
Anyone over 32 MUST be a Nazi. Must hate blacks, and gays too. Oh...maybe women just to be on the safe side. Didn't you know about that law MOK?
Oh fuck. That means that my views will have to change in August...
~~~~~~~
Just as a side bar. <STRONG>Pru</STRONG> - you have castigated us in this thread for many of our views, but having visited some of the threads which provoked your outburst (notable the benefits thread), I notice that you haven't commented. If you are so offended by our comments why haven't you argued against them?
Hope you have those swastikas polished.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
As everyone points out, there are only a few extreme right-wingers, I am fairly left-wing (crap definition) myself.......
Luckily I have just bought a new supply. You know how I love those things.
In fact I am looking forward to voting BNP later in the week.
The fact that they aren't standing in my area is just a minor problem. I shall vote for them anyway <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I am here, now what do you want?
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
To answer various points:
Stealgate's obviously bananas. But whilst noone seems to go quite as far as him the other way there are plenty who are further right than, for example, the present tory leadership.
Capital Punishment simply doesn't work, as whowhere more or less admits; even supporting it in theory, though,m strikes me as pretty hard right - it's a pretty basic principle for me that we do not have the right to take away someone's life. There are a massive number of other reasons -this is someting I feel very strongly about - but I suspect that's another thread.
National service (sorry, strachakhan, it was ambiguous to say military service): WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS THEY DON't WANT TO WITH THEIR LIVES, even for 2 years. This overrides any hopes that n.s. willl make people more disciplined or useful in society, which I don't find convincing anyway.
RE: benefits: I was referring to the recent decision to cut truanting children's parents benefits. This decision shows a total lack of understanding of the kind of domestic situations which lead to children truanting in the first place. and what abou the truants brothers and sisters? why shjould they suffer?
RE: sending children to jail:I was referring to the recent change in the penal laws for children which make it much easier to send youths to jail. Did you know it costs twice as much to send a kid to a YOI as it does to send them to Eton? Did you know the recidivism -reoffending - rate is 95%?
Immigration: maybe not you, whowhere, but many people seem to be against immigration in general. And I believe we have a moral obligation, as I've said elsewhere, to help those in need, regardless of where they come from. Use of emotive terms like 'scroungers'(and Blunkett's swamping) help those who simlpy wish to demonise all immigrants as scum, even if you don't share their beliefs.
the blasphemy thing was a
joke, MOK.
Older people ARE more likely to be right wing. Not a generalisation, a simple fact. More of the tory vote over 40 than labour. Mainly cos the older you get the more likely you are to be earnign a lot and the more liekly you are to want taxes to be low. Almost everyone moves further right as the years go by, even if they start off as marxists. That's not the same as saying 'everyone old's right wing or a nazi', whowhere -I don't equate the two and find the suggestion that I do mildly offensive.
Also, last thing: all this stuff about 'newbies' not having a clue - I hate the suggestion (not just in this thread, whereever a 'newbie' posts) that if you haven't spent long enough on the internet/this message board youy dont have the right to speak. Just so you know, I've been reading thesite for a fairly long time - a yearish? since the bulger release thing roughly, I remember posts about that - and jsut haven't beenm able to register because of internet restrictions at my school which recently changed. I'm not entirely uninformed.
My point is not so much that everyone believes all of these things, but rather that there's a general leaning towards these sorts of point s of views.
Sorry to go on so.
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Prufrock ]
No, I think describing us as 'nutters' was the bit that went a little far. You being a newbie has nothing to do with anything, you being offensive in one of your first posts is more the point.
Typical liberal bigot, anyone who disagrees with you has got to be mad.
This is a good example of the approach on this site. We hate all bigots - left and right. We hate the BNP with as much venom as we hate Steelgate and his 'anarchic' cronies*.
As for being a newbie and knowing nothing, I don't think any of us would suggest it. Being a newbie means that you know nothing about us...
And I knew it was a joke. I <STRONG>do</STRONG> understand irony, I'm not American you know <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> the point I was making was that it detracted from what you were trying to say...
Oh, and check out the Political Compass thread, if you want to see how we score....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* anarchic cronies = people who want to destroy the system which support them/mindless morons hell bent on vandalism
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Man Of Kent ]
(still, I think it's being offensive that's not on, not being offensive in one of my first posts!)
Having said that, I don't apologise for thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong (not mad.) because if I didn't think they were wrong then by definition I'd think was wrong, which would mean I'd change my mind, which would mean I'd think what I used to think was wrong. if that makes any sense. I'm sure youd agree that there's no more irritating or useless conclusion to an argument than 'you're entitled to your opinion': of course, but the point is you're also entitled to disagree and point out why and try and explain your point of view. It isn't bigotry to hold your opinion strongly.
ANyway - sorry. You aren't nutters, you're just wrong! <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Thats more like it <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Huh? <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
<IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Man Of Kent ]
We don't generally have a right wing mentality on the boards, and I think that the expression of so many varied and often conflicting views is a good point about this forum. Additionally, the way in which poor argument expression is criticised leads a poster to necessarily formulate a convincing argument which has rhetorical merit at least. That's why your post has been criticised by me. And then you can start with the points of the argument.
(1) The definition of right does not include the Tory leadership, and nor should it. You don't judge a marker by how people claim to fit that marker.
(2) I think the argument on capital punishment is a varied one. But, while an individual entity does not have the right to take life, a society can take the life of another which breaks, in a major way, the rules of that society. It's the justice system. We can't take the life of someone, but can condemn them to life imprisonment, removing their rights to freedom, social stigma and interaction? At higher cost?
(3) National Service was an idea mooted by me, actually. We don't have the right to force people to do things with their lives that they don't want to? Sure we do. How many people enjoy the jobs they do, do you think? Why do them, then? Something to do with "having" to pay bills and taxes? Think so...
(4) It costs twice as much to send them to a YOI than Eton? Okay, as an employer, are you going to employ the Eton, or the YOI? Their lives are irrevocably changed by it. The reoffender's rate is 95%? Okay. There's an argument to be made here. I might make it later. But, yes, fundamentally, what else do you do with them?
(5) We have a moral obligation to help those in need, regardless of where they come from. In theory, that's a high minded and noble principle. But it goes against the capitalist system, which means that it's not economical, practical or therefore good policy.
(6) Almost everyone moves right as they get older? You've met Professor David Harvey, then, have you? Your equation is not of right wing and nazi, but of right wing and therefore morally wrong? Or less superior than your liberal self, maybe?
(7) The newbie thing. Right, it's not the fact that you don't have a clue, it's just that you (personally) need to learn some damn manners. Let's put an analogy for you; you know what that is, right? For a year, you've glanced through the windows of your local pub occasionally. But, you go in, and within 17 minutes of you being in there, you try and slag off all the regulars, attacking their beliefs and personalities. You think they would respond as patiently as we have? But that's exactly what you've done.
Newbies, as a rule, don't respect the rules of the boards, because they don't know them yet, and they wrote incoherently and without substance. You have a right to speak; you'll get criticised if you don't do it properly, especially on this board, where arguments and debates turn on the slightest of nuance. Look at how much you've had to correct?
I won't call you informed, I will call you uninitiated - you freely admit that you don't post in this forum. Well, unless you post and try and debate like the rest of us, don't criticise. Think you can do it better? We await your posts....
<IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: DJP ]
lol <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Now that you've had your humble pie, why don't you come and put your views forward...
Anyway. I'm very happy to counter your arguments, though I feel now like we're merging 7 seperate threads! Nevertheless:
1)how do you define right wing, then? I would suggest the tory party as a pretty good gauge for how the acceptable right is thinking. Right and left wing is entirely relative: I'm right of Castro, left of Hitler. Given this, it seems entirely sensible to define right and left by the political parties which have traditionally lined up along these lines.
2)Capital punishment, as I said, is a huge uestion worthy of a seperate thread. But to address your points briefly:'it's the justice system' is not a sufficient justification for taking a life, just as it wasn't in the middle ages when you would have been executed for being a witch. And it isn't the justice system, actually, at least not in this country. Here are my major problems with the death penalty - and btw, its actually cheaper to imprison than execute statistically because of the costs of constant appeals and the long wait on death row. The death penalty is irrevocable in the case of a mistake; it offers no chance for rehabilitation; and it is a fundamentally flawed concept because research has repeatedly shown that what deters murderers is the belief that they will be caught, not the fear of what the punishment will be once they get busted.
3)But we get something back for taxes; givernment, NHS, an army (!) etc. And if you can't afford it you don't have to pay. And they don't take up your time. And they don't place you in mortal danger. ANd you can always leave your job if you really, really, really want to, and go and live as a hermit in Northumbria.
4)I don't really understand your point here. Of course you aren't going to employ the Young Offenders Institute kid over the Etonian. That's among the many reasons why they're stupid: because they make young people think of themselves as criminals, and therefore more likely to have no qualms about committing a criminal act in the future.
What else do you do with them? well, you try and stop the crime at it's root by, say, improving education and social services. According to the Howard League for Penal Reform the young offenders have been shown in various studies to be highly likely to come from deprived or violent backgrounds. If daddy steals and hits you how do you know it's wrong at 11 or 12? your version of normal is the one you're constantly confronted with: what's so out of the ordinary about stealing a car streo or beating up someone you don't like if you live on a poverty stricken estate?
5)glad you agree. Sorry you think morals come a distant second to economics.
6)I say again:almost everyone gets RELATIVELY more right wing as they get older. Your Dr David Harvey had nothing to do with it: of course it isn't universally true, it's just a trend. I'm not trying to be superior, I just disagree with you.
7)As i said: I apologise if i offended anyone. Nevertheless, I think the GENERAL (not this specific case) of newbie bashing is a bit sad.
Attacking beliefs you don't agree with is the whole point of a politics forum, surely, DJP.
I am trying to debate.
I'm done now. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Prufrock ]
Perhaps you should equate yourself with the definition of 'bigot', as that paragraph is a good example of one.
"I'm right and you're wrong" on everything, intolerant of anyone who differs. In politics there is often no 'right' and 'wrong'.
I felt the same when I first made a post. The first time I posted Balddog called me a 'mini~marx' and there were rolling eyes all round. In retrospect I see they were probably right.
You'll get used to it. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Lol - when still a little newbie I launched an entire thread condemning American foreign policy, then defended myself almost single handed over several pages. Those were the days...
On a side note I find myself incredible offended by that. I would consider myself fairly anarchic, and certainly would support anarchy over capitalism in any debate. However, I always argue (debate, i mean <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">) with my own views, I don't copy and paste, and I use reasonable and relevant points. I never insult any posters in such threads for having different views, despite that not being mutual, and certainly do not see why that, for believing in anarchy over capitalism, I should be hated as much as the BNP.
As an anarchist (although I no longer fully consider myself one) I support equality for all which makes me, and any other anarchist, the opposite of a bigot, surely?
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Mindless all the way ]
Yes, point made about my rhetoric, but I wrote in coherent paragraphs and sentences. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Witticisms, barbed comments et al. are just part and parcel of this. You should know that if you post.
My point, while answering some of your arguments briefly, was that your stance in coming here and attacking us personally is wrong. Attack me on an issue, yes. Attack me over a comment I make, yes, but don't attack us personally. Beliefs you don't agree with are fine to debate, but most of us try to steer clear of personalising the debate. For one thing, it's too childishly easy, and for another, it tends to get good posts closed.
It is somewhat arrogant of you to come in, with few posts to your credit, and attack us collectively for our mindset. I think that my aggrievance is with the direct and frontal attack; and the fact that you don't debate and post yourself in the forum. Practice what you preach, I would suggest. And try and defend yourself against Thanatos. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> He'll teach you about little l liberalism.
I apologise unreservedly if my tone and candour has been inappropriate. Your forum..