Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Milo said:

Very politely conducted and well reasoned debate, you two!! 

 

Although I'm not sure where the point you are making leaves us, Mac. If I don't think I can influence my life and make a positive impact by the decisions I make on a daily basis, I might as well stay in bed (and claim my UBI). 

 

Not all all power is bad, and not all people are bad. Bad people in power is a bad combination, that's all. 

 

In your example above, if a large multinational company extract resources from a remote area and does it responsibly, then this may create opportunities for the locals that they did not have previously. So it increases their options, not decreases them. 

Thanks - it's certainly an interesting topic to speak o.

 

I don't mean to come off as a totally cynical nihilist here and say that the choices of people without power have no choices at all - just that those who purport that freedom of choice is universal across all people and everyone is an island are wrong. The choices you have are limited by a number of factors, one of which is the choices that other people make that concern you.

 

And yes, power isn't always bad - but it does tend to corrupt and attract the corruptible. When people get that feeling of controlling the choices of another human being (or group of them), that feeling is often heady and difficult to let go of. Think that's human instinct kicking in tbh.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

In my example, the choices all appear negative but could actually turn out to be a positive for me. An increase in tax could be just the thing I need to kick my lazy arse into gear and get more customers. And maybe I put my prices up and no one cares and I end up making more money as a result? Who knows, but sometimes things that initially look negative end up being a positive outcome.

 

Well first of all I’d assume the pollution was an accident and not intentional? Accidents happen to all of us - that’s life.

The locals could do all of the things you’ve mentioned yes, and probably more. Rather than get angry and blame the company, accept what’s done is done and move forward. No point being victims, that doesn’t serve anybody. I’d be asking how do we as a community address this unfortunate event the best we can with all our wisdom and resources? Maybe someone comes up with a choice that could actually benefit the locals in the long run? I believe things happen for a reason and everything is an opportunity to learn and grow - however grim it may appear at the time.

 

Well funnily enough I do believe in some kind of afterlife judgement 

 

And I’ve no problem with people being in power btw. It brings order to a world of chaos. There’s always been power and hierarchy in the world since time began and I can’t see it changing anytime soon. If people have a problem with power then do something to put yourself in a position of power so you can change the rules.

The incident could be accidental or intentional - the effects on the people involved would be the same, though yes, luck also is a big influencer on peoples lives.

 

I don't get why you'd not want, in the list of things the locals could do, to hold the responsible party accountable for what they did? That kind of accountability and consequences for abuse of power is often the only bulwark against those power abuses that exists - I'm not sure why that's not a viable option here or in other similar circumstances. Sometimes such incidents are indeed blameless but sometimes, blame is needed to be attributed and the guilty parties penalised for their abuse of power, or what's to stop them from doing it again when they know it would benefit them to do so? Simply drawing a line under it and moving on allows those with power to keep on abusing it if they wish, for as long as they wish.

 

There's scope for both IMO - use your own choices to rebuild/move forward, but ensure that such an event doesn't happen again.

 

Again, I'm probably looking at this from a cynical viewpoint that humans won't check themselves morally in such situations without the need for outside intervention - but history shows that this is the rule rather than the exception.

 

I agree that power structures will always exist and so hierarchy will do so too, but IMO it is morally repugnant to have a structure where the power is so imbalanced that some human beings are simply not accountable to others, whatever choices they make. There has to be a system where someone can speak for those who have much smaller voices - or no voice at all. I would also agree with gaining power and changing the system from within...but sadly the system seems to be structured in such a way that those that try either fail or simply become the same powermongers they seeked to change.

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

WTF are you on about? I’m not talking about conceding power I’m talking about taking personal responsibility.

 

I didn’t once mention ‘giving up’ either. I was talking about dealing with unexpected situations from a perspective of ‘what can we do?’ rather than ‘who can we blame?’

 

So many on this forum moaning and winging about those in power. Smacks of either jealousy, insecurity, frustration or resentment to me.

 

And what exactly are you personally doing to ‘put up a fight’ btw?

Mac gave an example of a company rocking up and polluting a community's water course and you implied they shouldn't fight back against the company. In my view that's pure subservient weakness and if they took that approach they'd find themselves being taken advantage of again and again. It isn't jealousy, insecurity, frustration or resentment to be willing to stand up against people who would otherwise do harm to you, it's actually perfectly natural to want to protect yourself and your interests.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

Well funnily enough I do believe in some kind of afterlife judgement 

 

And that makes your stance understandable to a certain extent.

 

I don't believe in an afterlife and sadly neither do I believe in karma (good people don't necessarily get good things and can get bad things and bad people often don't get punished and often do profit) , but I do believe we should be "morally" good and a useful part of the community during our alloted time but I'm with Mac here concerning his views on people in general and people in power in particular. 

 

I agree with you that we need to accept the things that happen to us and then move on without the "victim" syndrome but I disagree in that I think we should stand up and make our views known at times and to fight, if necessary.

[Izzy]

18 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Mac gave an example of a company rocking up and polluting a community's water course and you implied they shouldn't fight back against the company. In my view that's pure subservient weakness and if they took that approach they'd find themselves being taken advantage of again and again. It isn't jealousy, insecurity, frustration or resentment to be willing to stand up against people who would otherwise do harm to you, it's actually perfectly natural to want to protect yourself and your interests.

No I didn't.

 

Mac suggested that as an option and I agreed that all the things he suggested were valid options - plus many more. And it was Mac who questioned if they could really outlawyer the company in a process that would likely take years and a great deal of money.

 

And you still haven't answered what you you are personally doing to 'put up a fight' as you said...

[Izzy]

10 minutes ago, FIF said:

And that makes your stance understandable to a certain extent.

 

I don't believe in an afterlife and sadly neither do I believe in karma (good people don't necessarily get good things and can get bad things and bad people often don't get punished and often do profit) , but I do believe we should be "morally" good and a useful part of the community during our alloted time but I'm with Mac here concerning his views on people in general and people in power in particular. 

 

I agree with you that we need to accept the things that happen to us and then move on without the "victim" syndrome but I disagree in that I think we should stand up and make our views known at times and to fight, if necessary.

I haven't once said that people shouldn't stand up and fight or make their views known.

 

If people genuinely believe that will make a positive difference then good luck to them.

 

Like Rog you talk of 'fighting' and I guess that's just an expression of the anger you both feel against the establishment, or the government, or the world, or 'the man' or whoever it is you're pissed off with.

[Rogstanley]

29 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

No I didn't.

 

Mac suggested that as an option and I agreed that all the things he suggested were valid options - plus many more. And it was Mac who questioned if they could really outlawyer the company in a process that would likely take years and a great deal of money.

 

And you still haven't answered what you you are personally doing to 'put up a fight' as you said...

In that one post alone you employed quite a vast catalogue of negative words (moaning, whinging, victims, jealousy, insecurity, frustration, resentment) to describe your perception of people's relationship with those in power. Clearly you do feel that fighting back against those in power is a negative thing. That's a theme that permeates through many of your posts.

 

In terms of what I do - all sorts of things. I don't vote for a government that favours big business over employees or the rich over the poor. I try not to give my custom to exploitative or predatory businesses. I make about 10 formal complaints every year to businesses whose service or behaviour is poor in whatever way. I make sure I get what I'm worth at work and will never again do as much as five minutes unpaid overtime (regrettably I did do that a number of times in my naive youth). I support workmates where I can in disputes with bosses. It goes on really. Before I started posting on here I was under the impression that all this was quite normal, but this place has been an eye opener as to how subservient a lot of people are.

Edited 21 February 2018 by Rogstanley

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks - it's certainly an interesting topic to speak o.

 

I don't mean to come off as a totally cynical nihilist here and say that the choices of people without power have no choices at all - just that those who purport that freedom of choice is universal across all people and everyone is an island are wrong. The choices you have are limited by a number of factors, one of which is the choices that other people make that concern you.

 

And yes, power isn't always bad - but it does tend to corrupt and attract the corruptible. When people get that feeling of controlling the choices of another human being (or group of them), that feeling is often heady and difficult to let go of. Think that's human instinct kicking in tbh.

 

 

The incident could be accidental or intentional - the effects on the people involved would be the same, though yes, luck also is a big influencer on peoples lives.

 

I don't get why you'd not want, in the list of things the locals could do, to hold the responsible party accountable for what they did? That kind of accountability and consequences for abuse of power is often the only bulwark against those power abuses that exists - I'm not sure why that's not a viable option here or in other similar circumstances. Sometimes such incidents are indeed blameless but sometimes, blame is needed to be attributed and the guilty parties penalised for their abuse of power, or what's to stop them from doing it again when they know it would benefit them to do so? Simply drawing a line under it and moving on allows those with power to keep on abusing it if they wish, for as long as they wish.

 

There's scope for both IMO - use your own choices to rebuild/move forward, but ensure that such an event doesn't happen again.

I didn't say I wouldn't want to hold the responsible party to account Mac because you suggested it would be a waste of time trying to take them on via the lawyer route.

 

I also don't see how it's an 'abuse of power' if it was an accident? I'm all for penalties and consequences if it's deliberate but it was just a hypothetical example so we don't know either way.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Again, I'm probably looking at this from a cynical viewpoint that humans won't check themselves morally in such situations without the need for outside intervention - but history shows that this is the rule rather than the exception.

 

I agree that power structures will always exist and so hierarchy will do so too, but IMO it is morally repugnant to have a structure where the power is so imbalanced that some human beings are simply not accountable to others, whatever choices they make. There has to be a system where someone can speak for those who have much smaller voices - or no voice at all. I would also agree with gaining power and changing the system from within...but sadly the system seems to be structured in such a way that those that try either fail or simply become the same powermongers they seeked to change.

I guess this is where we differ.

 

You may be cynical and I may be naive - or maybe I'm just not as passionate about changing the structure as you are...

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I didn't say I wouldn't want to hold the responsible party to account Mac because you suggested it would be a waste of time trying to take them on via the lawyer route.

 

I also don't see how it's an 'abuse of power' if it was an accident? I'm all for penalties and consequences if it's deliberate but it was just a hypothetical example so we don't know either way.

 

I guess this is where we differ.

 

You may be cynical and I may be naive - or maybe I'm just not as passionate about changing the structure as you are...

Yeah, the first couple of paragraphs are fair enough - you would have to be sure of malicious attributability before holding them to account, and I'm glad you agree taking them on in such circumstances is good - I just wish it was easier.

 

We do seem to differ in the way we view the world, and that's alright...for me, keeping power as evenly balanced as possible through accountability and egalitarianism is the way humanity ends up surviving for the longest period of time, and that cause of continued survival is my personal hill that I would die on - other people have theirs, some people don't have one at all, and fair enough for them.

[Izzy]

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

In that one post alone you employed quite a vast catalogue of negative words (moaning, whinging, victims, jealousy, insecurity, frustration, resentment) to describe your perception of people's relationship with those in power. Clearly you do feel that fighting back against those in power is a negative thing. That's a theme that permeates though many of your posts.

Not negative, just not for me. I haven't got the passion or energy to take on the system. I'm mostly happy with my life and things as they are so I'll leave the fight to you, Mac, FIF and the others 

 

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

In terms of what I do - all sorts of things. I don't vote for a government that favours big business over employees or the rich over the poor. I try not to give my custom to exploitative or predatory businesses. I make about 10 formal complaints every year to businesses whose service or behaviour is poor in whatever way. I make sure I get what I'm worth at work and will never again do as much as five minutes unpaid overtime (regrettably I did do that a number of times in my naive youth). I support workmates where I can in disputes with bosses. It goes on really.

 

Fair play to you, but not voting for a government and not giving custom to certain business sounds more like protesting rather than fighting (or is it same thing?)

 

If your complaints get acted on and they help to make a positive difference, then great. But I'm not sure being militant at work classes as fighting the government, system or establishment but I do admire how you support your colleagues in disputes - you sound like a Union rep 

 

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Before I started posting on here I was under the impression that all this was quite normal, but this place has been an eye opener as to how subservient a lot of people are.

I may have been born at night - but I wasn't born last night 

[Izzy]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, the first couple of paragraphs are fair enough - you would have to be sure of malicious attributability before holding them to account, and I'm glad you agree taking them on in such circumstances is good - I just wish it was easier.

 

We do seem to differ in the way we view the world, and that's alright...for me, keeping power as evenly balanced as possible through accountability and egalitarianism is the way humanity ends up surviving for the longest period of time, and that cause of continued survival is my personal hill that I would die on - other people have theirs, some people don't have one at all, and fair enough for them.

Nuff respect to you Mac. I admire your strong beliefs and crusade to make the world a fairer place 

 

I've enjoyed our little chat, thank you.

[ajthefox]

4 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

In that one post alone you employed quite a vast catalogue of negative words (moaning, whinging, victims, jealousy, insecurity, frustration, resentment) to describe your perception of people's relationship with those in power. Clearly you do feel that fighting back against those in power is a negative thing. That's a theme that permeates through many of your posts.

 

In terms of what I do - all sorts of things. I don't vote for a government that favours big business over employees or the rich over the poor. I try not to give my custom to exploitative or predatory businesses. I make about 10 formal complaints every year to businesses whose service or behaviour is poor in whatever way. I make sure I get what I'm worth at work and will never again do as much as five minutes unpaid overtime (regrettably I did do that a number of times in my naive youth). I support workmates where I can in disputes with bosses. It goes on really. Before I started posting on here I was under the impression that all this was quite normal, but this place has been an eye opener as to how subservient a lot of people are.

I am all for challenging authority and power - I think it is our duty to question why these structures exist and not just take things for granted because our predecessors did.

 

But I must say I think it is telling and sadly (as a left leaning voter) somewhat indicative of strongly left leaning voters that you paint this picture of those who don't agree with you or think the same way as wrong or stupid. You haven't used those words but subservient is hardly a compliment. We've all got out different motivations and for some people it is less about changing the world or "the greater good" and maybe a bit more about their own lives. I don't vote in that way but it is really that bad to think of yourself first? Maybe if everyone focused on bettering themselves and those around them and not spending time arguing with those they don't agree with, maybe we would all be a little bit better off. If PMQs was less about point scoring and more about engaging the other in useful debate maybe our MPs would get more done.

 

You might think I'm talking irrelevant bollocks but I feel obliged to call out certain things in here when I can actually be arsed. And I'm inclined to think you might be a bit more willing to take some criticism from someone with a much more similar world view to you than if it were to come from say, Webbo or Matt.

 

 

[ajthefox]

Can you run for office please @leicsmac ..?

[Izzy]

5 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

I am all for challenging authority and power - I think it is our duty to question why these structures exist and not just take things for granted because our predecessors did.

 

But I must say I think it is telling and sadly (as a left leaning voter) somewhat indicative of strongly left leaning voters that you paint this picture of those who don't agree with you or think the same way as wrong or stupid. You haven't used those words but subservient is hardly a compliment. We've all got out different motivations and for some people it is less about changing the world or "the greater good" and maybe a bit more about their own lives. I don't vote in that way but it is really that bad to think of yourself first? Maybe if everyone focused on bettering themselves and those around them and not spending time arguing with those they don't agree with, maybe we would all be a little bit better off. If PMQs was less about point scoring and more about engaging the other in useful debate maybe our MPs would get more done.

 

You might think I'm talking irrelevant bollocks but I feel obliged to call out certain things in here when I can actually be arsed. And I'm inclined to think you might be a bit more willing to take some criticism from someone with a much more similar world view to you than if it were to come from say, Webbo or Matt.

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Can you run for office please @leicsmac ..?

I blink when I lie, sadly.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I blink when I lie, sadly.

I lie when i blink.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

15 hours ago, Milo said:

You seem to come across as a fairly bright type - and  I assume that you're familiar with Maslows Hierarchy of Needs theories....I'm not too sure that your statement above fits in to this. Once their D needs are met, then there are a whole group,of people who are entirely satisfied with what they have. 

 

 

That theory was born a long time ago. It’d be interesting to see how way that played in modern times now westernised word is flooded with marketing messages everywhere. 

[Rogstanley]

8 hours ago, ajthefox said:

I am all for challenging authority and power - I think it is our duty to question why these structures exist and not just take things for granted because our predecessors did.

 

But I must say I think it is telling and sadly (as a left leaning voter) somewhat indicative of strongly left leaning voters that you paint this picture of those who don't agree with you or think the same way as wrong or stupid. You haven't used those words but subservient is hardly a compliment. We've all got out different motivations and for some people it is less about changing the world or "the greater good" and maybe a bit more about their own lives. I don't vote in that way but it is really that bad to think of yourself first? Maybe if everyone focused on bettering themselves and those around them and not spending time arguing with those they don't agree with, maybe we would all be a little bit better off. If PMQs was less about point scoring and more about engaging the other in useful debate maybe our MPs would get more done.

 

You might think I'm talking irrelevant bollocks but I feel obliged to call out certain things in here when I can actually be arsed. And I'm inclined to think you might be a bit more willing to take some criticism from someone with a much more similar world view to you than if it were to come from say, Webbo or Matt.

 

 

Subservient is just an observation. In the same way as bitter, twisted, angry, jealous, moaning, whingeing, resentful, insecure, negative, frustrated and resentful are all observations made by Izzy about myself or my beliefs. I have no problem with that, I don’t take it personally, and I don’t think Izzy would take my observations personally either. If he does then he shouldn’t because it’s not intended in that way

[ozleicester]

They have significant issues (as does any country) but China has done some amazing things under the communist party.

 

Nearly half a Billion (450,000,000) people lifted out of poverty.

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

They have significant issues (as does any country) but China has done some amazing things under the communist party.

 

Nearly half a Billion (450,000,000) people lifted out of poverty.

Since they embraced free markets. Didn't Mao starve about 40 million to death?

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Since they embraced free markets. Didn't Mao starve about 40 million to death?

45 million reportedly

[David Guiza]

32 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Since they embraced free markets. Didn't Mao starve about 40 million to death?

 

29 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

45 million reportedly

60 million. That's more than Stalin. 

 

 

[ozleicester]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

 

60 million. That's more than Stalin. 

 

 

Bloody hell, its not an auction you know!

 

But, I acknowledge there are issues...but leave those out of the equation and the poverty lift is remarkable.

 

And yes i realise leaving 40-50-60 million deaths out is a big ask... but we are pretty comfortable in ignoring other massacres (29 Million Indians killed by the british etc) http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-truth-our-empire-killed-millions-404631.html

 

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, ozleicester said:

They have significant issues (as does any country) but China has done some amazing things under the communist party.

 

Nearly half a Billion (450,000,000) people lifted out of poverty.

Mainly of course, opening the country up to capitalism. Only you could see 450,000,000 lifted out of poverty because of that and then talk about 60,000,000 being killed under communism and still wonder which system you might think as the best.

 

It's a different issue and argument but China opening itself to the World will have bigger consequences than we can imagine now, tourism alone will start to be restricted as the numbers of them travelling is mammoth now and set to increase by a third before 2020, the numbers are going to be astronomical the it's more economic development advances.

[Guest]

On 2/20/2018 at 19:07, FoxesDeb said:

Maybe try something other than anal 

ooh homophobic humour feel like im back in t'70s

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, shanetko said:

ooh homophobic humour feel like im back in t'70s

Homophobic? Hardly