"Toxic culture of the left"

[Finnegan]

I would say "moderate left" is inaccurate because it implies these people have the most extreme views. I think "more adult" or "more reasonable" left would be more accurate.

I know we've had this discussion before but I don't really view these morons as as much of a threat as you do. Neither the EDL or the UAF (purely as examples) are changing the world, are they?

What real power do NUS wield? The power to ridicule themselves by banning a speaker because they're the wrong sort of gay pride? I look at power and influence not so much in terms of level of noise but in ACTUAL effect.

Most of these NUS Occupy nutters will eventually just grow up to be advertising consultants and call centre managers that vote liberal for a while before turning blue in middle age when their wallets swell.

[Finnegan]

Stupid ****ing phone.

[Guest MattP]

I would say "moderate left" is inaccurate because it implies these people have the most extreme views. I think "more adult" or "more reasonable" left would be more accurate.

I know we've had this discussion before but I don't really view these morons as as much of a threat as you do. Neither the EDL or the UAF (purely as examples) are changing the world, are they?

What real power do NUS wield? The power to ridicule themselves by banning a speaker because they're the wrong sort of gay pride? I look at power and influence not so much in terms of level of noise but in ACTUAL effect.

Most of these NUS Occupy nutters will eventually just grow up to be advertising consultants and call centre managers that vote liberal for a while before turning blue in middle age when their wallets swell.

 

They don't have much power at the minute but they are becoming more prominent in the media and in the left wing movement in general, Seamus Milne is a prime example, this guy is exactly what you describe and he now writing policy for Labour, if David Cameron appointed Katie Hopkins as the Tory party Executive Director of Strategy and Communications I wouldn't be complacent about anything.

 

These people were on the fringes, for the first time in my life they are fighting to actually have some clout in a major political party. As we've seen from the recent university stories they have already taken over many Labour youth groups and Momentum is a pressure group being pushed by the leadership.

 

Just look across the ocean, the Republicans are possibly about to elect a leader that could make them unelectable for generations because a loud fringe has taken a hold of them, it started with the tea party and it's ends with Donald Trump.

[purpleronnie]

They don't have much power at the minute but they are becoming more prominent in the media and in the left wing movement in general, Seamus Milne is a prime example, this guy is exactly what you describe and he now writing policy for Labour, if David Cameron appointed Katie Hopkins as the Tory party Executive Director of Strategy and Communications I wouldn't be complacent about anything.

 

These people were on the fringes, for the first time in my life they are fighting to actually have some clout in a major political party. As we've seen from the recent university stories they have already taken over many Labour youth groups and Momentum is a pressure group being pushed by the leadership.

 

Just look across the ocean, the Republicans are possibly about to elect a leader that could make them unelectable for generations because a loud fringe has taken a hold of them, it started with the tea party and it's ends with Donald Trump.

Great innit! Can't you tories get one like him.

[Guest MattP]

Great innit! Can't you tories get one like him.

 

Why on earth would they do that when Labour have already beat them to it?

[Finnegan]

Why on earth would they do that when Labour have already beat them to it?

That's exactly why they should. Imagine if both of them were entirely unelectable. Brilliant stuff.

[Guest MattP]

That's exactly why they should. Imagine if both of them were entirely unelectable. Brilliant stuff.

 

Ian Duncan Smith v Jeremy Corbyn.

 

My god, it would be a genuine possibility Farage would end up as PM.

[Finnegan]

Ian Duncan Smith v Jeremy Corbyn.

My god, it would be a genuine possibility Farage would end up as PM.

Or your mate Nat Bennett.

[Rincewind]

I have felt that way for over 30 years. Both sides as bad. You may not agree but IDS v Corbyn it would come down to who I dislike less and Corbyn wins in a photo finish.

[Guest MattP]

Or your mate Nat Bennett.

 

No chance, all the Greens are now in the Cor-BIN!

[Finnegan]

I have felt that way for over 30 years. Both sides as bad. You may not agree but IDS v Corbyn it would come down to who I dislike less and Corbyn wins in a photo finish.

How can you possibly dislike Corbyn? He's basically you if you were a bit brighter.

[Guest MattP]

How can you possibly dislike Corbyn? He's basically you if you were a bit brighter.

 

lol!

[Rincewind]

How can you possibly dislike Corbyn? He's basically you if you were a bit brighter.

OK so a photo finish was a little out. IDS fell at the last fence when a wheelchair user got on the track in front of him and tripped him up.

[Thracian]

Articles like this one are becoming more common. Good. The hypersensitive, ultra-racialised, ultra-PC view of the world discussed here will quickly fall apart if people have the courage to say 'no' to it.

I've said "no" for ages on here - in relation to many things - but it's been a total waste of time.

Instead there has been such illogical, unreasonable or groundless self-justification it's been pathetic. But people won't change easily and many, not at all.

A lot have been brainwashed in the same way as so many in the world ... by the constant repetition of new ideals and new righteousness whatever flaws, injustice or misery those ideals create.

It's like new technology. We identify the need, invent to materialise the benefits but never wait to uncover the downsides.

Instead we merely scamper through the damage limitation exercises when the downsides arise - or conveniently ignore them and hope they go away.

The brilliance of a brain is one thing but the wisdom of a mind, quite another.

[Thracian]

Do we not have a toxic culture of the 'right' then?

 

Just wondering. It is always the left that are depicted as loony or evil for daring to speak up for a disadvantaged person.

Sometimes people have to take what help they can even if it is the wrong kind of help. When I hear somebody say they are not my problem I am reminded of the final line of a well known poem.

'Then they came for me but there was no-one left to help.'

I don't remember you taking help when it was offered.

[Guest MattP]

Not toxic but a small glint of magnificent incredible left wing snobbery on Question Time when they asked about banning tackling in schools for Rugby (and no this isn't a hook Finners).

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/zoe-williams-puts-her-foot-in-it-on-question-time-rugby-is-just-a-weird-thing-that-posh-people-play/

 

Step forward Zoe Williams of the Guardian who actually said "Who cares, Rugby is just a weird thing that only posh people do anyway" - Some of this lot have a superiority complex that Alan Clark could only dream of.

 

Had a been in the audience I may have pointed out that a weird thing only posh people do is actually reading the Guardian.

[Finnegan]

Zoe Williams. Twat.

[Thracian]

right and left, different sides of the same coin.

 

There are innumerable words written from "within" both sides and anyone who thinks that one side is all good and the other all bad, is not just stupid they are a danger to themselves and society.

 

edit, by the way, the pic in my signature says it all. Its not about equality, its about justice and fairness.

So how would you arrive at justice and fairness?

Serious and straightforward question.

But first I'll offer food for thought.

Some years back I offered to help someone set up a fabrics business on Leicester market. He doesn't drive so I offered to carry rolls of fabric down from the north, pay for his first consignment which I imagined would be £500/£1000 and to see his stock was stored and set-up on market days.

Not the world's most attractive proposition but entirely free of charge or "return" obligations. There might have been good reasons, but he didn't accept so the chance passed him by.

Meanwhile an acquaintance was offered training by an employer, accepted, gained qualifications and experience, set up his own business, took on 20+ staff, grew the business still more and now earns enough to give lots in terms of charitable contributions and mentorship all over the South East Midlands.

In other words the last few years years have produced two different outcomes from what might arguably have been a comparable opportunity

In your amusing cartoon, the last example would be the man standing high on the 1% right-hand podium and the "fabric" man, sadly, on the left, quite unable to see ahead.

Yet the podiums are arguably misleading as a social statement.

Because the right hand 1% has actually put huge amounts into the collective pot and, through offering 20+ employment opportunities and mentoring to aspiring business people who have themselves become productive, has actually lifted the height of the occupant/s of the middle podium quite considerably - those who have themselves worked hard for their just rewards.

Whether there's been any help for the guy on the left I don't know.

Because, when offered a comparatively equal start, he turned it down, didn't therefore create the other opportunities the 1% enjoyed, and ended up "less equal" for no other reasons than the lack of courage/initiative/confidence/self-belief/whatever to accept his chance when it was there.

And so life is.

It is not fair (as you rightly suggest). Even if people start out as "equals", some take their chances, some don't and the world should perhaps be thankful that some of the 1%ers, and, indeed some on the justice podium who have a caring nature, actually choose to help those on the equality podium whether they deserve it or not.

I'd love to know how that might somehow justify "class war" or the "politics of envy" Lefties peddle with such illogical enthusiasm.

To me it suggests a massive need to encourage everyone to make the best of themselves with the aid of top class, eventually tailored education, opportunities and the means/encouragement to take those chances and the strength/logic to face difficulties and overcome them when they arise.

People need to cope with that and to have the many skills needed to look after themselves and that's where education should focus - on developing the skills to cope with life.

Career skills, domestic and associate skills, the skills to deal with mental, physical and family pressures, logic skills etc.

Relying on others should only be for special situations and circumstances.

The more people we train to cope, the more resources will remain for those who can't always help themselves.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

OK so a photo finish was a little out. IDS fell at the last fence when a wheelchair user got on the track in front of him and tripped him up.

IDS would be asking how they could afford to get there in the first place

[Rincewind]

I don't remember you taking help when it was offered.

If you are referring to what I think you are, the offer of help was much appreciated but after talking it over with someone with financial and business knowhow and weighing up the pros and cons the conclusion was that it was not a viable option either financially or health wise.

[ozleicester]

So how would you arrive at justice and fairness?

Serious and straightforward question.

But first I'll offer food for thought.

Some years back I offered to help someone set up a fabrics business on Leicester market. He doesn't drive so I offered to carry rolls of fabric down from the north, pay for his first consignment which I imagined would be £500/£1000 and to see his stock was stored and set-up on market days.

Not the world's most attractive proposition but entirely free of charge or "return" obligations. There might have been good reasons, but he didn't accept so the chance passed him by.

Meanwhile an acquaintance was offered training by an employer, accepted, gained qualifications and experience, set up his own business, took on 20+ staff, grew the business still more and now earns enough to give lots in terms of charitable contributions and mentorship all over the South East Midlands.

In other words the last few years years have produced two different outcomes from what might arguably have been a comparable opportunity

In your amusing cartoon, the last example would be the man standing high on the 1% right-hand podium and the "fabric" man, sadly, on the left, quite unable to see ahead.

Yet the podiums are arguably misleading as a social statement.

Because the right hand 1% has actually put huge amounts into the collective pot and, through offering 20+ employment opportunities and mentoring to aspiring business people who have themselves become productive, has actually lifted the height of the occupant/s of the middle podium quite considerably - those who have themselves worked hard for their just rewards.

Whether there's been any help for the guy on the left I don't know.

Because, when offered a comparatively equal start, he turned it down, didn't therefore create the other opportunities the 1% enjoyed, and ended up "less equal" for no other reasons than the lack of courage/initiative/confidence/self-belief/whatever to accept his chance when it was there.

And so life is.

It is not fair (as you rightly suggest). Even if people start out as "equals", some take their chances, some don't and the world should perhaps be thankful that some of the 1%ers, and, indeed some on the justice podium who have a caring nature, actually choose to help those on the equality podium whether they deserve it or not.

I'd love to know how that might somehow justify "class war" or the "politics of envy" Lefties peddle with such illogical enthusiasm.

To me it suggests a massive need to encourage everyone to make the best of themselves with the aid of top class, eventually tailored education, opportunities and the means/encouragement to take those chances and the strength/logic to face difficulties and overcome them when they arise.

People need to cope with that and to have the many skills needed to look after themselves and that's where education should focus - on developing the skills to cope with life.

Career skills, domestic and associate skills, the skills to deal with mental, physical and family pressures, logic skills etc.

Relying on others should only be for special situations and circumstances.

The more people we train to cope, the more resources will remain for those who can't always help themselves.

 

For all of the rest of your post, the final 6 words answer your own question. we (society) should help those who cant always help themselves.

 

But, we (society) are not in a position, by just looking at, or even briefly talking to, to undertsand whether or not people are able to help themselves, sure its easy to look at someone in a wheelchair and say, "we should build buses and footpaths with ramps". But its much more difficult to look at someone who appears "normal" and accept that inside their body physically or mentally, they are as handicapped as the wheelchair bound.

 

Your offer to someone seemed easy to you, but you dont know that persons mind, how they were unable to cope with that "opportunity". Hidden physical illness or mental illness is not something you can just look at and see.

 

As to your question how do you arrive at fairness, the cartoon is a very simplistic demonstration, fairness is achieved by giving people the opportunity to do what they can do, and allow them to benefit from what they do, then helping others to do what THEY can do, not what you or i think they should do.

 

We see tv shows about hoarders, their houses filled with newspapers, boxes of "junk" etc and we acknowledge they have an illness and (hopefully) we try to help them. But we look at Murdoch and the like, the absurdly wealthy who hoard complete houses, cars and most of all MONEY and rather than suggest they are ill, they are encouraged.

 

Back on topic, its irrelevant if you are "right or left" as currently both of these political "sides" are basically the same and we the suckers in the greater public continue on arguing amongst ourselves about how much we should pay for a  scrap from the weathly table.

[Thracian]

If you are referring to what I think you are, the offer of help was much appreciated but after talking it over with someone with financial and business knowhow and weighing up the pros and cons the conclusion was that it was not a viable option either financially or health wise.

It was your decision, for your reasons, and I entirely respect it. But the fact remains that the kind of self-serving capitalist so many condemn did offer you help - material help - and it was your choice not to accept. If a doctor offers to amputate your leg because of diabetes and you refuse then the consequences aren't necessarily the fault of the system. Most often they are consequence of decisions.

Someone elsewhere has mentioned helping a person in a wheelchair with ramps etc. All very commendable, no-one would deny. But I look around and see so many people blatantly harming themselves with cigarettes, drugs, worry, bad partner choices, lack of motivation and negative thoughts of so many kinds that may be a result of background yet lots of people do show the drive to leave a bad background behind and background has to be shown to be an excuse for failure not a reason.

These aspects to me are where so much of the "help" focus should be directed.

I weep at moves to end tackling in rugby at schools. It is so symbolic of today's desire to wrap everyone in cotton wool because of the blame culture and the demands of insurers.

It's pathetic and should end. Life is the surival of the fittest and our drive should be to help and encourageas much mental/physical fitness in people as possible and philosophies that enable everyone to feel proud of themselves and to recognise what abilities they can best develop whatever their indidual circumstances. Things like the parolympic games serve to highlight the incredible possiblities open to anyone wih the courage to take them.

Inspirers are what's most needed - not protectors.

I collected lots of trophies in my sporting life but the achievement that stands highest in my mind concerns team I managed for one weekend on the occasion of my FA coaching qualification. The teams for this particular cup competition were drawn at random.

My team was technically hopeless. But they won that tournament - played over half a dozen matches - because they were each given a role that highlighted their strengths and minimised their weaknesses and because they all took the field with complete belief in themselves, in one another, and in what they were attempting to do.

I was so proud of them and 45 years later I'm still proud of them.

There were so many examples including a girl, a publican's daughter aged 8 who turned up years later determined to play squash. I'd rarely seen such an unlikely sportswoman. Big, awkward, precious little co-ordination, slowish, overweight and no great imagination.

That girl is still a professional and has received all sorts of national, county and regional honours and accolades. All due to her effort, determination, self-belief and the constant encouragement of all around her.

What's necessary is to recognise people's capabilities, provide them with opportunity and then ensure they get the inspiration to achieve their goals from the collective set-up.

And you'll never do that by stopping tackling in schools rugby matches or outlawing brilliant character-building sports like boxing. Quite the contrary.

[Thracian]

For all of the rest of your post, the final 6 words answer your own question. we (society) should help those who cant always help themselves.

 

But, we (society) are not in a position, by just looking at, or even briefly talking to, to undertsand whether or not people are able to help themselves, sure its easy to look at someone in a wheelchair and say, "we should build buses and footpaths with ramps". But its much more difficult to look at someone who appears "normal" and accept that inside their body physically or mentally, they are as handicapped as the wheelchair bound.

 

Your offer to someone seemed easy to you, but you dont know that persons mind, how they were unable to cope with that "opportunity". Hidden physical illness or mental illness is not something you can just look at and see.

 

As to your question how do you arrive at fairness, the cartoon is a very simplistic demonstration, fairness is achieved by giving people the opportunity to do what they can do, and allow them to benefit from what they do, then helping others to do what THEY can do, not what you or i think they should do.

 

We see tv shows about hoarders, their houses filled with newspapers, boxes of "junk" etc and we acknowledge they have an illness and (hopefully) we try to help them. But we look at Murdoch and the like, the absurdly wealthy who hoard complete houses, cars and most of all MONEY and rather than suggest they are ill, they are encouraged.

 

Back on topic, its irrelevant if you are "right or left" as currently both of these political "sides" are basically the same and we the suckers in the greater public continue on arguing amongst ourselves about how much we should pay for a  scrap from the weathly table.

I spent years coaching people successfully (in two sports and countless environments) and know perfectly well that the biggest brake on people's potential is their own fears, self doubts and negative attitudes.

I hate to see people holding their hand out for help simply because they're afraid they can't stand on their own feet. Look at the achievements of Hawking. Who would see him and say "I can't"?

Softness in society is a curse and holds so many people back. Life is hard, demanding and competitive. Let's prepare people for its challenges rather than giving them the cushions that feed years of things like diabetes and obesity. This is the era of excuse-making and the sooner we stop making excuses for anyone the sooner we'll go forward again.

Not everyone can be an SAS squadron leader but everyone can do their bit and no-one should get away with opting out and leaving others to carry their mates home. It's not good - for themselves.

[ozleicester]

I spent years coaching people successfully (in two sports and countless environments) and know perfectly well that the biggest brake on people's potential is their own fears, self doubts and negative attitudes.

I hate to see people holding their hand out for help simply because they're afraid they can't stand on their own feet. Look at the achievements of Hawking. Who would see him and say "I can't"?

Softness in society is a curse and holds so many people back. Life is hard, demanding and competitive. Let's prepare people for its challenges rather than giving them the cushions that feed years of things like diabetes and obesity. This is the era of excuse-making and the sooner we stop making excuses for anyone the sooner we'll go forward again.

Not everyone can be an SAS squadron leader but everyone can do their bit and no-one should get away with opting out and leaving others to carry their mates home.

 

Do you expect Hawkins to walk?

 

No, of course not, but thats because you can see his limitations and appreciate that expecting him to stand up and grasp the "opportunity" you are offering is impossible. so would you help Hawkins, would you get him a wheel chair, plug his speech assist in if he cant reach it, or would you call him weak for not being able to do the same stuff you can?

 

But,of course to you, other people who may have those limitations mentally, or internally, .....you decide these people are "weak", and that they are making excuses.

[Stadt]

How can you possibly dislike Corbyn? He's basically you if you were a bit brighter.

Hahasdkdkkgsjk