The Future of Britain

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So you think that pointing out illogicality and incorrectness isn't showing empathy. OK, so how do you challenge in a way that shows empathy? I am interested to learn from previous approaches you might have used here that you think worthy of repetition.

Why are you misrepresenting what I said? It's not the fact of challenge, but rather the "you're a fucking idiot" approach vs the "let's try to understand the argument here a bit better" line.

Like I said though, it's not for me to tell you how to behave. Possibly JP would have had some interesting responses to having his position held up to the light, but I guess we'll never know now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I haven't mentioned privacy. I want the press to be at least vaguely honest. Because if they aren't, what we get is fake news being believed, and that interferes with democracy - hence our independent judiciary being called the enemies of the people. Where do you think that will lead?

Privacy specifically is another aspect of freedom of speech. I want our press to be honest too, but when you advocate banning publications that you think not to be you're on a very slippery slope. Doubtless Trump would argue that CNN and the New York Times are not honest too.   

Then what?

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Privacy specifically is another aspect of freedom of speech. I want our press to be honest too, but when you advocate banning publications that you think not to be you're on a very slippery slope. Doubtless Trump would argue that CNN and the New York Times are not honest too.   

Then what?

I don't know if publications should be banned or not - banning the DM was a throwaway comment. But there is no doubt that it stokes the flames and purveys the very poison that we want to see removed from our society - it isn't a newspaper. So if you don't ban it, how do you stop it lying?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Why are you misrepresenting what I said? It's not the fact of challenge, but rather the "you're a fucking idiot" approach vs the "let's try to understand the argument here a bit better" line.

Like I said though, it's not for me to tell you how to behave. Possibly JP would have had some interesting responses to having his position held up to the light, but I guess we'll never know now.

Did I say 'you're a fucking idiot'? And you want to talk about misrepresentation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Did I say 'you're a fucking idiot'?

No, and nor did I accuse you of doing so. What I said was the "you're a fucking idiot" approach.

And you want to talk about misrepresentation?

Yes, and you just did it again.

[Enki]

So the original cornerstone is in your opinion publishing a newspaper, so could I  publish the Paedophile Clarion? Including all the kids that need a good seeing to? How about The Bad Yid News with those Jews that need corrected? Maybe the Nigger Mirror, when you need to know who should be enslaved?


The freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic and not one that I think boils down to the idea that we haven't banned things as a cornerstone of whatever it is we do. The history of the press is a history of being banned not of being free.

I  doubt it, Nearly. I would not condone any of the above as I have made perfectly clear in post 26, by saying:

"I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action."

All you have done is give a series of very extreme examples. Incidentally, I wonder if Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' would sit happily in their midst.

It is my opinion that the freedom of the press is simply an extension of free speech, and, if there are extreme examples, such as the ones you enumerate, then each individual one needs to be looked at, and a judgement as to whether action is taken, and this may well include banning, according to the law of the land.

Of course the freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic. That is why I did not take seriously the suggestion that we simply ban the Daily Mail. I have not said that we haven't banned things whilst still regarding free speech(and its extension, the right to print) as a cornerstone of our democracy. It seems to me the history of the press includes both the right to free speech and the right to be curtailed. That, for me, is part of the complexity that you refer to.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, and nor did I accuse you of doing so. What I said was the "you're a fucking idiot" approach.

Yes, and you just did it again.

So you just assert that someone is using the 'you're a fucking idiot' approach in your opinion, (whatever it is you mean) and even though all they have done is point out illogicalities and incorrectness, that is some how bad because someone might think that doing so isn't showing empathy? So of I were to say your posts show a 'I want to shag four year olds' approach despite none of your posts saying that I would be justified?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I don't know if publications should be banned or not - banning the DM was a throwaway comment. But there is no doubt that it stokes the flames and purveys the very poison that we want to see removed from our society - it isn't a newspaper. So if you don't ban it, how do you stop it lying?

But should you "stop it"? You might remember holocaust denier David Irving's books being banned in Austria and Germany (from memory) but not in the UK or elsewhere. Austria and Germany is perhaps understandable, but the fact that they were published means that Deborah Lisptadt was able to expose him for a fraud but falsifying his claims. What if instead his books had just been banned everywhere? The conspiracy theorists have a field day, the books acquire cult status etc.

No, sometimes you need the light of public scrutiny for the disinfectant to work.   

[Nearly Sane]

I  doubt it, Nearly. I would not condone any of the above as I have made perfectly clear in post 26, by saying:

"I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action."

All you have done is give a series of very extreme examples. Incidentally, I wonder if Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' would sit happily in their midst.

It is my opinion that the freedom of the press is simply an extension of free speech, and, if there are extreme examples, such as the ones you enumerate, then each individual one needs to be looked at, and a judgement as to whether action is taken, and this may well include banning, according to the law of the land.

Of course the freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic. That is why I did not take seriously the suggestion that we simply ban the Daily Mail. I have not said that we haven't banned things whilst still regarding free speech(and its extension, the right to print) as a cornerstone of our democracy. It seems to me the history of the press includes both the right to free speech and the right to be curtailed. That, for me, is part of the complexity that you refer to.

Surely this is merely the long known issue with liberalism and freedom. Mill wrote some rather good stuff on this iirc. I don't see how using a reductio isn't asking someone to justify their position, indeed it's rather the point to me.

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi,

But should you "stop it"? You might remember holocaust denier David Irving's books being banned in Austria and Germany (from memory) but not in the UK or elsewhere. Austria and Germany is perhaps understandable, but the fact that they were published means that Deborah Lisptadt was able to expose him for a fraud but falsifying his claims. What if instead his books had just been banned everywhere? The conspiracy theorists have a field day, the books acquire cult status etc.

No, sometimes you need the light of public scrutiny for the disinfectant to work.   

Being able to stop for infringement of laws by scrutiny such as either Holocaust denial or libel is stopping it. The DM could be put out of business with a certain regulatory structure and many theoretical newspapers have had and have this done.

[Nearly Sane]

If someone's posting style pisses me off it's up to me if I want to engage with that or not. This is a forum for grown ups, not snowflakes, abuse aside we are all responsible as individuals for what we do or don't get out of it. I've flounced as much as anyone. My fault, no-one else's.

Anyway.

Knees up muvver braahnn, knees up muvver braahhnn...

Muppets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJHoO11zNI

[Enki]

Surely this is merely the long known issue with liberalism and freedom. Mill wrote some rather good stuff on this iirc. I don't see how using a reductio isn't asking someone to justify their position, indeed it's rather the point to me.

Nothing to disagree with you, here, Nearly. As to your last sentence, if I had said that the freedom of the press should prevail at all costs, then your reductio might have had some point. However, as I didn't say that, then I have no need to justify my position on those grounds. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So you just assert that someone is using the 'you're a fucking idiot' approach in your opinion, (whatever it is you mean) and even though all they have done is point out illogicalities and incorrectness, that is some how bad because someone might think that doing so isn't showing empathy?

Wow – that’s a lot or misrepresentations in one sentence.

First - again - I wasn’t talking about what you said but rather about the way that you said it. Do you genuinely not understand the difference?

Second, “whatever it is I mean” is exactly what I said I meant – an approach rather than a specific quote. Why then haven’t you withdrawn the accusation of misrepresenting you?

Third, it’s not “bad” because you have no empathy but rather that it’s counter-productive if you’re interested in having a discussion, as indeed JP’s response showed. I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with him – just that sometimes your approach can feel like your interlocutor has been stabbed in the face rather than asked to explain himself.   

So of I were to say your posts show a 'I want to shag four year olds' approach despite none of your posts saying that I would be justified?

Well that’s bizarre. Again, you’re confusing content with style. If I had intended to say that, then I would have had to have said it specifically. You couldn’t just have inferred it.

Look it’s none of my business how you treat people but I do think that if you want to encourage free discussion here some approaches are likely to be less successful than others.

It’s up to you though.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Wow – that’s a lot or misrepresentations in one sentence.

First - again - I wasn’t talking about what you said but rather about the way that you said it. Do you genuinely not understand the difference?

Second, “whatever it is I mean” is exactly what I said I meant – an approach rather than a specific quote. Why then haven’t you withdrawn the accusation of misrepresenting you?

Third, it’s not “bad” because you have no empathy but rather that it’s counter-productive if you’re interested in having a discussion, as indeed JP’s response showed. I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with him – just that sometimes your approach can feel like your interlocutor has been stabbed in the face rather than asked to explain himself.   

Well that’s bizarre. Again, you’re confusing content with style. If I had intended to say that, then I would have had to have said it specifically. You couldn’t just have inferred it.

Look it’s none of my business how you treat people but I do think that if you want to encourage free discussion here some approaches are likely to be less successful than others.

It’s up to you though.   

Since your 'first' is in direct contradiction to what was written, it makes of difficult to understand what your issue is.

Your second given you are talking about an approach which isn't based on what is written is obviously something you mean by that. How is it odd pointing out that your interpretation of something, which you have given a title, is whatever you mean by that title and not an objective fact?

Third, I see you begging the question as to whether I have no empathy by assuming it in your statement. I fear I might back up your subjective opinion by pointing out the use of the fallacy since you seem to think that to do so is showing no empathy, but then since it is just an example of your circular reasoning, I don't care.

As to your point about 'inferring' maybe you missed the question mark, but leaving that aside are you honestly saying that everything you mean to say you say explicitly and you never imply anything?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Being able to stop for infringement of laws by scrutiny such as either Holocaust denial or libel is stopping it. The DM could be put out of business with a certain regulatory structure and many theoretical newspapers have had and have this done.

That’s not what happened. Lipstadt published her book “Denying the Holocaust” and Irving sued her and Penguin Books for libel. He lost because the court decided that Lipstadt’s claim that he had deliberately distorted evidence was substantially true.

Thus Lipstadt’s book wasn’t stopped and nor were Irving’s books, but the latter were discredited in a court of law.

And that was my point – better in my view to allow publication and then to falsify than to drive underground with all that tends to entail.

And yes the DM could be put out of business, and in fact there’s a good argument I think that some recent newspaper headlines do cross the line into incitement. As the targets were Muslims though, there seems to be little public appetite for doing anything about it.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That’s not what happened. Lipstadt published her book “Denying the Holocaust” and Irving sued her and Penguin Books for libel. He lost because the court decided that Lipstadt’s claim that he had deliberately distorted evidence was substantially true.

Thus Lipstadt’s book wasn’t stopped and nor were Irving’s books, but the latter were discredited in a court of law.

And that was my point – better in my view to allow publication and then to falsify than to drive underground with all that tends to entail.

And yes the DM could be put out of business, and in fact there’s a good argument I think that some recent newspaper headlines do cross the line into incitement. As the targets were Muslims though, there seems to be little public appetite for doing anything about it.   

If something is banned by cost, then it is banned. The idea that there is a difference between post facto prosecution and it being a categorical post facto ban is sophistry. Irving could be published in Germany, it's just that the post facto costs would either in monetary or prison terms are such that makes it unlikely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Since your 'first' is in direct contradiction to what was written, it makes of difficult to understand what your issue is.

No it isn't. I merely point out that content and style are different things, even though you keep trying to conflate them.

Your second given you are talking about an approach which isn't based on what is written is obviously something you mean by that. How is it odd pointing out that your interpretation of something, which you have given a title, is whatever you mean by that title and not an objective fact?

It's odd because no-one has said that being made to feel "you're a fucking idiot" is an objective fact. Thats just your straw man. The only objective fact is that some people are turned off enough by your approach to exit the conversation. Whether or not you feel they shoudl be is another matter.   

Third, I see you begging the question as to whether I have no empathy by assuming it in your statement. I fear I might back up your subjective opinion by pointing out the use of the fallacy since you seem to think that to do so is showing no empathy, but then since it is just an example of your circular reasoning, I don't care.

Again, a straw man. The only point I'm making is that people do get pissed off by your approach. I make no statement about whether or not they're right to - just that they do.

As to your point about 'inferring' maybe you missed the question mark, but leaving that aside are you honestly saying that everything you mean to say you say explicitly and you never imply anything?

That's three straw men in one post. Are you after Vlad's Fallacy Top Trumps crown or something?

The difference is that someone like JP could readily infer an unnecessarily combative style from you posts that repelled him. What no-one could infer though was content, whether about four-year-olds or anything else.

I really don't know why were having this spat. As a mod here I'd have thought you'd want to encourage as many people as possible to join in, and your sterling efforts to start new discussions suggest that I'm right about that. I merely suggest that you're style of posting sometime has pretty much the opposite effect.

No more, no less.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some charcoal to light and some mushrooms to stuff.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If something is banned by cost, then it is banned.

That’s plainly nonsense. If I have a novel published and it sells three copies so the publisher withdraws it, no-one has “banned” it. It’s just been commercially unsuccessful.
To be banned something has to be proscribed, generally by a body with the authority to enforce it – eg, through the courts.   

The idea that there is a difference between post facto prosecution and it being a categorical post facto ban is sophistry.

Of course it isn’t. Irving’s books weren’t “banned” – they just stopped selling and so went out of print. If I was rich enough and daft enough and could acquire the rights, I could re-publish them myself if I wanted to and no-one would stop me. There is no ban – just commercial disinterest.

Irving could be published in Germany…

No he couldn’t – from memory either Germany or Austria (or both) did ban his books because Holocaust denial is (or was at least) a crime. I seem to recall that he was arrested when he went to one of them too.

…,it's just that the post facto costs would either in monetary or prison terms are such that makes it unlikely.

Why would he go to prison if there was no ban?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it isn't. I merely point out that content and style are different things, even though you keep trying to conflate them.

No, I don't. That would be you by suggesting a style is somehow consistent with pointing out an illogicality and an incorrectness.

It's odd because no-one has said that being made to feel "you're a fucking idiot" is an objective fact. Thats just your straw man. The only objective fact is that some people are turned off enough by your approach to exit the conversation. Whether or not you feel they should be is another matter.   

 

And another misrepresentation. I said you were presenting it as a fact that that was the style. I am sure some people might be turned off by my approach, or by any approach. Given that any approach might turn some people off it's a hazard of posting

Again, a straw man. The only point I'm making is that people do get pissed off by your approach. I make no statement about whether or not they're right to - just that they do.

which is a truism about posting so what's the use of it

That's three straw men in one post. Are you after Vlad's Fallacy Top Trumps crown or something?

Assertion an an ad hom based on that.

The difference is that someone like JP could readily infer an unnecessarily combative style from you posts that repelled him. What no-one could infer though was content, whether about four-year-olds or anything else.

You don't really understand inference. Anyone can infer anything. How do you infer something is unnecessary for example?

I really don't know why were having this spat. As a mod here I'd have thought you'd want to encourage as many people as possible to join in, and your sterling efforts to start new discussions suggest that I'm right about that. I merely suggest that you're style of posting sometime has pretty much the opposite effect.

No more, no less.

Again this is a truism. Unless you actually think that I shouldn't post it's not a useful observation.

[wigginhall]

Do people really get depressed about these incidents?  I drove past Grenfell Tower on Sunday, and it is a big shock to see it, and it raises lots of questions, but I don't feel depressed, nor about terrorism.   I don't really get that, but people are different.   Maybe they are not really depressed, but something else?

[Shaker]

Do people really get depressed about these incidents?  I drove past Grenfell Tower on Sunday, and it is a big shock to see it, and it raises lots of questions, but I don't feel depressed, nor about terrorism.   I don't really get that, but people are different.   Maybe they are not really depressed, but something else?

So much awfulness in such a short space of time is a bit wearing to say the least, surely?

[wigginhall]

So much awfulness in such a short space of time is a bit wearing to say the least, surely?

Yes, that's true.  I suppose it depends on one's personality.   I'm just wondering if Tom Holland is seriously depressed about terrorism, but maybe he is.   Maybe I am weird in not being.

[Shaker]

No - you feel however you feel.

But whether through deliberate malice or tragic accident, the loss of so much life so relatively quickly is troubling. I admit that, not liking hot weather, I may be gloomier than usual on that account.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, that's true.  I suppose it depends on one's personality.   I'm just wondering if Tom Holland is seriously depressed about terrorism, but maybe he is.   Maybe I am weird in not being.

I'm not either. It has left me like that in the past. Not now. Like you I feel all kinds of things and have shed tears, but I don't feel depressed, or hopeless, or hate. Maybe it's because my own life has more good in it than bad right now, selfish though that might be.

[wigginhall]

It made me think of my grandad, who was a POW in a German saltmine in WWI, and he told me he didn't get depressed.   I guess it's not a rational process.