Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

[tsubaki]

To which orthodoxy are you referring?

Just read Oborne's book "The Triumph of the Political Class"

 

[Tubey]

To which orthodoxy are you referring?

Before he replies, let me send you some of my posts - just a random selection.

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/george-osbourne.39878/page-2#post-1008984

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/closing-ceremony-of-paralympics-boris-johnson-and-david-cameron.48523/page-3#post-1457918

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/2017-general-election.95980/page-133#post-5425206

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/the-worst-mp.106612/#post-6887695

... yes, I've certainly "backed the orthodoxy" apparently.

 

[Amw79]

No, I'm saying I'm prepared to accept the outlandish possibility something he may say may have value.

And my view is there's too many who quite simply won't accept anything he says as correct no matter what it is.

You say this:



No. I'm not saying they have bad faith; I'm saying they are seemingly incapable of moving from a preset view. Someone could write an opinion on here about something, and no matter how eloquently they put, no matter how many facts, no matter how reasonable, I could write a list of the people who would agree and disagree with it before they replied, and it'd be a minor miracle if one shifted their opinion one iota. It's that predictable.

"Pulling down a 17th century statue does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality in 2020, and in all likelihood probably harms it instead" - that sentence, right there, no matter how well or badly it's supported, it simply doesn't matter, because the vast majority of modern society has decided whether it's right or wrong from the outset. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying hardly anyone has the capability to shift from one position to another, so we can't progress.

That's why I say society is broken. It didn't used to be that way. It's how we've advanced.

it’s been an interesting thread, and I’ve agreed with a lot of what you’ve said, while disagreeing with some other stuff.

I think a lot of the trouble with ‘broken society’ etc is with the expectation for everyone to have a fully formed and defendable position on every single possible issue.

There’s a lot out there which we’re just not qualified to have a well-thought through, good evidence-based position on, but the immediacy of social media requires us to stick a flag in the ground, and once it’s there people are very slow to change their position. I fully include myself in that statement.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Just read Oborne's book "The Triumph of the Political Class"

OK I will, but in the meantime would you mind telling me? A general overview would suffice, just a couple of sentences?

 

[Tubey]

it’s been an interesting thread, and I’ve agreed with a lot of what you’ve said, while disagreeing with some other stuff.

I think a lot of the trouble with ‘broken society’ etc is with the expectation for everyone to have a fully formed and defendable position on every single possible issue.

There’s a lot out there which we’re just not qualified to have a well-thought through, good evidence-based position on, but the immediacy of social media requires us to stick a flag in the ground, and once it’s there people are very slow to change their position. I fully include myself in that statement.

Absolutely spot on.

And what's happened is that the traditional media have ran with it and elevated it, despite it only really showing a minority view, meaning the "silent majority" (and as much as I hate that phrase it IS true) become disillusioned with a world they don't identify being imposed upon them.

Hence Trump. Hence Brexit.

There's a real need to understand it, so we can set about fixing it - we can't just abandon and ignore vast swathes of society. The temptation, even for me, to say "screw the old racists" due to Brexit was and is overwhelming, but it ultimately achieves nothing. Similarly, pointing at statues a few hundred years old, yelling "there's a racist" and pulling it down might make some people feel better in the short term, but in the long term you achieve nothing.

It's like the difference between a tsunami and rising water - one hits quick, causes devastation but it's a one off and people rebuild and ignore it. But a steady rising tide will eventually swallow the land and win the argument. The BLM cause needs to be the latter, not the former.

As for agreeing and disagreeing with me, I'd be astonished if someone 100% agreed with what I say - I'm human, I'm going to be wrong. I love being challenged and I've been wrong repeatedly on here over many, many issues. If there's something I say that seems wrong, call me out - I'll probably write an essay at you back but be assured I'm taking it on board!

 

[Papa Shango]

Not a fan of this. They have been selfish in these protests. We shouldn't be rewarding this behaviour.

"They"?

 

[tsubaki]

OK I will, but in the meantime would you mind telling me? A general overview would suffice, just a couple of sentences?

Basically, the idea is that all three main parties espouse similar beliefs in terms of "free" markets, outsourcing, privatisations, liberalization of working rights and conditions etc, interventions abroad, tax reforms and being "pro-business". Their politicians are also moving in the same circles, broadly have the same career path (good school, PPE degrees at Oxford or Cambridge, think tank / charity work / journalism, special advisor, MP in a safe seat) and share broadly similar career aspirations. When they retire or lose office they join the same gravy train of public / semi-public jobs as each other. When one of them does something wrong, however bad, its rarely terminal unless the politician isn't part of the club. They have a shared language, and broadly share the same tactical approaches to politics like soundbites.

Obviously, to the rest of us there is presented a fiction that the normal Lib - Lab - Tory rows are still going on, a fiction that is supported by a media that is increasingly part of the political class.

The key thing though, where its best seen, is that when anyone comes along to challenge this - Oborne cites the example of Elizabeth Filkin, but since he wrote the book Corbyn has presented a much better example of it - they are attacked by the whole class.

 

[Amw79]

Absolutely spot on.

And what's happened is that the traditional media have ran with it and elevated it, despite it only really showing a minority view, meaning the "silent majority" (and as much as I hate that phrase it IS true) become disillusioned with a world they don't identify being imposed upon them.

Hence Trump. Hence Brexit.

There's a real need to understand it, so we can set about fixing it - we can't just abandon and ignore vast swathes of society. The temptation, even for me, to say "screw the old racists" due to Brexit was and is overwhelming, but it ultimately achieves nothing. Similarly, pointing at statues a few hundred years old, yelling "there's a racist" and pulling it down might make some people feel better in the short term, but in the long term you achieve nothing.

It's like the difference between a tsunami and rising water - one hits quick, causes devastation but it's a one off and people rebuild and ignore it. But a steady rising tide will eventually swallow the land and win the argument. The BLM cause needs to be the latter, not the former.

As for agreeing and disagreeing with me, I'd be astonished if someone 100% agreed with what I say - I'm human, I'm going to be wrong. I love being challenged and I've been wrong repeatedly on here over many, many issues. If there's something I say that seems wrong, call me out - I'll probably write an essay at you back but be assured I'm taking it on board!

Yeah, I’ve watched the back and forth, reluctant to throw in, precisely because I feel woefully under-qualified.

I can feel the cognitive dissonance quite profoundly - BLM is a worthy cause but there’s also clearly opportunism going on. Vandalising our own city centres is a self defeating move, but hard to get too upset about a statue that probably shouldn’t have still been there. Overly knee-jerk censorship is a potential threat to free speech, but no private companies are obliged to publish or broadcast all material regardless of content.

Expecting Joe Public to have a perfectly rational and fallacy-free position on the history of slavery, the psychology of how modern day black and white people feel about it, Antifa, the EDL, transgender rights, and the best Everton starting XI is asking a bit too much.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Basically, the idea is that all three main parties espouse similar beliefs in terms of "free" markets, outsourcing, privatisations, liberalization of working rights and conditions etc, interventions abroad, tax reforms and being "pro-business". Their politicians are also moving in the same circles, broadly have the same career path (good school, PPE degrees at Oxford or Cambridge, think tank / charity work / journalism, special advisor, MP in a safe seat) and share broadly similar career aspirations. When they retire or lose office they join the same gravy train of public / semi-public jobs as each other. When one of them does something wrong, however bad, its rarely terminal unless the politician isn't part of the club. They have a shared language, and broadly share the same tactical approaches to politics like soundbites.

Obviously, to the rest of us there is presented a fiction that the normal Lib - Lab - Tory rows are still going on, a fiction that is supported by a media that is increasingly part of the political class.

The key thing though, where its best seen, is that when anyone comes along to challenge this - Oborne cites the example of Elizabeth Filkin, but since he wrote the book Corbyn has presented a much better example of it - they are attacked by the whole class.

Oh I see, and you say Tubey backs this orthodoxy of an overarching political class?

Thanks for taking the time to put that post together by the way.

 

[coollino]

Yeah, I’ve watched the back and forth, reluctant to throw in, precisely because I feel woefully under-qualified.

I can feel the cognitive dissonance quite profoundly - BLM is a worthy cause but there’s also clearly opportunism going on. Vandalising our own city centres is a self defeating move, but hard to get too upset about a statue that probably shouldn’t have still been there. Overly knee-jerk censorship is a potential threat to free speech, but no private companies are obliged to publish or broadcast all material regardless of content.

Expecting Joe Public to have a perfectly rational and fallacy-free position on the history of slavery, the psychology of how modern day black and white people feel about it, Antifa, the EDL, transgender rights, and the best Everton starting XI is asking a bit too much.

You are definitely not under-qualified to join in. I don't think anyone in here is more or less qualified than anyone else.

 

[Tubey]

Basically, the idea is that all three main parties espouse similar beliefs in terms of "free" markets, outsourcing, privatisations, liberalization of working rights and conditions etc, interventions abroad, tax reforms and being "pro-business". Their politicians are also moving in the same circles, broadly have the same career path (good school, PPE degrees at Oxford or Cambridge, think tank / charity work / journalism, special advisor, MP in a safe seat) and share broadly similar career aspirations. When they retire or lose office they join the same gravy train of public / semi-public jobs as each other. When one of them does something wrong, however bad, its rarely terminal unless the politician isn't part of the club. They have a shared language, and broadly share the same tactical approaches to politics like soundbites.

Obviously, to the rest of us there is presented a fiction that the normal Lib - Lab - Tory rows are still going on, a fiction that is supported by a media that is increasingly part of the political class.

The key thing though, where its best seen, is that when anyone comes along to challenge this - Oborne cites the example of Elizabeth Filkin, but since he wrote the book Corbyn has presented a much better example of it - they are attacked by the whole class.

Genuinely fascinating. It's almost like I could throw "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" into that and it wouldn't look out of place whatsoever. It wouldn't look out of place in a boring remake of The Matrix either!

You're basically calling me a sheep for not being essentially a Marxist or an anarchist. Like I've "swallowed the blue pill". I mean... fine, you be you, have your view.

But I'll just say this - the onus is on you to show a viable alternative to what exists and sell it to the world. You can blame the people for not drinking your Kool Aid if you want, but perhaps you should look more introspectively.

 

[tsubaki]

Genuinely fascinating. It's almost like I could throw "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" into that and it wouldn't look out of place whatsoever. It wouldn't look out of place in a boring remake of The Matrix either!

You're basically calling me a sheep for not being essentially a Marxist or an anarchist. Like I've "swallowed the blue pill". I mean... fine, you be you, have your view.

But I'll just say this - the onus is on you to show a viable alternative to what exists and sell it to the world. You can blame the people for not drinking your Kool Aid if you want, but perhaps you should look more introspectively.

You know who Peter Oborne is, right?

 

[Tubey]

You know who Peter Oborne is, right?

Indeed. I haven't read that book though, I'm taking your words alone as they are.

I don't in theory disagree with a lot of what you say. They've undoubtedly "won", yet I loathe politicians of the modern day.

"Incompetent morons the lot of them. The fact I couldn't fit a complete bell like Andrew Lansley in the top four worst Tories at the moment tells you all you need to know."

My words. They're all bar some you can count on one hand historically terrible, and they all stick to rote, rarely express a unique thought and are self-serving. They also definitely attacked Corbyn as an outsider and a threat (but not without reason given the aim of Labour is to ultimately be elected and the PLP thought he couldn't do it, the Tories were terrified if he did and the Lib Dems are gonna Lib Dem, but that's by the by.)

But you think I'm blind to the problems the system has. I'm not. I'm simply saying show me the viable alternative. Sell it to me. Get it elected. You can make all the excuses in the world but if it truly is the right way to do it, then convince people of it.

I don't think blaming people for being too dumb to see your world view, that they're strapped to the machine and "supporting orthodoxy" is going to get you very far.

Also, we're horrendously off topic.

 

[mill]

Yeah, I’ve watched the back and forth, reluctant to throw in, precisely because I feel woefully under-qualified.

I can feel the cognitive dissonance quite profoundly - BLM is a worthy cause but there’s also clearly opportunism going on. Vandalising our own city centres is a self defeating move, but hard to get too upset about a statue that probably shouldn’t have still been there. Overly knee-jerk censorship is a potential threat to free speech, but no private companies are obliged to publish or broadcast all material regardless of content.

Expecting Joe Public to have a perfectly rational and fallacy-free position on the history of slavery, the psychology of how modern day black and white people feel about it, Antifa, the EDL, transgender rights, and the best Everton starting XI is asking a bit too much.

This is a brilliant post.

 

[tsubaki]

Indeed. I haven't read that book though, I'm taking your words alone as they are.

I don't in theory disagree with a lot of what you say. They've undoubtedly "won", yet I loathe politicians of the modern day.

"Incompetent morons the lot of them. The fact I couldn't fit a complete bell like Andrew Lansley in the top four worst Tories at the moment tells you all you need to know."

My words. They're all bar some you can count on one hand historically terrible, and they all stick to rote, rarely express a unique thought and are self-serving. They also definitely attacked Corbyn as an outsider and a threat (but not without reason given the aim of Labour is to ultimately be elected and the PLP thought he couldn't do it, the Tories were terrified if he did and the Lib Dems are gonna Lib Dem, but that's by the by.)

But you think I'm blind to the problems the system has. I'm not. I'm simply saying show me the viable alternative. Sell it to me. Get it elected. You can make all the excuses in the world but if it truly is the right way to do it, then convince people of it.

I don't think blaming people for being too dumb to see your world view, that they're strapped to the machine and "supporting orthodoxy" is going to get you very far.

Also, we're horrendously off topic.

Sorry Tubey, but I have already seen your post #1136 so this later claim to "don't in theory disagree with what you say" and that you loathe modern day politicians just comes across as being heroically dishonest.

I do think you are blind to the problems the system has, thats why you say someone else should convince you of viable alternatives to it.