However for clarity I wasn't concerned about the nature of the hell section. I find it mildly amusing that this particular section *appears* to have some sort of specialness attached to it when in reality is mostly the same people posting but just being ruder to each other and using the f-word.
What distinguishes Hell is not the rudeness nor the use of f-words and obscenities. Both can be found elsewhere on the Ship.
The “specialness” of Hell, as it were, is that it is the only part of the Ship where anger can be directed specifically at other shipmates—where the person rather than the argument can be attacked. It exists as a safety valve, so that discussions elsewhere aren’t derailed by personal disagreements.
However for clarity I wasn't concerned about the nature of the hell section. I find it mildly amusing that this particular section *appears* to have some sort of specialness attached to it when in reality is mostly the same people posting but just being ruder to each other and using the f-word.
What distinguishes Hell is not the rudeness nor the use of f-words and obscenities. Both can be found elsewhere on the Ship.
The “specialness” of Hell, as it were, is that it is the only part of the Ship where anger can be directed specifically at other shipmates—where the person rather than the argument can be attacked. It exists as a safety valve, so that discussions elsewhere aren’t derailed by personal disagreements.
Understood. My observation on such, without making this all about me, was that when this occurred, and I had no objections btw (very ok with play the man not the ball) was that the application of "rules" was severe against myself, but less so against others, so, not consistent. But that is what is, and so be it. Live and learn. However the implication that I am concerned with the "heat" is not accurate. Really, it is not.
Did you explain to your boss a couple of weeks into the job how to run the company?
I actually worked with someone who did that, briefly. He'd been employed for all of a month, and circulated a multi-page document entitled "ways our department could be more efficient" to the whole department. It will not surprise you to learn that his document was almost entirely bollocks, nor, I suspect, will you be surprised to learn that he fairly swiftly moved on to pastures new when he felt that his genius wasn't being properly appreciated.
Hold generally conservative views, got banned very quickly for expressing those views in a forthright and expressive way (although I did think it was in tune with the modus operandi of the thread).
A man says he doesn't like to start on the training slope and prefers to go straight to the black run. He comes a cropper on the black run. He blames the black run for being unfair.
Not an adequate analogy i'm afraid. Apart from highlighting the absolute nonsense of the section of these forums being called "hell" being the edgy place where you have to have a tough skin (i've been on forums that make "hell" look like a sunday afternoon stroll by the Thames) a better analogy would be man walks into a pub in a sleepy Oxfordshire town, the pub which is meant to be "dangerous" wearing a blue t-shirt, behaves like the other patrons (all wearing red t-shirts) and gets thrown out. (Temporarily).
Your determination to demonstrate that you, as a newcomer, understand the Ship better than people who have been here for years, and in some cases have been running the Ship for years, is not impressive.
Is this how you behave in the rest of your life? Do you walk into shops and after 5 minutes start explaining to the manager what is 'really going on'? Did you explain to your boss a couple of weeks into the job how to run the company? Or is it only a bunch of folk on the internet that you've never met in person that you think you understand completely so quickly?
From what I've seen, quite a few people have been trying pretty patiently and calmly to explain to you what's what, and you seem extraordinarily unwilling to entertain the possibility that the 'locals' in this supposed sleepy pub understand the place a heck of a lot more than the person who just arrived.
The sounds a bit like that "This is a local shop for local people thing". Forums tend not to be too difficult to understand. But my observation (and as such personal opinion) was more about the black ski run analogy. Personally I don't think the hell section resembles a "black run" at all.
Um, no, it sounds a bit like "Welcome to our local shop, you might want to get to know it first before trying to run it".
After this are several more posts where people explain to you more about the Ship. Good to see you seem to have started taking some of the information on board.
On one of the Trump threads I posted this, and some folk felt it would do best as a separate thread:
It worries me that the Ship is becoming monochrome. We're overwhelmingly anti Trump, anti Johnson, anti Brexit, and the list could be extended. And, as the last few posts have demonstrated, many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream. The Ship is meant to be about Christian UNrest. Are we in danger of losing that?
(I'd like to add that I think the Ship was more diverse politically in the past. The current status quo suits me fine, but I think it's dangerous to only talk to people who agree with you, pleasant though that is.)
The Ship is what it always was... a sounding board for dour, humorous lefties, a safe space for the economically illiterate, and quite possible the best place on the Internet for thoughtful, insightful Christian thinking.
Why don't more of us on the centre-right stay here? Because it is pointless. You are never going to convince us of anything and we are never going to convince you of anything. All we on the right get for our trouble is to be called evil, intolerant and Nazi's. This from the left, which as we all know is tolerant and welcoming, but only if you share their politics, and if you don't, then they are intolerant and unwelcoming.
I tend to hang around Arrse - the Army Rumours site - which is populated with ex-armed forces people, grumpy, middle-aged men, and other assorted centre-right and right-wing nasty people. I feel more welcomed there. I would urge none of you to visit that site as it would probably cause your head to explode.
I do lurk on the new Ship just to see how things are going. Then I see that things are going exactly the same as they were when I last checked. Same people, same arguments, same everything.
In the main I tend to use the old Ship more than the new. I use the search funtion to look up matters around faith that I struggle with, such as concepts around Atonement Theories, or understanding a specific Biblical passage.
All we on the right get for our trouble is to be called evil, intolerant and Nazi's.
For example, the list could be extended to being anti-Nazi. Many on the left see an anti-Nazi stance as uncontroversial, but that just shows how "monochrome" the Ship has become, utterly intolerant of a pro-Nazi stance with the way "Nazi" has come to be considered an insult.
This from the left, which as we all know is tolerant and welcoming, but only if you share their politics, and if you don't, then they are intolerant and unwelcoming.
See the above Nazi thing. Try starting up a rousing sing-along of the Horst-Wessel-Leid and people start to get all intolerant.
The whole 'you need to tolerate my intolerance' thing gets pretty convoluted eventually
Where's the grain of truth in what Mr Mandid says? Are we so ok that we don't need to be questioned or called to account?
Quite. The original poster does speculate: "It worries me that the Ship is becoming monochrome. We're overwhelmingly anti Trump, anti Johnson, anti Brexit, and the list could be extended. And, as the last few posts have demonstrated, many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream".
Quite. The original poster does speculate: "It worries me that the Ship is becoming monochrome. We're overwhelmingly anti Trump, anti Johnson, anti Brexit, and the list could be extended. And, as the last few posts have demonstrated, many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream".
There's a certain amount of whiplash involved here. There seems to be, on the one hand, a lot of boo-hooing about how the intolerant lefties won't give someone their safe space, while on the other a whole bunch of regretful sighing about how there's no disagreement here. Pick one and stick with it. Otherwise it just comes across as "I get to say what I want and no one is allowed to disagree with me".
Quite. The original poster does speculate: "It worries me that the Ship is becoming monochrome. We're overwhelmingly anti Trump, anti Johnson, anti Brexit, and the list could be extended. And, as the last few posts have demonstrated, many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream".
There's a certain amount of whiplash involved here. There seems to be, on the one hand, a lot of boo-hooing about how the intolerant lefties won't give someone their safe space, while on the other a whole bunch of regretful sighing about how there's no disagreement here. Pick one and stick with it. Otherwise it just comes across as "I get to say what I want and no one is allowed to disagree with me".
Is there a lot of boo-hooing or have you just highlighted one post? A politically neutral observer (of which I am not) is probably better placed to judge whether "many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream" rather than (perhaps) respectfully engage with a keenness more on Christian unrest than demonstrate how right they are. My observation (personal of course) is that the latter is more evident than the former.
Left is a relative term. Compared to some of the left wing sites I have frequented in the past, the Ship is pretty centrist. I avoid calling right wingers "Nazis" because I believe it trivializes the evil perpetrated by the NSDAP.
I avoid calling right wingers "Nazis" because I believe it trivializes the evil perpetrated by the NSDAP.
Are we allowed to refer to literal Nazis as "evil" under the @Thatcheright rules? That seems like an example what he refers to as being "intolerant and unwelcoming", as if those things were never warranted under any circumstances.
Otherwise it just comes across as "I get to say what I want and no one is allowed to disagree with me".
No, I don't think so. Disagreement comes in different forms. We can disagree on something, and have a reasonable discussion about it, and examine why we disagree, and where we have things in common. And perhaps I'll persuade you or you'll persuade me, or perhaps we'll each keep thinking we're right, but find some better way of coexisting.
That would be a useful, constructive discussion.
Or we can disagree, and twenty people like you can call me names, and slap each other on the back whilst doing it.
That wouldn't be constructive, and wouldn't make me think it's worth my while sticking around.
The flip side of the argument is that if twenty people like me show up, one after the other, reproducing the same tedious nonsense masquerading as "argument", your patience is likely to be exhausted...
I avoid calling right wingers "Nazis" because I believe it trivializes the evil perpetrated by the NSDAP.
Are we allowed to refer to literal Nazis as "evil" under the @Thatcheright rules? That seems like an example what he refers to as being "intolerant and unwelcoming", as if those things were never warranted under any circumstances.
I'm not sure that @Thatcheright was really referring to any treatment of real Nazis and labelling them as evil here as being intolerant and unwelcoming, I thought it was just a piss take. If (and I am not sure there was) any labelling of conservative views as Nazi or fascist occurs then of course that's a nonsense, but it does happen, frequently on social media. Not seen it here though.
Otherwise it just comes across as "I get to say what I want and no one is allowed to disagree with me".
No, I don't think so. Disagreement comes in different forms. We can disagree on something, and have a reasonable discussion about it, and examine why we disagree, and where we have things in common. And perhaps I'll persuade you or you'll persuade me, or perhaps we'll each keep thinking we're right, but find some better way of coexisting.
That would be a useful, constructive discussion.
Or we can disagree, and twenty people like you can call me names, and slap each other on the back whilst doing it.
That wouldn't be constructive, and wouldn't make me think it's worth my while sticking around.
The flip side of the argument is that if twenty people like me show up, one after the other, reproducing the same tedious nonsense masquerading as "argument", your patience is likely to be exhausted...
Except that MrMandid and Thatcheright, especially the latter, don't seem interested in actual discussion. I don't hear any real interest in their posts anyway and the latter has a long history on SOF from which to infer.
Adding: We argue an awful lot for the supposed echo chamber we are supposed to be.
Otherwise it just comes across as "I get to say what I want and no one is allowed to disagree with me".
No, I don't think so. Disagreement comes in different forms. We can disagree on something, and have a reasonable discussion about it, and examine why we disagree, and where we have things in common. And perhaps I'll persuade you or you'll persuade me, or perhaps we'll each keep thinking we're right, but find some better way of coexisting.
That would be a useful, constructive discussion.
Or we can disagree, and twenty people like you can call me names, and slap each other on the back whilst doing it.
That wouldn't be constructive, and wouldn't make me think it's worth my while sticking around.
The flip side of the argument is that if twenty people like me show up, one after the other, reproducing the same tedious nonsense masquerading as "argument", your patience is likely to be exhausted...
Except that MrMandid and Thatcheright, especially the latter, don't seem interested in actual discussion. I don't hear any real interest in their posts anyway and the latter has a long history on SOF from which to infer.
I think that's unfair. I'm not complaining though, I am not seeking a right wingers safe place. I am keen on open, fair and reasonable debate, and can take the position of holding a minority viewpoint. I am a traditional conservative albeit with some progressive views on some matters. I made a mistake in my first few posts in hell by adopting an aggressive approach, but that was more due to the fact that I thought that was the "form".
If (and I am not sure there was) any labelling of conservative views as Nazi or fascist occurs then of course that's a nonsense, but it does happen, frequently on social media. Not seen it here though.
OK, I'm going to confess. I have referred to some right-wing policies as neo-fascist. Fascism places a particular cultural grouping as inherently superior to others (in late 1930s early 1940s Germany Aryans were considered superior; and Jews, Romanies, Slavs were considered inferior at best fit for slave labour); we can point to many right wing policies with a similar effect - valuing pale skinned "British" people over others to the extent of creating a policy of "hostile environment" for immigrants where immigrants only have value if they bring sufficient income. A single policy maybe neo-fascist, but it would probably take a raft of such policies to label a government or individual politician as neo-fascist. Add in harkening back to "good old days" when the nation was great, and seeking to re-establish that greatness independent of international organisations; an undermining of free press, eg: by vilification of good journalism as "fake news"; an increasing of power in an individual political leader, a strong association of policies with an individual rather than a broad party; an undermining of democracy, eg: through calling those who have differing views "enemies of the people".
I'm not sure that @Thatcheright was really referring to any treatment of real Nazis and labelling them as evil here as being intolerant and unwelcoming, I thought it was just a piss take.
Well where's the dividing line, then? Heinrich Himmler shows up and we're allowed to snatch away the virtual willkommen mat, but we have to pretend that Benito Mussolini is a nice guy with some really interesting ideas? And why do you and @Thatcheright get to be the arbiters of fascist manners?
Probably got the authorisation from the same department that handed out the concession to publish daily coronavirus statistics here for a seemingly indefinite period.
If (and I am not sure there was) any labelling of conservative views as Nazi or fascist occurs then of course that's a nonsense, but it does happen, frequently on social media. Not seen it here though.
OK, I'm going to confess. I have referred to some right-wing policies as neo-fascist. Fascism places a particular cultural grouping as inherently superior to others (in late 1930s early 1940s Germany Aryans were considered superior; and Jews, Romanies, Slavs were considered inferior at best fit for slave labour); we can point to many right wing policies with a similar effect - valuing pale skinned "British" people over others to the extent of creating a policy of "hostile environment" for immigrants where immigrants only have value if they bring sufficient income. A single policy maybe neo-fascist, but it would probably take a raft of such policies to label a government or individual politician as neo-fascist. Add in harkening back to "good old days" when the nation was great, and seeking to re-establish that greatness independent of international organisations; an undermining of free press, eg: by vilification of good journalism as "fake news"; an increasing of power in an individual political leader, a strong association of policies with an individual rather than a broad party; an undermining of democracy, eg: through calling those who have differing views "enemies of the people".
All a bit general for me to take seriously as a discussion. And I say that with no offense either implied or intended.
we can point to many right wing policies with a similar effect - valuing pale skinned "British" people over others to the extent of creating a policy of "hostile environment" for immigrants where immigrants only have value if they bring sufficient income.
I think to make "neo-fascist" a reasonable description of this policy, you'd have to have a case that it valued pale-skinned foreigners over dark-skinned British people.
With regards to immigration, there are two general policies that one can have - an open policy, where anyone who wishes to come to your country to work is admitted (you're free to make entitlement to public benefits conditional on some sort of work history within this framework, if you like), or a limited policy, where you are selective about the people that you admit.
There are all sorts of "Britain is quite full" type arguments that could lead you to want to limit immigration without having anything to do with fascism. And once you've decided that you want to limit the number of people that come in, choosing to admit the ones that are most useful for the country (whatever "most useful" means) seems like a reasonable position to hold.
If (and I am not sure there was) any labelling of conservative views as Nazi or fascist occurs then of course that's a nonsense, but it does happen, frequently on social media. Not seen it here though.
OK, I'm going to confess. I have referred to some right-wing policies as neo-fascist. Fascism places a particular cultural grouping as inherently superior to others (in late 1930s early 1940s Germany Aryans were considered superior; and Jews, Romanies, Slavs were considered inferior at best fit for slave labour); we can point to many right wing policies with a similar effect - valuing pale skinned "British" people over others to the extent of creating a policy of "hostile environment" for immigrants where immigrants only have value if they bring sufficient income. A single policy maybe neo-fascist, but it would probably take a raft of such policies to label a government or individual politician as neo-fascist. Add in harkening back to "good old days" when the nation was great, and seeking to re-establish that greatness independent of international organisations; an undermining of free press, eg: by vilification of good journalism as "fake news"; an increasing of power in an individual political leader, a strong association of policies with an individual rather than a broad party; an undermining of democracy, eg: through calling those who have differing views "enemies of the people".
All a bit general for me to take seriously as a discussion. And I say that with no offense either implied or intended.
Given the nature of this particular thread, anything less general would be out of place. I'm happy to discuss things in greater depth, should you (or anyone else) like to start a new thread for it.
Of course, I'm one of those clueless lefties, but the pattern I see, over and over again, is right-wing newbie posts risible pile of crap, gets it comprehensively rebutted, doubles down on it, gets his arse handed to him on a plate, and complains about intolerant lefties, as if "left wing" meant "accepts all opinions as equally valid".
Not sure what people want us to do - let complete bollocks pass so the poor chap doesn't feel picked on?
Just as an aside (and I genuinely don't want to start a tangent here), might a US/Europe difference be a significant factor here? For ISTM that the political "centre" in Europe is further to the left than it is in the States. So someone articulating a centrist position from a European point of view would be regarded as a "leftie" by an American; conversely someone arguing from a centrist US position would be regarded as as right-wing by a European (and someone speaking from a right-wing position might get branded as a Fascist). None of this is conducive to good discussion.
GOP are currently supporting keeping children in overcrowded cages though - what are we supposed to call the concentration camps if not concentration camps ?
I'm not sure that @Thatcheright was really referring to any treatment of real Nazis and labelling them as evil here as being intolerant and unwelcoming, I thought it was just a piss take.
Well where's the dividing line, then? Heinrich Himmler shows up and we're allowed to snatch away the virtual willkommen mat, but we have to pretend that Benito Mussolini is a nice guy with some really interesting ideas? And why do you and @Thatcheright get to be the arbiters of fascist manners?
I have no intention of arbitrating the manners of any socialists.
The Ship does seem to have an issue where not fully liking a particular societal grouping when everyone else on here does, is immediately labelled as a full on genocide-supporting x-phobe, where x is the group in question. There is no middle-ground for most Shippies, just an immediate polarisation into "because you don't love this group as much as me, you are a hatemogering, 'groupophobic' Nazi!"
I'm not sure that @Thatcheright was really referring to any treatment of real Nazis and labelling them as evil here as being intolerant and unwelcoming, I thought it was just a piss take.
Well where's the dividing line, then? Heinrich Himmler shows up and we're allowed to snatch away the virtual willkommen mat, but we have to pretend that Benito Mussolini is a nice guy with some really interesting ideas? And why do you and @Thatcheright get to be the arbiters of fascist manners?
I have no intention of arbitrating the manners of any socialists.
The Ship does seem to have an issue where not fully liking a particular societal grouping when everyone else on here does, is immediately labelled as a full on genocide-supporting x-phobe, where x is the group in question. There is no middle-ground for most Shippies, just an immediate polarisation into "because you don't love this group as much as me, you are a hatemogering, 'groupophobic' Nazi!"
Hmm. I don't think this is quite right. Very recently I was explicitly described as not being a white supremacist.
There is no middle-ground for most Shippies, just an immediate polarisation into "because you don't love this group as much as me, you are a hatemogering, 'groupophobic' Nazi!"
I'm sorry, I honestly don't think that is true.
What does happen - too often in my view - is that discussions quickly become polarised and all attempts at nuance and subtlety get lost. That to my mind is not only a shame but symptomatic of much debate today; I would hope that the Ship might be a more "civilised" forum than that.
Maybe the Right should just come up with better arguments? Since they're in control over most of the planet, it shouldn't be that difficult to point to policy successes steered by Right-wing political theory.
Of course, I'm one of those clueless lefties, but the pattern I see, over and over again, is right-wing newbie posts risible pile of crap, gets it comprehensively rebutted, doubles down on it, gets his arse handed to him on a plate, and complains about intolerant lefties, as if "left wing" meant "accepts all opinions as equally valid".
There is also a subtler corollary to this in my estimation, which is that risible piles of crap posted by clueless lefties tend to be met with an embarrassed silence rather than with comprehensive rebuttals.
Maybe the Right should just come up with better arguments? Since they're in control over most of the planet, it shouldn't be that difficult to point to policy successes steered by Right-wing political theory.
Now that is naive Doc.
Why do we need better arguments when the ones we have seem to be good enough. I would suggest it is the left that needs better arguments because the ones you have don't seem to be working (at least over most of the planet we control).
Of course, I'm one of those clueless lefties, but the pattern I see, over and over again, is right-wing newbie posts risible pile of crap, gets it comprehensively rebutted, doubles down on it, gets his arse handed to him on a plate, and complains about intolerant lefties, as if "left wing" meant "accepts all opinions as equally valid".
There is also a subtler corollary to this in my estimation, which is that risible piles of crap posted by clueless lefties tend to be met with an embarrassed silence rather than with comprehensive rebuttals.
Karl, the problem is we only need arguments good enough for Bolsover or Bakewell, not the Ship, and therefore we don't bother going any further than that.
We are not driven by ideology in the same way that socialism is, underpinned as it is by Marxist principles. We don't need to torture our arguments in order to force them into a specific dogma, so they are simpler and more geared towards running governments and businesses in as effective a way as possible. The downside is that we have never really had the grounding in academic sophistry that one can gain in Sixth-Form Debating Societies, which churn out most of the apologists for the left.
So it's no surprise that our arguments, when played out to regular voters, are more effective than the left's more academic, idealistic arguments. They "get" us more than they do you.
But it is why our arguments on the Ship don't make any headway. As they are not grounded in the academic theories of Marxism, they are seen as (a) simplistic, and (b) wrong. That we are seen as right in the real world of governments, businesses, economics and votes, is fine for us.
But I will take winning over the voters of Bolsover, than winning over the Ship. Both would be nice but I don't need the headaches from banging my head against that particular wall. I will stick to giving out my position, defending as well as I am able, and if I get the occasional little victory that will suffice.
Karl, the problem is we only need arguments good enough for Bolsover or Bakewell, not the Ship, and therefore we don't bother going any further than that.
We are not driven by ideology in the same way that socialism is, underpinned as it is by Marxist principles. We don't need to torture our arguments in order to force them into a specific dogma, so they are simpler and more geared towards running governments and businesses in as effective a way as possible. The downside is that we have never really had the grounding in academic sophistry that one can gain in Sixth-Form Debating Societies, which churn out most of the apologists for the left.
So it's no surprise that our arguments, when played out to regular voters, are more effective than the left's more academic, idealistic arguments. They "get" us more than they do you.
But it is why our arguments on the Ship don't make any headway. As they are not grounded in the academic theories of Marxism, they are seen as (a) simplistic, and (b) wrong. That we are seen as right in the real world of governments, businesses, economics and votes, is fine for us.
But I will take winning over the voters of Bolsover, than winning over the Ship. Both would be nice but I don't need the headaches from banging my head against that particular wall. I will stick to giving out my position, defending as well as I am able, and if I get the occasional little victory that will suffice.
Karl, the problem is we only need arguments good enough for Bolsover or Bakewell, not the Ship, and therefore we don't bother going any further than that.
That depends on what you're trying to achieve.
If all you're trying to achieve is gaining political power, then any 'argument' is good enough. I have two problems with this, though.
One is that the ethics of doing this if you can't actually defend the arguments in question are, I think, questionable.
The other is that this approach tends to concentrate power in the hands of those who have it already. This appears to me to be not only unjust, but also inefficient in the long run, because leaving no space for any intellectual challenge opens up an increasing tendency to believe one's own propaganda, and loses the benefit of the potential resources offered by the disempowered.
I'm discovering that I'm fundamentally motivated by empowerment, and I'd dare to suggest this a Christian, New Testament, Kingdom of God value.
Maybe the Right should just come up with better arguments? Since they're in control over most of the planet, it shouldn't be that difficult to point to policy successes steered by Right-wing political theory.
Now that is naive Doc.
Why do we need better arguments when the ones we have seem to be good enough. I would suggest it is the left that needs better arguments because the ones you have don't seem to be working (at least over most of the planet we control).
I gave you an open goal, and still you missed.
And yes, of course, the left need better arguments, that's a given. The embarrassment on the Right is that (as exemplified here) they don't appear to have any arguments. What they have is power and wealth and inertia, and it doesn't matter that the tanker is heading for the rocks: they see no reason to change course.
Karl, the problem is we only need arguments good enough for Bolsover or Bakewell, not the Ship, and therefore we don't bother going any further than that.
That depends on what you're trying to achieve.
It's also a question of what someone is trying to achieve by posting their views on the Ship of Fools (or, indeed anywhere else). If the question is can you present a case for voting Tory/Republican/OtherPartyOfTheRight within particular constituencies then clearly if the voters turn out and put their mark in the appropriate box on the ballot paper the case was put across adequately. But, shouldn't the place to be doing that be the streets and door steps of the particular place you want people to turn out and vote for your party of choice? Or, hustings and the local paper as election day approaches. An international discussion forum where only a very small minority (if any) get to vote in Bolsover or Bakewell seems to be the wrong venue, and when there's no election imminent the wrong time.
What I think posting here is about is testing our views against differing opinions, and in particular for many of us doing that within the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, those views are taken in relative isolation (to the extent that that's possible) rather than as a full platform which is what voters are presented with at an election. Examples: Do we think our nations should be welcoming all who want to come and live and work here, or do we think there should be limits? If there are limits, what should they be and how should they be determined? How does that relate to our faith in Jesus who welcomed all to join Him, is there any cross-over between Kingdom values and the nation state? Or, Example 2: Jesus said "the poor will always be with you"; is that a challenge to keep working to help the poor as much as we can? or, can you use that as an argument for justifying policies that make you relatively comfortable while leaving others in poverty, as you can't do anything about poverty anyway?
Maybe the Right should just come up with better arguments? Since they're in control over most of the planet, it shouldn't be that difficult to point to policy successes steered by Right-wing political theory.
Now that is naive Doc.
Why do we need better arguments when the ones we have seem to be good enough. I would suggest it is the left that needs better arguments because the ones you have don't seem to be working (at least over most of the planet we control).
I gave you an open goal, and still you missed.
And yes, of course, the left need better arguments, that's a given. The embarrassment on the Right is that (as exemplified here) they don't appear to have any arguments. What they have is power and wealth and inertia, and it doesn't matter that the tanker is heading for the rocks: they see no reason to change course.
Yes, since the right wing are doing such a good job with poverty, the pandemic, corruption, inequality, racism, why change?
Maybe the Right should just come up with better arguments? Since they're in control over most of the planet, it shouldn't be that difficult to point to policy successes steered by Right-wing political theory.
Now that is naive Doc.
Why do we need better arguments when the ones we have seem to be good enough. I would suggest it is the left that needs better arguments because the ones you have don't seem to be working (at least over most of the planet we control).
I gave you an open goal, and still you missed.
And yes, of course, the left need better arguments, that's a given. The embarrassment on the Right is that (as exemplified here) they don't appear to have any arguments. What they have is power and wealth and inertia, and it doesn't matter that the tanker is heading for the rocks: they see no reason to change course.
Yes, since the right wing are doing such a good job with poverty, the pandemic, corruption, inequality, racism, why change?
Indeed! Glad you see things our way.
But I have to correct you one one small point if I may. It wasn't the right that launched the pandemic, it was Chinese Communists. You have them to thank for that.
Comments
The “specialness” of Hell, as it were, is that it is the only part of the Ship where anger can be directed specifically at other shipmates—where the person rather than the argument can be attacked. It exists as a safety valve, so that discussions elsewhere aren’t derailed by personal disagreements.
Understood. My observation on such, without making this all about me, was that when this occurred, and I had no objections btw (very ok with play the man not the ball) was that the application of "rules" was severe against myself, but less so against others, so, not consistent. But that is what is, and so be it. Live and learn. However the implication that I am concerned with the "heat" is not accurate. Really, it is not.
I actually worked with someone who did that, briefly. He'd been employed for all of a month, and circulated a multi-page document entitled "ways our department could be more efficient" to the whole department. It will not surprise you to learn that his document was almost entirely bollocks, nor, I suspect, will you be surprised to learn that he fairly swiftly moved on to pastures new when he felt that his genius wasn't being properly appreciated.
Um, no, it sounds a bit like "Welcome to our local shop, you might want to get to know it first before trying to run it".
After this are several more posts where people explain to you more about the Ship. Good to see you seem to have started taking some of the information on board.
The Ship is what it always was... a sounding board for dour, humorous lefties, a safe space for the economically illiterate, and quite possible the best place on the Internet for thoughtful, insightful Christian thinking.
Why don't more of us on the centre-right stay here? Because it is pointless. You are never going to convince us of anything and we are never going to convince you of anything. All we on the right get for our trouble is to be called evil, intolerant and Nazi's. This from the left, which as we all know is tolerant and welcoming, but only if you share their politics, and if you don't, then they are intolerant and unwelcoming.
I tend to hang around Arrse - the Army Rumours site - which is populated with ex-armed forces people, grumpy, middle-aged men, and other assorted centre-right and right-wing nasty people. I feel more welcomed there. I would urge none of you to visit that site as it would probably cause your head to explode.
I do lurk on the new Ship just to see how things are going. Then I see that things are going exactly the same as they were when I last checked. Same people, same arguments, same everything.
In the main I tend to use the old Ship more than the new. I use the search funtion to look up matters around faith that I struggle with, such as concepts around Atonement Theories, or understanding a specific Biblical passage.
Lefties seem quite versatile, being able to be both "dour" and "humorous".
For example, the list could be extended to being anti-Nazi. Many on the left see an anti-Nazi stance as uncontroversial, but that just shows how "monochrome" the Ship has become, utterly intolerant of a pro-Nazi stance with the way "Nazi" has come to be considered an insult.
See the above Nazi thing. Try starting up a rousing sing-along of the Horst-Wessel-Leid and people start to get all intolerant.
The whole 'you need to tolerate my intolerance' thing gets pretty convoluted eventually
Quite. The original poster does speculate: "It worries me that the Ship is becoming monochrome. We're overwhelmingly anti Trump, anti Johnson, anti Brexit, and the list could be extended. And, as the last few posts have demonstrated, many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream".
There's a certain amount of whiplash involved here. There seems to be, on the one hand, a lot of boo-hooing about how the intolerant lefties won't give someone their safe space, while on the other a whole bunch of regretful sighing about how there's no disagreement here. Pick one and stick with it. Otherwise it just comes across as "I get to say what I want and no one is allowed to disagree with me".
Whoops. Us Nazi's are rubbish at spelling "humorless". It's probably because we find most things hilarious.
Is there a lot of boo-hooing or have you just highlighted one post? A politically neutral observer (of which I am not) is probably better placed to judge whether "many are quick to ridicule those who go against the stream" rather than (perhaps) respectfully engage with a keenness more on Christian unrest than demonstrate how right they are. My observation (personal of course) is that the latter is more evident than the former.
Are we allowed to refer to literal Nazis as "evil" under the @Thatcheright rules? That seems like an example what he refers to as being "intolerant and unwelcoming", as if those things were never warranted under any circumstances.
No, I don't think so. Disagreement comes in different forms. We can disagree on something, and have a reasonable discussion about it, and examine why we disagree, and where we have things in common. And perhaps I'll persuade you or you'll persuade me, or perhaps we'll each keep thinking we're right, but find some better way of coexisting.
That would be a useful, constructive discussion.
Or we can disagree, and twenty people like you can call me names, and slap each other on the back whilst doing it.
That wouldn't be constructive, and wouldn't make me think it's worth my while sticking around.
The flip side of the argument is that if twenty people like me show up, one after the other, reproducing the same tedious nonsense masquerading as "argument", your patience is likely to be exhausted...
I'm not sure that @Thatcheright was really referring to any treatment of real Nazis and labelling them as evil here as being intolerant and unwelcoming, I thought it was just a piss take. If (and I am not sure there was) any labelling of conservative views as Nazi or fascist occurs then of course that's a nonsense, but it does happen, frequently on social media. Not seen it here though.
Adding: We argue an awful lot for the supposed echo chamber we are supposed to be.
I think that's unfair. I'm not complaining though, I am not seeking a right wingers safe place. I am keen on open, fair and reasonable debate, and can take the position of holding a minority viewpoint. I am a traditional conservative albeit with some progressive views on some matters. I made a mistake in my first few posts in hell by adopting an aggressive approach, but that was more due to the fact that I thought that was the "form".
I'd only be able to comment on that on a case by case basis. But I do appreciate that shouting Nazi or fascist is sometimes a preferred option.
Well where's the dividing line, then? Heinrich Himmler shows up and we're allowed to snatch away the virtual willkommen mat, but we have to pretend that Benito Mussolini is a nice guy with some really interesting ideas? And why do you and @Thatcheright get to be the arbiters of fascist manners?
All a bit general for me to take seriously as a discussion. And I say that with no offense either implied or intended.
I think to make "neo-fascist" a reasonable description of this policy, you'd have to have a case that it valued pale-skinned foreigners over dark-skinned British people.
With regards to immigration, there are two general policies that one can have - an open policy, where anyone who wishes to come to your country to work is admitted (you're free to make entitlement to public benefits conditional on some sort of work history within this framework, if you like), or a limited policy, where you are selective about the people that you admit.
There are all sorts of "Britain is quite full" type arguments that could lead you to want to limit immigration without having anything to do with fascism. And once you've decided that you want to limit the number of people that come in, choosing to admit the ones that are most useful for the country (whatever "most useful" means) seems like a reasonable position to hold.
Surely that should be "We Nazis...."
Also, the idea of Nazis finding most things hilarious has somehow got Springtime for Hitler stuck in my head.
That's the Orange Order, isn't it?
Not sure what people want us to do - let complete bollocks pass so the poor chap doesn't feel picked on?
I have no intention of arbitrating the manners of any socialists.
The Ship does seem to have an issue where not fully liking a particular societal grouping when everyone else on here does, is immediately labelled as a full on genocide-supporting x-phobe, where x is the group in question. There is no middle-ground for most Shippies, just an immediate polarisation into "because you don't love this group as much as me, you are a hatemogering, 'groupophobic' Nazi!"
And why, of course.
Hmm. I don't think this is quite right. Very recently I was explicitly described as not being a white supremacist.
What does happen - too often in my view - is that discussions quickly become polarised and all attempts at nuance and subtlety get lost. That to my mind is not only a shame but symptomatic of much debate today; I would hope that the Ship might be a more "civilised" forum than that.
I don't mean on the Ship, I mean in general political discourse. So that everything becomes part of a generalised culture war.
There is also a subtler corollary to this in my estimation, which is that risible piles of crap posted by clueless lefties tend to be met with an embarrassed silence rather than with comprehensive rebuttals.
Now that is naive Doc.
Why do we need better arguments when the ones we have seem to be good enough. I would suggest it is the left that needs better arguments because the ones you have don't seem to be working (at least over most of the planet we control).
Sadly I think you might be correct.
Karl, the problem is we only need arguments good enough for Bolsover or Bakewell, not the Ship, and therefore we don't bother going any further than that.
We are not driven by ideology in the same way that socialism is, underpinned as it is by Marxist principles. We don't need to torture our arguments in order to force them into a specific dogma, so they are simpler and more geared towards running governments and businesses in as effective a way as possible. The downside is that we have never really had the grounding in academic sophistry that one can gain in Sixth-Form Debating Societies, which churn out most of the apologists for the left.
So it's no surprise that our arguments, when played out to regular voters, are more effective than the left's more academic, idealistic arguments. They "get" us more than they do you.
But it is why our arguments on the Ship don't make any headway. As they are not grounded in the academic theories of Marxism, they are seen as (a) simplistic, and (b) wrong. That we are seen as right in the real world of governments, businesses, economics and votes, is fine for us.
But I will take winning over the voters of Bolsover, than winning over the Ship. Both would be nice but I don't need the headaches from banging my head against that particular wall. I will stick to giving out my position, defending as well as I am able, and if I get the occasional little victory that will suffice.
"I would rather be popular than correct."
That depends on what you're trying to achieve.
If all you're trying to achieve is gaining political power, then any 'argument' is good enough. I have two problems with this, though.
One is that the ethics of doing this if you can't actually defend the arguments in question are, I think, questionable.
The other is that this approach tends to concentrate power in the hands of those who have it already. This appears to me to be not only unjust, but also inefficient in the long run, because leaving no space for any intellectual challenge opens up an increasing tendency to believe one's own propaganda, and loses the benefit of the potential resources offered by the disempowered.
I'm discovering that I'm fundamentally motivated by empowerment, and I'd dare to suggest this a Christian, New Testament, Kingdom of God value.
I gave you an open goal, and still you missed.
And yes, of course, the left need better arguments, that's a given. The embarrassment on the Right is that (as exemplified here) they don't appear to have any arguments. What they have is power and wealth and inertia, and it doesn't matter that the tanker is heading for the rocks: they see no reason to change course.
What I think posting here is about is testing our views against differing opinions, and in particular for many of us doing that within the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, those views are taken in relative isolation (to the extent that that's possible) rather than as a full platform which is what voters are presented with at an election. Examples: Do we think our nations should be welcoming all who want to come and live and work here, or do we think there should be limits? If there are limits, what should they be and how should they be determined? How does that relate to our faith in Jesus who welcomed all to join Him, is there any cross-over between Kingdom values and the nation state? Or, Example 2: Jesus said "the poor will always be with you"; is that a challenge to keep working to help the poor as much as we can? or, can you use that as an argument for justifying policies that make you relatively comfortable while leaving others in poverty, as you can't do anything about poverty anyway?
Yes, since the right wing are doing such a good job with poverty, the pandemic, corruption, inequality, racism, why change?
Indeed! Glad you see things our way.
But I have to correct you one one small point if I may. It wasn't the right that launched the pandemic, it was Chinese Communists. You have them to thank for that.