General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:56 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:25 pm
Congratulations in once again missing the point.

Sigh.
Disdainful sarcasm makes it all the more clearer. :shrug:

I literally said I didn't understand what point you were trying to make, but contempt rather than clarification makes me think you don't really know yourself.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:06 pm

Only saw your second post, which was also disdainful sarcasm, so well done winning the pot kettle black contest again.

My point is: you're objecting to people being accused of being racist for voting to leave on the one hand, yet on the other you're saying that countries are intrinsically racist. So.... which is it?

To me, you seem well down the warped logic rabbit hole here, and ultimately admitting that you think you are racist.... :?

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:52 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:06 pm
Only saw your second post, which was also disdainful sarcasm, so well done winning the pot kettle black contest again.
What was disdainful or sarcastic about it? If you only read the second post, do you not think that's led you to make a mistake and jump to an erroneous conclusion? It's an odd line to take that someone was in the wrong whilst admitting you didn't read what they said correctly.
mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:06 pm
My point is: you're objecting to people being accused of being racist for voting to leave on the one hand, yet on the other you're saying that countries are intrinsically racist. So.... which is it?
There's two separate points there - the first being an example in agreement with your initial comment about racism by used as a weapon, the second taking eth's point about widening the definition to show it could be deemed racist whichever way someone voted (and hence used as a weapon). Alice need not get involved, I'm agreeing and backing up your initial point, yet you seem determined to fight it.

Despite what was said last week, you still seem to want to go down the hostile and insulting route. It's disappointing.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:57 pm

It's not too nuanced at all. Your stance is clearly contradictory. You're wrapping yourself up in layers of logical fallacies and falling down the rabbit hole. The two "seperate" points you refer to are not seperate, they're clearly related. That you think you can keep making statements in isolation and yet when previous context is referred to you always take exception is the problem with your arguments: they don't follow a logical path.

That you think you're agreeing with me indicates that you have misunderstood. Every response you make is hostile, and given with an air of perceived superiority. I'm merely responding in kind. Of course, though, it's only ever everyone else.

If you can't work out how leaving a large union of people which is growing and adding more members to stay inside a small union that if anything is more likely to get smaller indicates greater isolationism and jingoism, then you're lost.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:25 pm

I can only conclude that you take any difference of opinion to you to be hostile, then. Even when it's actually just taking your own point and using it in a context that perhaps you don't like.

Isolationism isn't the only alternative to EU membership. But if you're automatically discounting the other possibilities, it does explain why you don't follow my logic.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:02 pm

Honestly, it's like talking to someone who only listens to every third word you say.

Pick out what you want of what's said. Fine.

You keep saying that you agree with my original point. My original point was that your argument makes absolutely no sense.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:52 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:02 pm
Honestly, it's like talking to someone who only listens to every third word you say.

Pick out what you want of what's said. Fine.

You keep saying that you agree with my original point. My original point was that your argument makes absolutely no sense.
Your original point:

"If you know anything about Trevor Phillips, you'd realise how ridiculous this is. I'm just waiting for the racism thing to turn into Mccarthyism next, it's where this sort if stuff usually goes."

I may not respond to every single sentence, but I read all of your posts. As you have admitted a number of times, you don't extend the same courtesy back. You maintain this narrative that I'm being hostile and abusive towards you, I know that is untrue. I've taken particular care in this conversation to keep my sense of humour in check and not make any jokes that could be misconstrued. Despite that, you still respond with the same condescension and bitter ad hominem attacks as always.

The oddest part being that I was agreeing with the comment above from you. Some way through the discussion, eth made a wry observation correcting a minor point I made, I replied with a tongue-in-cheek remark of my own. You asked if that was 'point scoring'. Perhaps I made a mistake in assuming you'd followed the context of that remark, but I expanded whilst explaining that I wasn't being serious and referring back to the wrongs of arbitrarily labelling people as "racist".

Somehow you've then gone off on a tangent making an argument that reducing the size of your borders exacerbates the problem of exclusion. But I've never made a case for a retreat into isolation, rather removal of borders and a more open relationship with the world as opposed to just a select number of European countries. I think I've been quite explicit about that both here and in the past, not least in the post you neglected to read. That goal cannot be achieved whilst being a member of the EU, so the logical first step is to leave.

I don't think that's an uncommon view amongst leave voters, but just to tie back to the start, it's one that gets buried when the racism accusations are flying around.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:20 am

Rover the Top wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:52 am
mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:02 pm
Honestly, it's like talking to someone who only listens to every third word you say.

Pick out what you want of what's said. Fine.

You keep saying that you agree with my original point. My original point was that your argument makes absolutely no sense.
Your original point:

"If you know anything about Trevor Phillips, you'd realise how ridiculous this is. I'm just waiting for the racism thing to turn into Mccarthyism next, it's where this sort if stuff usually goes."

I may not respond to every single sentence, but I read all of your posts. As you have admitted a number of times, you don't extend the same courtesy back. You maintain this narrative that I'm being hostile and abusive towards you, I know that is untrue. I've taken particular care in this conversation to keep my sense of humour in check and not make any jokes that could be misconstrued. Despite that, you still respond with the same condescension and bitter ad hominem attacks as always.

The oddest part being that I was agreeing with the comment above from you. Some way through the discussion, eth made a wry observation correcting a minor point I made, I replied with a tongue-in-cheek remark of my own. You asked if that was 'point scoring'. Perhaps I made a mistake in assuming you'd followed the context of that remark, but I expanded whilst explaining that I wasn't being serious and referring back to the wrongs of arbitrarily labelling people as "racist".

Somehow you've then gone off on a tangent making an argument that reducing the size of your borders exacerbates the problem of exclusion. But I've never made a case for a retreat into isolation, rather removal of borders and a more open relationship with the world as opposed to just a select number of European countries. I think I've been quite explicit about that both here and in the past, not least in the post you neglected to read. That goal cannot be achieved whilst being a member of the EU, so the logical first step is to leave.

I don't think that's an uncommon view amongst leave voters, but just to tie back to the start, it's one that gets buried when the racism accusations are flying around.
If you're blasting that as my "original" point, why not go all the way back to something I said ten years ago? This particularly little discussion has been focused (at least from my side.... probably accounts for some of the logical nonsense you've come out with) on your assertion that wanting to be in the EU is racist because it's clear from it's name.....

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:15 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:20 am

If you're blasting that as my "original" point, why not go all the way back to something I said ten years ago? This particularly little discussion has been focused (at least from my side.... probably accounts for some of the logical nonsense you've come out with) on your assertion that wanting to be in the EU is racist because it's clear from it's name.....
Well that confirms you didn't follow the context of that paticular remark. If the converstaion had been going on for 10 years, it would be relevant to go back ten years. this one started with you bringing up the Trevor Phillips suspension, with follow-on replies from me, Gibbon and Ethiaa. Why on earth would you pluck one post out of the middle of that exchange and make it the "start point" from your own perspective? More importantly, why would you expect the person you're responding to understand you're ignoring the context they were talking in? It's no wonder my responses don't make sense to you, you're off down your own little rabbit hole.

It wasn't an assertion, it was an example of creating a justification to label an action as racist when there are other more likely explanations. Do you understand that?

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:19 am

No I did follow the context, and was pointing out how absurd it is.

But there we go: you see what you want to see.

Everyone else is off down the rabbit hole: your logic is the only logic that can possibly be correct....

:dunce:

I'll leave you to it. It's not worth talking to you about this stuff any more. In the last few years you've transitioned into someone who it's impossible to have a logical discussion with, who only focuses on winning points, nitpicking, plucking posts out of a discussion in time far worse way than you're accusing me of, objecting to the logical interpretations of your argument as put forwards by others. At the same time, your views are getting more and more disturbing.

The EU is racist: it's there in the name.... what the holy fuck.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:26 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:19 am
No I did follow the context, and was pointing out how absurd it is.
If that's what you were doing, then no you didn't. The whole point of ad absurdum style arguments is that that element of absurdity is central to it. There's no need to point it out.

It's not everyone, it's just you.

There's no real harm in you misinterpreting a tongue-in cheek comment as serious. The problem is you seem to approach all my comments with a prejudicial view that they're going to be nonsensical, extreme and intended to offend you in some way. You use that false perception of hostility to justify your own use of unnecessarily personal and inflammatory comments. And you double-down when it's pointed out you've misunderstood something, bizarrely insisting your interpretation matters more than the actual view I was conveying. I don't know what's caused this giant chip on your shoulder, maybe someone else wll set you straight as you don't seem to want to hear it from me.

:(

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Mar 13, 2020 5:52 pm

There's no chip on my shoulder, just dismay at what you seem to be turning into. :shrug:

There's only one person around here who doesn't want to hear anything....

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:56 pm

Sir Keir Starmar wins Labour leadership contest. Pretty sure they could have quartered the time for the contest without much difference, but there we go.

Probably ushers in a little more of a credible opposition to government.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 28008
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:30 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:56 pm
Sir Keir Starmar wins Labour leadership contest. Pretty sure they could have quartered the time for the contest without much difference, but there we go.

Probably ushers in a little more of a credible opposition to government.
I dunno. I think so long as they avoided Long-Bailey, they'd have gained a lot more credibility by electing one of the female candidates. To elect the only white middle-class male on the list seems odd for a party that often puts identity politics to the fore of their arguments - it shouldn't matter, but since they make it matter for everyone else, they're providing an easy stick to beat them with.

I'd have put Jess Phillips as the best choice of opponent for Boris Johnson, she's brash and not afraid of being outspoken, and would throw him offstep quite easily. But perhaps the characteristics that make her seem good to me are the reasons why she doesn't appeal to Labour members? So we end up with another mild, polite but boring guy in a suit who's good at preaching to the already converted but no one else will care.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:35 pm

I'm not sure that I would say Starmar preaches to the already converted. He's far closer to Blair; much more moderate and therefore much more likely to be taken seriously by business and those on the centre and centre right.

Of course given you only ever refer to Labour as "they", it won't have any bearing on your politics! :D

Mild and polite are certainly not negatives in my book; especially when coupled with consideration and thought.

Post Reply