The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Thoughts on socialism and leftism generally

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Charlie » 16 Feb 2013, 17:07

I've decided to post this because after reading an interview on the Guardian for the first time in ages, I couldn’t help but notice the immaturity of the comments there. One could say that it’s just that - immaturity - possibly indicative of the age of the commentators, but if we’re looking at the Leftists' mentality, I think the following example reveals something of the Left’s psyche - particularly when it comes to dealing with their ‘enemy’. That is to say, the Right.

Before I get to the case, I should mention that it's not as if the Right doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks on the Left. In fact, one probably wouldn't have much difficulty finding examples within the comments sections of Right-leaning online newspapers and magazines - I've certainly seen them.

However, upon reading the Guardian's interview yesterday with the blogger Guido Fawkes, the comments section underneath was really quite something. I'm not a massive fan of Guido’s blog - he can be vulgar and tacky - but it can be amusing to see him digging the dirt on the politicians of this country. It's done in a kind of cheap, tabloid way, but I can also see why it's so popular. Indeed, it's the most popular blog in the UK, if I'm not mistaken, and it no doubt causes some on the Left distress to see such a popular right-wing spot on the net.

The Guardian's comments section under this particular interview is very revealing. The Left are given an easy target to aim at - a right wing figure - and they don't hold back. They unleash their two minutes of hate upon him. Can these people say why they disagree with him? Not here they can’t. In any case, it is obviously much more satisfying for them to fling abuse and ad hominem attacks at their target.

Here are some charming examples:

...a fat, sweating, ignorant, self-important, pompous, highly repulsive, pr**k.


F*ck him, f*ck his readers, and f*ck his blog.


Just an another arrogant right-wing twat. Best not to take him seriously....


...you missed off dumb.
He is a disgusting individual, whose opinions are so biased they are worth jack.


Self-important? More like (in my opinion) a sociopath. He exhibits several of the traits doctors use to diagnose this condition.


What a bovine belligerent bellicose bellowing bellend of an intellectually implausible preposterous political parasite.
That interview was bad enough but if you want to witness the epitome of all that is fatuous, fallacious, fractious and facile about the interweb look no further than the highly overrated blog of this sanctimonious hypocritical sleaze bucket.


You're not wrong. I read this article knowing very little about this guy, and my first thought was that this was a psychopath.
Says a lot about the Tory party that such an unpleasant and damaged human being is so influential with them.


A w**ker with the politics of a 17 year old internet libertarian.


Like most right wing blowhard cowards he's happy to dish it out...


Staines is not a "right-wing blogger", he's a far-right blogger.


And on and on the (liberal?) hate goes, and these (presumably) grown men, all with silly user names, fling around their insults with glee.

What am I getting at with this? Well, we’ve had lots of examples of sly yet smart Leftist behaviour and general sophistry. Let’s just be on guard for the Left’s immaturity and childish behaviour. No one wants to really have to deal with the immature, but there are a lot of them out there.

Just as we’ve talked about the Left playing on emotions to try and win arguments, there are also lots of them happy to just dish out blatant ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiality. The quotes above prove that.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Gavin » 19 Feb 2013, 01:23

I agree with your observations, Charlie. That's partly why this site was set up - because others accommodate such puerile commentary.

I looked at Paul Staines' site and its tone wasn't to my taste. This Sun columnist seems to deliberately choose photos of politicians in unfortunate moments, make light of serious and complex issues, and it just all seems a bit juvenile and bullying (as indeed the Commons itself often is). As for the comments, they seemed to me of a similar standard to those typically found on YouTube.

There seems to be vulgarity from almost everyone today but I think it is still true to say that it might be more expected from a left-winger than a conservative. After all, conservatism is supposed to include some idea of adhering to standards of decency, whereas leftism is about "pushing the boundaries", "anything goes" etc.

It is usually only seconds before we hear our first F-word or ad hominem from a left-winger, whereas the right in general seem to be able to keep themselves more calm and analytical, even despite being demonised in popular culture.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Elliott » 19 Feb 2013, 01:56

I don't think Paul Staines comes across well, generally. The article Charlie referred to is here, and contains this description of him:

"We just laughed," he says, not laughing. Staines is often said to have a highly developed sense of mischief, which is no doubt true, but he is in person far less playful than one might expect. He is serious, and seriously prepared. He's also coldly watchful: his left eyelid droops a little, which gives the impression that while half his face is engaged in the conversation, the other is standing sentry.

His online persona is relentlessly mocking; it is also, compared to many online offerings, strikingly concise. Few entries, unless they contain a leaked memo or email, are more than 300 words long; you may object to their point, but there is never any doubt what it is. In person, however, he speaks in a quick mumble that often requires repetition and clarification.


But I suppose that it takes somebody like that, not terribly pleasant, to get to the truths in politics.

Somebody in the comments also links to this disastrous appearance by Guido Fawkes on Newsnight from 2006/7:


Having said all that, I agree that the wrath of the Left is a fearsome and unpleasant thing. I would repeat my final paragraphs in the OP of this thread... they despise the Right for various reasons and consider any "methods" to unmask them legitimate.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Gavin » 19 Feb 2013, 11:36

At the end of that video is a link to this one, a debate between Brand and Hitchens. I post it not really to discuss the drugs issue but as an example of the very poor and devious debating tactics so often used by the left.



Viewers will note that Brand immediately attacks Hitchens, who has calmly put his points, with a stream of ad hominems. He uses the word "bigot" even sooner than I had expected, calls Mr Hitchens a "child" makes many other insulting remarks which contribute nothing to the debate. Thankfully, Hitchens highlights this every time and manages to keep his cool under these sustained provocations. It's hardly surprising that Brand has been selected by the BBC as a documentary maker.

Brand is not even internally consistent. He refers to drug addicts such as himself as "a nuisance" and "pests". Says he "loves" Peter Hitchens. He makes other juvenile remarks during what should be a serious discussion, also accusing HItchens of homophobia (just by way of casual insult - no qualification offered). Brand implies that he doesn't think this issue should be debated seriously when he says to Peter Hitchens "there's more to a debate, Peter, than acting all serious and posh". Thus he manages further insult, claiming that Peter Hitchens is affected (when, even worse, Brand's own speech is clearly very affected) and that there is something wrong with being "posh". None of these insults brings anything to the table in the way of arguments.

In fact, on examination, Brand indulges in all of the following logical fallacies: Appeal to flattery, Appeal to ridicule, Ad hominem, Bulverism, Chronological snobbery, Straw man. Probably even more than this.

I also found the man with Brand unconvincing. Drug addicts' problems "crept up on them", he said. Both he and Brand seemed to think these people had no free will. The main thing, though, was I notice he engaged in one quite common diversionary tactic when Peter Hitchens said we should deter people from taking drugs in the first place "which we do not do": the man replied "We don't do it with alcohol either". I think this is a probably a known logical fallacy, but I haven't been able to identify it yet. The point is, of course, it attempts to divert argument without taking on the issue at hand. A lesbian liberal used it against me some time ago when I mentioned that the Qur'an is full of hate. "So is the Bible", she said. Whether or not it this is true, it avoids dealing with my objection, thus is an expected devious response from the Left, appropriate to this thread.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Gavin » 19 Feb 2013, 11:55

Just on "Godwin's Law", by the way, I was pleased to see that this clause managed to find its way into the Wikipedia:

"Invocation of reductio ad Hitlerum or (particularly on the internet) the related Godwin's Law may not be out of line where such a comparison is reasonable (for example, in discussions of dangers involved in eugenics or tolerance of racist and nationalist political parties). In such contexts, the belittling and dismissal of an opponent's argument on this basis becomes its own form of association fallacy and ad hominem attack."


Of course, they use the example of racism, but still I believe that when valid comparisons are made to the Nazis, this "law" should not be invoked, and is itself an underhand tactic and a fallacy. After all, the speaker need not be claiming identity with National Socialism in every respect.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Charlie » 19 Feb 2013, 20:59

Great post(s) Gavin - I couldn't agree more.
It's strange how one's ideas and opinions can change so quickly. When Christopher Hitchens was still alive, I never thought that Peter Hitchens had anything relevant to say. With the elder brother no longer here, and with the passage of time, I've come to greatly appreciate Peter Hitchens - I like him more than his brother in fact, although I can't claim to exactly agree with everything that he says. His calmness when debating is undeniable, and I love the fact that he clearly doesn't care what anyone thinks about him. That must be necessary when dealing with the Left - all that sniggering and vituperation would rile lesser men. I think it's actually quite telling that he's a laughing stock on the Left - instead of having a proper debate with him, they can just have a chuckle and label him as a bigot, a throwback, or come out with the biggest insult of all nowadays: Daily Mail journalist.

As for Russell Brand, the falsity of the man seemed to be very apparent to me. At times, it sounded like he wanted to try and polish the rougher edges of his accent during that clip (I could be wrong), but he couldn't keep the act up for long.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Elliott » 19 Feb 2013, 23:13

I'm sorry to speak ill of the dead, but I really don't like Christopher Hitchens. In video clips, I think he comes across as arrogant, full of himself, and something of a bully. And in terms of politics I think he was just a champagne socialist with a hard, nasty edge. I think that people invested a lot of faith (I'm not being facetious in using that word) in Christopher Hitchens as a kind of heroic debater - I suspect that, with time, that conception of him will fade and people will see that, while indeed a brilliant debater, his commitment to the truth lasted only as long as the truth flattered his ego.

But Peter Hitchens is, of course, a very different matter. I generally agree with him on things and find him, though usually humourless and slightly robotic, a far more decent, perceptive and thoughtful man than his brother. Actually the one issue on which I disagree with him is drugs, because I find his position on it far too hardline and simplistic.

This is embarrassing because it compels me to say that, in that Newsnight debate, I was actually on Russell Brand's side more than on Mr Hitchens's side. Brand is insincere, an oaf, a dandy and certainly not the type of man you'd want your daughter to meet at a party, but I think Hitchens made it easy for Brand to mock him.

I agree with all of the criticisms Gavin made of Brand's conduct in the debate and, as I said, I am generally a fan of Hitchens. But, despite all his juvenile behaviour, Brand came across as if he actually wanted to find a solution and was flexible about things while, by contrast, Hitchens came across as angry, closed-minded, not particularly interested in a solution and totally inflexible. (For example, I think it is quite reasonable for Brand to be presenting a documentary about drugs since he has first-hand experience of the issue.) Furthermore his way of dealing with Brand's humour was to behave robotically stoical. When I see him like that, I'm not surprised that liberals consider him a humourless conservative automaton.

Unfortunately both Brand and Hitchens were so much at loggerheads that, after the debate, I still don't know how either of them actually wants drug addicts to be treated. As for the quandary as to whether addiction is a crime or a disease, I think it is a false dichotomy and a waste of debating time. Of course it's a crime, but of course it's also a crippling mental disease; punishing an addict for being an addict is not going to get anyone anywhere, least of all the addict. I think, if we send them to prison, it should be purely so that they can be rehabilitated. Otherwise it's just pointless spite. I would be punishing the dealers and trying to permanently move addicts far away from their neighbourhoods (to where they usually return after prison time just to immediately resume their addiction, and society has achieved nothing).

Unfortunately these are things that we, conservatives, are going to have to adapt to otherwise we will be dismissed by the complacent masses as reactionary, unrealistic, ideological, out of touch, out of time, etc. I'm afraid I think this is one issue on which Peter Hitchens confirms that stereotype.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Charlie » 20 Feb 2013, 19:52

First, Christopher Hitchens. I’ll try not to write too much about him. I think you’re right: he was somewhat arrogant and full of himself, but his cocksure manner also gave him the drive to go to outlandish places, meet extraordinary people and write about it all in a rather entertaining, erudite and readable manner. Despite his flaws, I’m thankful to have some familiarity with his work. In particular, I love his writings on Jorge Luis Borges and his insights into the madness of North Korea, as well as his verbal demolition of Shirley Williams on Question Time and his dedication to taking down that traitorous Saddam Hussein bootlicker, George Galloway. However, I never cared for Hitchens’s anti-Israel stance and I’m completely with Dalrymple as far as religion is concerned.

As for Peter Hitchens, he can come across, like you said, as humourless, robotic and inflexible. In fact, some of his obdurate opinions appear to have fossilised and consequently, like I said before, I really can’t claim to agree with everything he says. For instance, he believes that dyslexia doesn’t exist. Whilst I believe it would be right to say that it’s over-diagnosed nowadays, I think that were he ever to meet my fiancée, he would change his mind about its nonexistence. Or maybe not, given his apparent diehard nature.

Peter Hitchens also supports the death penalty, which is something I don’t think I could ever back and what I see as the harshness of that particular punishment also brings me to my next point. Your last paragraph spoke of a kind of image problem that conservatives have. You used the words reactionary, unrealistic, idealogical, and out of touch, all which could be used to describe Peter Hitchens at times. I agree with you, but in my view, there is only really one word of which conservatives should be wary. If they want their opinions to be taken seriously, they should take care not to come across as draconian. I think that’s the word that turns people off and which accurately describes how some people view Peter Hitchens, even though many of them - Russell Brand included of course - can’t actually respond to his arguments when debating with him.

However, many people complain that in an attempt to gain votes, the present conservative government is dominated by wishy-washy, rebranding types, eager for the party to occupy that hallowed political centre where blandness be thy name. Having been a left-winger in the past, I think there is only so much a conservative can do when it comes to image. For example, I remember seeing Douglas Murray on Question Time some years ago. At that time in my life, I wasn’t prepared to listen to him. I had my lefty blinkers on, so although I had no answers to what Murray was saying, I would have scoffed at him even if he had turned up wearing a t-shirt with “Not In My Name!” emblazoned on it, a Will Self book endorsement and long Brand-esque locks.

On the subject of Brand, I don’t believe that he really wants to find a solution to the drugs problem. Or to put it another way, I think he has as much motivation to find an answer as say John Lennon had to find peace. As you said, in that Youtube clip Hitchens was rather inflexible, but in the past he has mentioned that he cares about the interests of the working class and I’m rather inclined to believe him on that point. In contrast, I think that Brand just wished he could get high again with his rich mates in The Libertines. Any excuse for a further continuation of his perma-adolescence. Just like the baby-boomers before him and their refusal to grow up, Brand can throw out words like “compassion” as if he was some hippy from the 60s, but it’s as meaningless as his brief marriage to Katy Perry was and as naïve as John and Yoko were when they were sitting in bed wishing for world peace.

My snooty mockery aside, it’s perfectly reasonable for Brand to present a program on drugs, given his own experience with them, but when it comes to a debate, I’m not surprised that Hitchens dealt with Brand’s “humour” in such a fashion after enduring previous childish barbs prior to their Newsnight encounter. Here are some quotes from a previous debate, which you might have already seen:

Hitchens said:
"He [Brand] says he's not responsible for his own drug taking"

followed by:

"It's a pleasure that we seek - people do it because they want to. And then, the demand - which was quite rightly mentioned by the President of Colombia at the beginning - the demand which drives the supply, then ruin and murder and warfare and bloodshed and all the other evils descend on the countries which supply. It all comes from us - it comes from rich western kids, selfishly following their pleasures creating a world-wide industry and huge flow of money which is disastrous for the entire globe. And we don't ever address it."


Here’s how Brand chose to respond:
“It’s nice to receive your bigotry from another medium other than the hate-rag The Mail On Sunday through which you normally peddle hatred, insular thought, lack of love between human beings…”

and then:

“What I’m saying mate, whether or not I’m selfish or wearing a hat is redundant and irrelevant. These are the kind of personal attacks - the aggressive stance that you continually adopt to vilify people needlessly. What’s next? Criminalise people for being a bit brown? Is that your next policy from The Mail On Sunday? We don’t listen to people like you any more - we’ve evolved as a species...”


Hitchens cut in:
“That’s an idiotic slur and I notice you don’t actually answer my argument. Are you responsible for your actions or are you not? Do you take drugs because you want to or because you have to?”


Brand then said:
“In spite of what Margaret Thatcher said, there is such a thing as society. We are responsible for one another. If we treat people compassionately and with love, people will benefit. People are of course responsible for their actions, you’re responsible for writing for a bigoted newspaper...” [cue enthusiastic applause from the audience]


Faced with such comments, I don’t think it’s any wonder that Hitchens treated Brand as he did during that Newsnight debate. Ok, thanks to the pair’s posturing, the debate ended up canceling itself out. I think I’m just a bit puzzled that Hitchens lowered himself to talk to Brand again, but a man has to make a living I guess.

I can see a lot of sense in what you say about the drugs problem, but putting the subject to one side, the lack of manners from so many Leftists is, to my mind, much more of an impediment to sound debate than Hitchens’s stubborn attitude. A Leftist may have great difficulty warming to Peter Hitchens, but no one in his right mind would feel represented by such immaturity from the Left, surely?

Incidentally, Julian Assange was also present for the debate that I’ve quoted above. Apparently, he had the following to say about Hitchens:

“I thought you were going to give that t*at the final word”


This was met with enthusiastic applause from the audience. No wonder such discussions don’t get anywhere - most of the more well-known participants on the Left haven’t bothered to grow up.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Elliott » 21 Feb 2013, 01:35

Lots of good points there, Charlie.

First, on Christopher Hitchens. I haven't read his travelogues, but I have no doubt that he was a very intelligent man. I just think that he primarily used his observational gift to see what he wanted to see. Also, while he might criticise North Korea, he never renounced his admiration for Trotsky. Also, while I would quite enjoy seeing Shirley Williams "demolished" verbally, I do think that Hitchens seemed to be the type of person who really quite enjoys demolishing" people, and that worries me frankly. My other clue as to his character came in an obituary of him written by his wife, where she quoted him as saying frequently "how good it is to be us..." I don't think a decent or humble man would ever say that. I think he was, like many on the Left, in love with his own brains. Having said all that, no doubt his brains were considerable and left the rest of us many good articles, essays, etc. I would not want to denigrate those things.

Now, to Peter...

I agree with everything you say about dyslexia. The "fossilised opinions" thing is a good point, I think - it's almost like he takes pleasure in not changing with the times. I can actually understand that, but I still don't think it's wise!

The death penalty... I don't know. I think the responsible thing for us is probably to look to historical societies which practiced the death penalty and ask ourselves honestly whether those societies were better than ours. Unfortunately I think the answer is generally "yes". (But this is really a discussion for other threads, which already exist!)

Your last paragraph spoke of a kind of image problem that conservatives have. You used the words reactionary, unrealistic, idealogical, and out of touch, all which could be used to describe Peter Hitchens at times. I agree with you, but in my view, there is only really one word of which conservatives should be wary. If they want their opinions to be taken seriously, they should take care not to come across as draconian. I think that’s the word that turns people off and which accurately describes how some people view Peter Hitchens

I agree with you that conservatives should avoid becoming associated with the adjective "draconian", but I would add "ignorant". This is something that leftists frequently say about conservatives: that they don't really know about the issues, that they're not up to speed with the modern world, that they're alien to the rest of us, etc. It's a very effective, though fatuous, way to neuter the conservative's arguments.

This is partly why I like Douglas Murray so much. He manages to embody traditional conservatism (excellent diction for one thing) while being undeniably "of our time" - he's gay, he's very comfortable with the digital age, and, let's face it, he's young. Leftists cannot dismiss him as "out of touch". In fact it is often amazing to watch him debating leftists, because you see the opposite of what we've seen for so many years: the leftist is the one who is stuck in the past (circa 1980) and the conservative is the one who has both feet in the present day and is being honest about the modern world.

Actually I think we're going to see that more and more in the coming years. Leftists really don't want to give up on the Summer of Love, or the halcyon days of the 1970s when their radical ideas were new and exciting. As a result they will fossilise themselves - and are already doing so on the issue of multiculturalism. In a way that concept was the apotheosis of their treachery towards the West; it was their "best thing". No wonder they don't want to admit its utter, devastating failure. When London's skyline is a parade of minarets with flames billowing beneath, the last leftist will still be on TV somewhere saying that multiculturalism was never really given a proper chance. (God, I despise them!) But I've gone way off-course....

Having been a left-winger in the past, I think there is only so much a conservative can do when it comes to image. For example, I remember seeing Douglas Murray on Question Time some years ago. At that time in my life, I wasn’t prepared to listen to him. I had my lefty blinkers on, so although I had no answers to what Murray was saying, I would have scoffed at him even if he had turned up wearing a t-shirt with “Not In My Name!” emblazoned on it, a Will Self book endorsement and long Brand-esque locks.

I know exactly what you're talking about, Charlie. I was also a leftist and had a similar experience with Theodore Dalrymple. I first encountered him in 2004, by somehow running into his essay Don't Legalise Drugs (a neat link-up with this present discussion!) on the Internet. Even though I couldn't argue with the essay and found it uncomfortably on-the-mark, I just couldn't accept it. I wasn't ready. I found some way to dismiss it as "blinkered" and forgot about him for another few years, by which time I was not only ready but desperate to discover someone like TD.

On the subject of Brand, I don’t believe that he really wants to find a solution to the drugs problem. Or to put it another way, I think he has as much motivation to find an answer as say John Lennon had to find peace. As you said, in that Youtube clip Hitchens was rather inflexible, but in the past he has mentioned that he cares about the interests of the working class and I’m rather inclined to believe him on that point. In contrast, I think that Brand just wished he could get high again with his rich mates in The Libertines. Any excuse for a further continuation of his perma-adolescence. Just like the baby-boomers before him and their refusal to grow up, Brand can throw out words like “compassion” like some hippy from the 60s, but it’s as meaningless as his brief marriage to Katy Perry was and as naïve as John and Yoko were when they were sitting in bed wishing for world peace.

I agree completely. I believe that Hitchens cares about the working-class. I agree that Brand et al are stuck in adolescence. (By the way, did you notice his puppy dog face and little boy voice whenever he talked to the female host of that debate?)

Russell Brand strikes me as a man who is actually quite intelligent and witty. I know that might shock some people on this forum, but I am not saying that I admire him. What I am saying is that, when leftists see conservatives refusing to admit that Brand is intelligent and witty, they just write us off as deluded and unwilling to admit the truth. And I actually agree with them. I think that Brand is a clever and witty guy - and leftists can see this. But what they don't go on to perceive is that, despite these qualities, he is nevertheless an imbecile. I think that conservatives would get further if we said that: "yes, he's intelligent and witty, but he's also an idiot."

Mind you, that might confuse leftists. They associate intelligence with being automatically correct about everything (which is why they believe themselves to be cleverer than us, incidentally, simply by virtue of being left-wing!).

Here are some quotes from a previous debate, which you might have already seen

We have actually already discussed that previous encounter between Hitchens and Brand (not the encounter itself, but the debate), here. You might find some interesting comments in that thread.

I can see a lot of sense in what you say about the drugs problem, but putting the subject to one side, the lack of manners from so many Leftists is, to my mind, much more of an impediment to sound debate than Hitchens’s stubborn attitude. A Leftist may have great difficulty warming to Peter Hitchens, but no one in his right mind would feel represented by such immaturity from the Left, surely?

It depends what you mean by "in his right mind". As we have said, leftists can be perfectly sane but stuck in adolescence. Is such a person "in his right mind"?

I actually think that a lot of left-wing people, say under the age of 45, find figures like Russell Brand really enjoyable and admirable. They like that he is a rebel. They like that he "doesn't give a f***". That phrase was used by four goths aged between 25 and 45 in a Facebook run-in I had once; they were all convinced, and proud to say, that "not giving a f***" was a really admirable and virtuous thing. People like them see someone like Russell Brand and practically wet themselves. He's retained his adolescent rebelliousness, but he's also famous! In fact, he's famous because he's retained his adolescent rebelliousness! They love it. It makes them feel that they too need never grow up - or, for the older ones, it makes them feel that, after that nagging doubt, they shouldn't feel stupid for not growing up over these last few decades since they were 20. I wouldn't under-estimate how stupid these people are, Charlie. They'll be only too glad to be represented by such immaturity from the Left as is dished up by Russell Brand.

Julian Assange

Julian Assange is, IMHO, a monster. His casually dismissing a highly-learned man as a "tw*t" was revolting. I can picture Assange as the sort of psychopath who, in a civil war situation, would lay waste to anything and anyone in order to bed yet another woman, ideally his enemy's daughter. I honestly think he is a very unpleasant man. It amazes me that people look at him and see any sort of goodness.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Charlie » 21 Feb 2013, 21:46

Elliott wrote:I actually think that a lot of left-wing people, say under the age of 45, find figures like Russell Brand really enjoyable and admirable. They like that he is a rebel. They like that he "doesn't give a f***". That phrase was used by four goths aged between 25 and 45 in a Facebook run-in I had once; they were all convinced, and proud to say, that "not giving a f***" was a really admirable and virtuous thing. People like them see someone like Russell Brand and practically wet themselves. He's retained his adolescent rebelliousness, but he's also famous! In fact, he's famous because he's retained his adolescent rebelliousness! They love it. It makes them feel that they too need never grow up - or, for the older ones, it makes them feel that, after that nagging doubt, they shouldn't feel stupid for not growing up over these last few decades since they were 20. I wouldn't under-estimate how stupid these people are, Charlie. They'll be only too glad to be represented by such immaturity from the Left as is dished up by Russell Brand.

Julian Assange

Julian Assange is, IMHO, a monster. His casually dismissing a highly-learned man as a "tw*t" was revolting. I can picture Assange as the sort of psychopath who, in a civil war situation, would lay waste to anything and anyone in order to bed yet another woman, ideally his enemy's daughter. I honestly think he is a very unpleasant man. It amazes me that people look at him and see any sort of goodness.


Elliott: great post. I agree with everything you wrote, except for maybe the death penalty - perhaps I'm the fossilised one when it comes to that issue!

I've highlighted that phrase of yours in bold because it's a funny thing. I think I'm often guilty of expecting better of other people, yet not recognising that deep down, I know it won't happen!

As for Assange, I'd love to know just who is footing the massive bill for protecting him at the Ecuadorian embassy. I could probably stump up some money if I knew how much it would cost to bung him on a plane to Sweden. How illiberal of me!
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Gavin » 21 Feb 2013, 22:08

I'd perhaps go a little lighter on Assange than Elliott has done, but I think he is an attention-seeker with no regard for the lives he has put as risk by his unauthorised publishing. I remember TD was critical of Wikileaks in an article, too.

As for getting him out of the embassy, well I don't know why we haven't applied some sanctions to little Ecuador. Perhaps we have done.

If he's so innocent he should just go to Sweden and face his trial. It's laughable that he is trying to make everybody believe that Sweden and the USA are as dangerous for an innocent man as, for example, North Korea or Iran. He's like a squatter isn't he, really? A squatter in our country, but also a martyr to the Left.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Nathan » 16 May 2013, 21:20

Leftist demonstrators forced Nigel Farage out of a pub in Edinburgh after invading a press conference and shouting abuse. It must have been an intimidating experience, as out on the street one taxi refused to pick him up and a second threw him out, before police had to barricade him back in the pub.

Completely thuggish, disrespectful, nasty, unnecessary, you name it, but reading the comments section of the Guardian, although there are a lot of right-wing commenters on there these days to provide a nice counter-balance (credit where credit's due to the Guardian here for not censoring them - it can't be easy having dozens of people demolish practically every editorial you publish on your own turf!), many of them on the first page found it hilarious and perfectly justifiable:

Its called street politics mate! It has a prou,d boistrous and effective tradition!


How much class does Mr Farage deserve?


Day = made.

Sorry, would be more articulate and reasoned but am currently laughing so hard lemonade is coming out of my nose, so can't


"Do you always find it amusing when people are scared, threatened with violence and have to be protected by the police?"

When it's Farage or Nick Griffin - yes. Fuckin' hilarious.


I already love Edinburgh but it just went up a thousand-fold in my estimation!

'Shove your union jack up your arse' - I couldn't have put it better myself!


Good, I have no sympathy.


UKIP are The Daily Hate Mail's political wing - and its great to see them coming on the receiving end of some hate for a change.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, brilliant. I only wish an out of control angry mob had got hold of the weasely little shit and administered a bit of raw justice.


Let's all move to Scotland, let's all move to Scotland, da daa daa daaa, da daa daa daaaaa


"Nigel, you're a bawbag, Nigel you're a bawbag, na, na, na, hey!" with gusto.

Very, very funny
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Charlie » 16 May 2013, 22:06

Nathan wrote:Completely thuggish, disrespectful, nasty, unnecessary, you name it...


Don't you just love the Left?

I imagine that being a conservative in Scotland must be enough for one to feel like Winston Smith in 1984 at times.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Gavin » 16 May 2013, 22:19

Fast work, Nathan! I was just about to mention the same thing, having seen Mr Farage's tweet. It seems he was threatened by far left freedom-hating fascists (though I think we can safely say the BBC will probably not put it this way). These people are lucky Mr Farage even set foot in Scotland. Here's the Daily Mail write-up.

It's incidents like this that make me hope it becomes UKIP policy to cut Scotland off so that the socialist state can fend for itself and we can see how long it can manage. Of course, that will also mean no more voting for them on matters which only affect the English. It will require strong border security as I have no doubt more will be trying to come south than have any interest in heading north (especially as the economy implodes, which we can expect to happen almost immediately).

Good comments from the Mr Farage, as usual:

Nigel Farage wrote:'Normally I would love to be locked in a pub, but it was pretty unpleasant. It’s not something I’ve experienced myself anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If this is the face of Scottish nationalism, it’s a pretty ugly picture. This was dressed up as an anti-racism protest, but it was nothing of the sort – it was an anti-English thing.'
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Leftist mentality (as seen in debates)

Postby Elliott » 17 May 2013, 01:24

Charlie wrote:I imagine that being a conservative in Scotland must be enough for one to feel like Winston Smith in 1984 at times.

Yes.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

PreviousNext

Return to Socialism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Login Form

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.