Hard News: Just marketing to the base
337 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
Hmm, if you were filled with righteous conviction of your own correctness, steeped in a worldview that places evidence below faith in importance, and a sense that those who disagreed with you were doing the devil's work, would a little abuse put you off trying to proselytise?
I'd be more discouraged if my proclamations were consistently ignored rather than engaged with.
-
I'd be more discouraged if my proclamations were consistently ignored rather than engaged with.
The problem is, even though I can see the abundant sense in "Don't Feed the Trolls", every time I read trash like Grant's posts here something inside me snaps and I have to respond with something that I hope at least approaches rationality in response.
I just can't ignore that kind of self righteous fantasy bullshit. I'm gonna have to try harder, because it really does feel a bit like wrestling a pig now and I think that I'm getting dirty."A wise man once told me never to argue with fools
because people from a distance can't tell who is who"
Jay-Z -
Heh. I think Grant's thematically appropriate Jay-Z quote would be:
He who does not feel me is not real to me, therefore he doesn't exist
So poof! Vamoose, son of a bitch -
:sigh: One post, 15 responses. Two not inane. None willing to address any issues.
You'd think I had posted on a liberal forum...
-
3410,
The problem is that you're assuming that your comments are worthy of a serious response. They're not.
-
:sigh: One post, 15 responses. Two not inane. None willing to address any issues.t
You could try starting your own blog. With the kind of material you post you'll never be troubled by a single comment, vexing, inane, or otherwise.
Guaranteed. -
Uhhhh ... OK.
-
:sigh: One post, 15 responses. Two not inane. None willing to address any issues.
You'd think I had posted on a liberal forum...
As opposed, Grant, to your Bebo blog where you have posted a very revealing and quite horrifying rant which reveals you as a nasty fundamentalist homophobic misogynist.
I won't post the text here. Suffice to say, I now understand the depth of your hatefulness. I don't believe that it is possible to argue reasonably with a person whose view of the world is so clearly dictated by a blood-thirsty bronze-age desert tribe death-cult mentality.
-
Thanks, Tony. I believe it is not possible to argue reasonably with somone who refuses to argue reasonably - hence the pig wrestling comment.
Dexter subtracts. I'd encourage our host to consider permanently banning someone who undermines this forum by their persistently and wilfully ignorant behaviour here. We all know know that's what would happen at a real-world gathering to anyone behaving like that - eventually someone would put out the trash.
In a meeting all day, so this is all I'll say.
-
Dexter subtracts. I'd encourage our host to consider permanently banning someone who undermines this forum by their persistently and wilfully ignorant behaviour here.
BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! TAKE HIM TO THE DUCKING STOOL!
We all know know that's what would happen at a real-world gathering to anyone behaving like that - eventually someone would put out the trash.
Why Sasha, Are you suggesting an intervention?:)
-
Grant, I notice that whenever someone shoots you down with logic, as opposed to calling you a raving nutjob (just calling a spade a square-edged earth-moving instrument), your next post complains about how nobody engages you.
Two of us have shattered (hopefully, though given your obdurateness I think lightly scuffed might be more accurate) your illusion that a) you can miraculously employ everyone who's currently on the dole just by taking the dole away, and b) that an over-supply of labour doesn't have a negative impact on those already working. You didn't respond to either of us, you just wailed about how nobody takes you seriously. If you only selectively see responses, don't expect people to change their view that you are, in fact, treading very unsteadily on the edge of the great precipice that is lunacy.
And Sacha, unless he starts being flagrantly, personally abusive to individuals on here I think we should tread very carefully around notions of banning him. Freedom of speech means his right to say what he wants, not for him to say what we want him to say. It would be nice if he'd confess to being stark raving, because at least then we could pretend to ourselves that his rants come from a mental imbalance rather than a nasty, closed mind, but I can't see that happening. Doesn't mean I think he should be banned.
-
BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! TAKE HIM TO THE DUCKING STOOL!
Interesting take. I'd read Sacha's comment as more of a Hunter S. Thompsonesque 'step on his face to put him out of his misery'.
-
By the way, if any of you haven't read Orwell's terrific essay on Dickens, I'd thoroughly recommend it.
He is all fragments, all details — rotten architecture, but wonderful gargoyles.
Spot on George, spot on...
It's online here:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd</quote>
Ripping good read, big thanks Richard C. -
Matthew. What you posted were disagreements with my opinion. You're entitled to those opinions, I suppose, but to call them sound logical refutations is assuming evidence you simply do not have.
A) There is more to the situation than simply switching a bunch of people from not looking for work to looking for work. Simple subtraction does no justice to the revolution that would come about were benefits to be removed.
For one thing you fail to mention a whole raft of WINZ workers who would be looking for more employment. There are several other factors you also have not commented on.
B) A cheaper workforce does not mean I will have to take a pay-cut. Why would it?
Because my responses to you are short and sweet does not mean they do not exist. However when the responses of a threatening, abusive or generally silly nature far outweigh any genuineness it is far more appropriate (I think) to insist that any further discussion take an appropriate form.
Tony, did you read the Rambo thread? :)
-
B) A cheaper workforce does not mean I will have to take a pay-cut. Why would it?
So, Grant is not a member of the workforce? Hardly surprising, I wouldn't give him a job.
-
A) There is more to the situation than simply switching a bunch of people from not looking for work to looking for work.
You have evidence that most of the recipients of the dole aren't looking for work? I'm sure their WINZ case managers would be fascinated to hear that there're vast fabrications of interviews and job training going on.
B) A cheaper workforce does not mean I will have to take a pay-cut. Why would it?
Well, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you actually a job, a "cheaper workforce" doesn't just mean part of it. Decreasing wages carries through to the whole economy, with a very few exceptions. When people earn less, they have less to spend. That means that prices must decrease in order for goods to be affordable. That works its way through the marketplace, since pretty much the whole economy is interconnected. Basic supply and demand economics. If people cannot afford your goods, you must drop the prices or you go out of business.
A pay cut doesn't necessarily mean you'll actually have your present pay level decreased, but it does mean you won't get much of a pay rise, if anything, next time there's a review. If you don't even get a cost-of-living increase, then you do get a pay cut.Again, fundamental economics. A decrease in the average wage leads to an overall decrease in wages to accommodate the reduced purchasing power of the market. The exceptions are usually very-high-end luxury goods, such as Rolex\watches or Lamborghini cars. They have a low price elasticity, in economists' jargon. Whereas staple foods and ordinary clothing have high price elasticity, and it's goods at those levels that end up dragging the economy down.
The alternative is that prices for consumer goods are inelastic and we end up with a massive increase in poverty. Which probably doesn't worry you, but it does worry those of us who give a fig about social justice. -
From the thread on Grant's Bebo page linked to by Tony:
A friendly message to anyone considering posting to this thread. Users of the Public Address System ( http://publicaddress.net/system ) have been linking here in an attempt to ridicule and belittle my comments on other matters. Anything you post here (or anywhere on my bebo site) may well be read by more than what you might expect.
Good grief. And what exactly do you and your chums talk about when you think no one's listening?
And please, stop rolling around playing victim. I'm often struck by how often right-wing-troll types do that (Redbaiter being the lamest example). I'm not minded to delete any posts let alone ban you, Grant (although you certainly used up a life with one callous and revolting comment on the abortion thread), but your rhetorical style does rather beg for people to come down on you with actual facts and logic.
-
Actual facts and logic, Russell? Like the actual fact and logic that I'd have to take a pay-cut when it wouldn't actually be a pay-cut? Is that one of the actual facts and logics you was referring to...?
You think I'm playing victim? I think it is only fair to warn people about what they might face when sharing a perfectly reasonable opinion.
So, please, stop threatening me with bannings and post deletions and engage your brains for a moment. Ending welfare motivates people to find jobs like paying them to do nothing does not. The economy benefits when people work. And more people motivated to work means more gets done. Ending taxation aimed at providing benefits means employers have more resources to aim at employing people.
So far, for what claims to be a thinking man's forum, this place has done little but dodge.
-
Ending welfare motivates people to find jobs like paying them to do nothing does not. The economy benefits when people work. And more people motivated to work means more gets done. Ending taxation aimed at providing benefits means employers have more resources to aim at employing people.
Ending welfare sees people without immediate work or the skills to be employed starve to death along with their family. There is no such thing as full employment in a economy. And more people dying in the community means societal breakdown. Ending taxation aimed at providing benefits means more taxation to attempt to handle the crime, health and business environment issues that come with said societal breakdown.
Wow, a pointless stream of appaling reasoning from a logically-questionable base is easy! I don't get why we don't all do it!
Of course I'm presuming that everything you write is a sublimely absurd joke after your little "the latest Rambo film is the best film ever" hilarity on your rantblog... -
I disagree with everything Grant posted, but isn't it just the overt policy of ACT and the covert views of a lot of National supporters?
I don't fully understand the whole "troll" concept, at least insofar as for people posting sincerely held views. Is the idea that one should only "debate" from a position of broad agreement with the general leaning of a forum?
-
So far, for what claims to be a thinking man's forum, this place has done little but dodge.
Other than demonstrating the logical fallacy of your premise, and providing countless examples of present and past situations where a non-existent or diminished welfare state leads and led to people starving as opposed to full employment and economic/social progress.
But by all means, keep trolling if you feel that it's a good use of your time.
-
Is the idea that one should only "debate" from a position of broad agreement with the general leaning of a forum?
When you taunt rather than argue, willfully ignoring the points raised against your assertions in favour of handpicking the few volleys that you can return (generally by means of non-sequiturs or accusations that you're being ostracised), then it amounts to trolling, yes. You could accuse PA of being a community of broadly similar, moderate left-leaning views, but there are some very notable exceptions and besides there's nothing wrong with shared values.
-
Well, no-one said it would be easy :)
I'm sure that some people, threatened with having to work to live, would choose to steal instead. But then again thievery is rampant anyway. Same thing with starvation. People go hungry with or without social welfare.
There are many other social issues and they all seem to have a common source. Humanity has a problem. In this case poor people are stealing. Instead of addressing the problem they write a solution into law. That "solution" is usually state santioned regulation of the problem. So the answer to the problem of people stealing is for the government to steal on their behalf.
There is no other rational way to view a welfare state. Taxation of a population in order to pay poor people is state sanctioned theft. It's a dodge of the real issue. The real issue is not poverty, but our reaction to people in poverty. There is nothing wrong with being poor, but there might well be something wrong with our reactions to the poor.
The solution is not to agree that theft is the only answer. A real solution requires hard work and responsibility. It requires sound education and people willing to stand up for what is right.
A welfare state is easy to defend. You can continue playing the sympathy cards, the consequent cards and the "fundy fruitloop with a website" card. Or you can address the issue with an "open mind".
-
I like a decent conversation from any point on th political compass. However, I'm over putting up with outright wankers who disrupt the whole space.
If this were really a gathering of folk at what Russell has called "home", then I'd expect the host to help remove the oaf who's spoiling the party. If only to prevent bloodshed.
-
Back in the 1970s groups of people tried living their communitarian dream..remember Ohus? I wonder why these comitted libertarians haven't done the same, to prove to the rest of us that their ideas will work? Or maybe...they know they won't.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.