UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/22/brandon-lewis-tories-conse...

It's now becoming common knowledge that the left are gaining the "nasty party" name these days.

Yet another "Jeremy C*nt" thread in the pub I believe...

I don't read the express, so I don't share that common knowledge.  But wasn't it the right who, for entirely selfish political reasons, decided to vote take Britain out of the EU?

Calling people names, might be bad. Screwing over a nation, to settle a petty dispute on the back benches is probably worse.

It's now becoming common knowledge that the right are sticking pitchforks into babies, they're going to do whatever it takes to stop the left stealing their name.

The EU question doesn't divide (and never has divided) across traditional right/left lines. Tony Benn was in favour of leaving the EU, to give one example. See e.g. https://semipartisansam.com/2016/03/03/tony-benn-and-the-left-wing-case-for...

No one expects that you would read anything other than that which agrees with your viewpoint.

Nope.

Yes, well when someone  does that, then get back to us.

Comrade Corbyn isn't a fan of the EU either, but let's not expect the left leaning to take facts onboard.

Hang about 

I know of at least two publicly 'left leaning' friends who voted to leave.

Can we try and keep this on topic please, and not let it descend into yet another Brexit debate, (recognising that Brexit may be a contentious issue for many.)

Perhaps you're correct and I did make a sweeping generalisation. After all, Churchill was in favor of the EU. As you point out, this issue does cross party lines.  It was Cameron, who caused the mess, in order to settle a dispute. 

Some in his own party might consider Dave to be a bit of a wet liberal. Other parties may consider him to be just another rich tory, out of touch with the country and in it for himself. 

I think I've taken this thread down a dangerous tangent. Lets get back to Big Ger and his lamenting the loss of the 'nasty party' name.

How very dare you! I'll have you know, I once read a manual by Microsoft. I disagreed with the majority of it and went on to implement the project in linux.

Poor little snowflakes.  Oh wait, that’s the wrong way round.  

Snowflakes are the ones getting vitriolic when they see their NHS being screwed over, their schools and the land they are on being given to private companies, severely disabled people having to go to meetings to prove their life long disability hasn’t mysteriously disappeared, finding it has according to the liars at Atos, having to pay an annual fee to Crapita to be allowed to do their job and so on.  

Not everyone left leaning agrees with everything 'Comrade Corbyn' says or does, even those who would much prefer a Corbyn lead labour government to May's tories. What was it you were saying about name calling being a 'left' thing?

Dry your eyes snowflake.

jk

Yes, this totally doesn't happen to everyone of all political stripes on the internet. Just Conservatives. Yep indeedy. Just the horrible lefties being nasty. Everyone else inviting each other round to discuss it over tea and a scone.

You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this.

In case you haven't noticed, political abuse is not exclusively left-wing. See for example the racist abuse of Diane Abbot. There's a lot of it about, exacerbated by social media and online anonymity. Our political discourse would be a lot more useful and less alienating if it wasn't so. But you're not going to fix it by being partial and just calling out one side.  

Diane Abbot not immune to it herself "White people love playing divide and rule"

If people act like tw*ts then it shouldn't come as a surprise when people call them tw*ts.

On a related theme nice to see the media being so nice to jeremy Corbyn

Doesn't Diane Abbott get as much abuse herself as the rest of our MPs put together?

Maybe, but not directly relevant.

So their answer to this is to call someone Jeremy C*nt, and that is supposed to make things better?

No wonder the Tories stay in power.

Calling JC "comrade" is just recognising his allegiances. When I was a a shop steward it was a sign of respect.

A far cry from calling someone a c*nt

The only tears in my eyes are there from laughing at your attempt to make equivalence between "comrade" and "c*nt"

:-D

GT (we can all be pretentious)

Laughable. No one has claimed it is exclusive, have they? It's just the left, as their cause is holy and just, do not see themselves as culpable.

No.

Search the forum here for "c*nt", and the various ways of masking it, and see how many dare use it for her?

No one would DARE call her a "c*nt" here as that would be sexist. (but it's ok to call Jeremy Hunt one as it rhymes and therefore is not sexist.)

From your own OP: "It's now becoming common knowledge that the left are gaining the "nasty party" name these days."

Do you not understand what "gaining" means? Do you not understand that one party can be "gaining" the name, without that becoming exclusive to them?

Dear god.

But in this context it isn't a sign of respect, we know you don't respect him, it's a political slur widely used to bind him in people's minds to a brutal and failed regime he did not support. I know you're bright and cynical as I'm sure do most of the regular users, you waste your time with this disingenuous nonsense.

Yes. However calling Hunt a c**t doesn't stifle debate or distort the political playing field however distasteful you may pretend to find it. Orchestrated smear campaigns of the type you are willingly playing along with to bring down the leader of the opposition using unfounded accusations of treason which will never need to be defended but by the odd hapless journalist and MP who accidentally fall under the wheels of their own muck spreader while flinging shit... that changes things for the worse. Remember there's every chance it'll be one of yours next.

jk

You are either disingenuous or terrible at conveying what you intend to. Whichever one it is, work on it.

You're wrong of course, I do respect JC, not all of his views, nor his politics, but I respect anyone who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and stand for office. In any case, he's a fellow Eurosceptic, so all power to his elbow.

Oh but it does distort and demean the debate process  we have. It's just that you are too biased to see it when your side does wrong.

Really? Again your lack of honesty betrays you. Far from "playing along" with the vilification campaign against JC, this is what I actually posted;

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/wasis_corbyn_a_spy-679485?v=1#x...

GT

'Common knowledge' - a meaningless blanket term not backed up by any real evidence but if you say it often enough people might believe it. Old Tory tricks used in Thatchers days if people disagreed with her they were 'wets' in her own party and 'extremists' if from another , repeated often enough for some to believe her. The aim to crush opposition, whether you're being truthful or not doesn't matter. Scare stories to collect votes, enemies within and enemies without - classic right wing tactics.

So lets have some quantified evidence from Brandon Lewis - 'common knowledge' just wont do.

"However calling Hunt a c**t doesn't stifle debate"

Not sure about that. Once people start referring to other people as c**ts it usually means their views of that person are entrenched, and they are very angry. These types of people are best avoided and left to stew in their own vitriol rather than engaged with in debate in my experience.

Yet another cut and paste article from BooGer I see

What are you on about - the term 'Nasty Party' being reinvented as about aggression from a minority of political activists rather than about a political party being nasty. Or about social media being dominated by the left wing

The first argument is obviously utter rubbish stop deluding yourself. 'Nasty party' refers to the party that destroys public welfare for the benefit of the few. Could equally be called the selfish, greedy or callous party

The second point might actually be worthy of discussion. Probably a matter of perspective, you can't watch a video of a cat on a hoover on Youtube without some racist bile written underneath. If there was a real difference I'd suggest it's demographic, young people (who have seen all the benefits that older generations enjoyed removed from them by the older generation) more likely to communicate online

"Scare stories to collect votes, enemies within and enemies without - classic right wing tactics."

Have you heard of Momentum? They are pretty good at this too...how does that work?

One the best ever thread titles on here just popped into my head.

"Right wing = Thick."

Smoke, fire, etc.

It depends how fiercely they think he is I guess? 

If anyone has any good reasons why I shouldn't be annoyed at what he said this morning given that he and his cuts are responsible for the situation getting worse I am happy to hear them or any views to the contrary.  So far no one has defended his comments.  No real debate from the blue team, just people mock pearl clutching at my name calling.  I stand by what I said. I explained why I was annoyed.  All I'm getting is distraction techniques.  No one is defending his position.  

Yes, it's only temporary, the cuts are pushing the NHS to the brink of collapse at this moment, but very soon he's going to be giving it an extra 350 million pounds every week, that should go some way to reversing the damage.

In some ways I agree, people calling Hunt a cu*t is engaged in serious debate, they're venting their frustration which is valid. His ideas and actions can still be debated. If I wanted to discuss health and social care funding I wouldn't open or attempt to progress the debate with name calling. I have no more control over others who hold similar political views to me than you do, yes debate is currently highly polarised and coarsened but it's still possible.

Smear campaigns to take down a politician with lies are a whole other thing.

jk

Here's what else you wrote:

A post so stupid from someone who we know understands the world well eonough to recognise its stupidity that we're forced to read between the lines to get to the barely hidden subtext... He must be guilty of something.

And another. Same deal.

You seem quite confused for someone who professes to respect the man except you're not confused are you.

jk

Nothing to do with being a minority government who made a dodgy deal with the DUP then? 

Common knowledge does exist and is an acceptable term in certain contexts - professional practice or academic subject areas for example. But you're right in that it's often misused as a rhetorical device to build a case without evidence, as here.

Now common-sense really doesn't exist...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is...

You admit you're annoyed, you like to call him a c**t. People who have got contrary views to you are probably not annoyed and feel no desire to debate with someone who has shown (through their language) they probably have very little ability to be objective, and are angry. Also, they often mistakenly interpret the lack of people willing to debate them as corroboration of their stringent view, rather than just people walking on by steering clear of the pissed golf club bore.

None of this is specifically about Jeremy Hunt, or you, just more of my personal opinion on the shy tory phenomenon

This has more to do with having views which offend people rather than the abusers being inherently abusive. A lot of people are angry with how the Tories have carried on over the last 7 years . I'm not condoning abuse but the phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword" comes to mind.    

Now I'm a pissed golf club bore.  Right.

Just out of interest what exactly would a shy tory say in opposition to my views if I hadn't used such dreadful language?

Am I supposed to feel ashamed of being angry about the way Jeremey Hunt is treating doctors nurses and patients?   

I'm ashamed of those who let it happen without speaking out.  

People have always thought certain politicians are c**ts and called them that, loudly. Just these days it's all done on social media and everyone can share, post, dislike, like etc.  Due to the nature of this, people post in echo chambers to feel safe because to put your head above the parapet is risky due to the viral nature of the internet and the ability to attract nasty angry trolls.

Stick a horrible note on an ambulance? Front page of the most widely read online newspaper in the world. Need to direct foreign policy without actually meeting anyone? Just tweet your bonkers idea and the world takes notice. Thought the Grenfell victims were illegal immigrants? Tweet and judge/jury/conviction, boyfriend sacked in less than 24 hours via the MSM.

This is how it works now and it's a minefield (best avoided IMO)

Just out of interest what exactly would a shy tory say in opposition to my views if I hadn't used such dreadful language?

Dunno? All the ones I know are usually sat on viewing platforms outside the locations for the Maximus assessment centers laughing at the disabled, but if I could get their attention they would probably just call you a c**t 

I would imagine it's very possible and plausible that plenty of shy tories would be sympathetic of your view. Why wouldn't they be? It's not unreasonable to be critical of how Jeremy Hunt and the current party are running the NHS, just like plenty of tory supporters are exacerbated at how they are handling Brexit. Doesn't mean they will necessarily switch allegiance at the next election, but plenty probably will.

There you go guys, completely content free and nothing but insult. I love the way some people go out of their way to prove me right.

Stroppy in a nutshell.

No. He has the opportunity to, not only clear his name, but also to score some political kudos.

Yes, so what is the problem with that? 

Dear god, I offer some potential perspectives on how I think JC can GAIN some political advantage from a situation which is running in his favour, and you seem to think I'm denigrating the man.

Not at all confused. The only confusion here is your intensely fervent need to try and twist everything into some sort anti-JC diatribe. You're getting worse too. 

G the T

Wow, yet another. Content free and a feeble childish attempt at insult.

If they carry on like this my work here is done!

If it was good enough for James Naughtie & Andrew Marr

I miss the time difference

It's probably true that young conservative supporters feel like they're in a minority and particularly so in online discussion, because they are (and considering the way their party has governed over the last 8 years, that's no surprise).

There is of course no excuse for targeted abuse. That said, I wonder if the reluctance of young conservatives to engage is really because everyone on the left bullies them, or simply because of their awareness of being a minority.

Any assertion that the left alone is the nasty side is pure nonsense. Where is the evidence to back it up? Anecdote is worthless in this instance. The vitriol comes from all directions and this is a sad symptom of modern society, not of any individual political persuasion.

Furthermore, if the OP feels that he is unfairly lambasted at times, he perhaps ought to desist from the often robust and uncompromising debating style for which he is well known on these forums.

Bless you my child, how could I insult you by reminding you that you're banned under one name and slime back in under another?

Erghen

Out of interest, what exactly is your work on this site and does it ever have anything to do with climbing???

As for your original post, there are (lamentably) insults/intimidation thrown across from both sides of the political spectrum - for example, try loudly expressing pro-immigration, pro-LGBT views in some rougher pubs and see how well that goes down.  Actually, the irony of it is that you are one of the worst on this site for name-calling anyone who don’t agree with your views (fragile snowflakes anyone?).

Anyway, unless you have some worthwhile study showing how suppression of political views in this country is predominantly a leftist issue, this latest post is just another in what seems like an incredibly long list of pointless opiniated threads originating from you.

Maybe clear off back yonder then? - give (most of) us a break...

I'm too old and ugly to give a toss about it mate.

I just love highlighting the hypocrisy,  of those left leaning zealots whose creed tells them to be kind and gentle and not aggressive, ( and definitely not sexist,) but who feel they have a religiously granted right to call anyone who has a different political perspectives anything they wish, (up to and including a c*nt.)

Unfortunately that is the best you can do, you have no other option. The whole notion of "on topic debate" is lost to you, and cheap and childish insult is the best you can manage.

Never mind, I'm sure it helps your fragile ego to do so.

Ah dear, poor you...

Exposing the fallibility and hypocrisy of left wing politics. Of course it has nothing to do with climbing, but you surely aren't under the misapprehension that "off belay" and "the pub" are for climbing discussions?

I never personally insult, unless insulted first, please call  me on it if I do, as others have when I err.

I agree that insults come from all sides of the political spectrum, and if you see someone of righ wing bent doing it here, then please point it out.

One to which you have the ability to ignore or to refrain from posting in should you wish. Your choices are not my responsibility. Here's a hint; If you see a thread which has my name against it as the OP  in any forum list, don't bother opening it if you don't want to hear what it says. Quite simple really.

This is rather like an insult.

Being left leaning myself, I'm starting to think that calls to boycott places which sell right wing papers, or companies who advertise in right wing papers, isn't a healthy thing to have in a democratic society, which is vaguely related in nature to vitriol online to keeping right leaning people feeling like they have to keep quiet on social media, but your generalisation of left leaning people makes me slightly less likely to take seriously things you may post. If somebody posted the same about right wing people, there'd be certain posters talking about it being 'typical of the left', it goes back and forth and isn't helpful at all. 

If you think insults are bad, don't use them.

Have you finished?

I've never claimed to be left leaning.  Some of my views are left, some middle and some right.  

Pretty sure the left would be horrified by my views on forceable contraception for heroin addicts.  

I believe benefits should be based on need not want.  

I don't believe people should be treated differently due to their genitalia or skin colour, not because of "left leanings" but simply because it is stupid and illogical make assumptions based on those things. 

I'm quite equal opportunities when it comes to calling people out, I don't care who they are quite frankly.  

I don't believe in God and I don't follow any creed, let alone one that tells me to be gentle or non aggressive.  

I'm who I am.

I think Jeremy Hunt deserves his nickname because he is unpleasant and his actions are appalling.  

I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.  I never claimed to be nice.  I can be an angry bitch at times.  Take it or leave it, I don't really care.   

Oh, and "on topic debate" my arse.  I started a thread about JH and you derailed it by behaving like those you call snowflakes.  You are back to talking crap again.  I'm out.  

This. All day.

Hoookay.......  as opposed to the infallible and perpetually sincere right wing politics.....   Anyway,  surely this whole left / right wing way of viewing things is a bit of a lazy over-simplification, no?

So, unless you really are that naive, or a simpleton, why are you so obsessed with “Exposing the fallibility and hypocrisy of left wing politics“ like it’s some grand conspiracy??

Sure, but most people on here seem to post on climbing as well as non-climbing topics, or are active climbers.  I mean it’s a free world so you can post wherever you like but I’m just curious as to why you spend so much effort posting here instead of on a politics forum somewhere else.

Actually you insulted me (and yes I didn’t insult you beforehand, promise!) on some post in the past.  Also, so if you did get banned from here under a different username, what did you do??

I did, that’s you.

Yes that’s kind of obvious, I won’t open or reply to a post unless I want to.  However the point I chose to make is that your grand sweeping claim regarding a huge chunk of the political spectrum needs some empirical proof.  Otherwise it is just pointless drivel.

Personally I think it's a massive need for attention, no more than that. The contrarian stance, failure to engage meaningfully with more or less anything, and rampant posting habits sum it up.

Ah,the express. A reliable source of facts.

Jeez.

Just in case.you forgot again in the last few posts, you are the only one here who has been banned for being abusive. I believe there.is a word for this. Ah, yes.  Hypocrisy.

I think the whole thing's a bag of shite, again. I'm left-leaning because I believe in increasing redistributive spending on public services to narrow the opportunity gap between the children of the rich and the poor. I believe that racism and homophobia are serious moral wrongs and won't seek to dismiss their opposition as "political correctness" or "identity politics". What I don't' get is what the f*ck that has to do with calling politicians "cu*nts" or being abusive to Tories on social media.

Are you confusing lefties with Christians? They're the ones with the sandals that are always banging on about being nice to people, even if you really think they're a dick (or something like that).

It's only an insult if it is aimed at you personally, and you choose to see it as such. 

I try to stick by my rule of never insulting anyone unless they insult me first. (Though I slip often.)

I would never claim that

So unless you really are that naive, or a simpleton, you'll realise that it isn't an "obsession" but a fun game anyone can play, from whichever political leaning they choose.  The only "grand conspiracy" exists in your fevered imagination. 

It's no effort, (the quality of opposition makes it so.) I'm just returned to the UK, and will be getting back into my climbing (which will be reduced to bouldering in the main,) after rebuilding my house.

No you didn't. If you wish to point it out, please quote.

Yes, but it's my pointless drivel, and I'm happy with it.

Can I just ask why you are so obsessed with the person posting, rather than the debate topic?

It's not just you BTW, if you read up through the recent posts you'll see that many are more concerned with debating their fantasies about who I am, and what drives me, than debating the actual topic.

Is it something to do with the left's obsession with identity politics perhaps?

Oh don't get me started on my other hobby horse, my theory that many have subscribed to left wing politics to fill th gap left by abandoning religon has left in them. 

Any reason to believe people turn from religion to left wing politics? Or did you just make it up? 

"Tories can't win on social media due to 'vitriolic' abuse", they can always hit the "Abuse" button.. and never see those comments from leftwingers ever again.
 

This seems to contradict what you've written on the Corbyn Spy thread.

You have to be careful that your hobby-horse doesn't turn into a blinkered obsession. All ideologies can be seen as substitutes for religion, whether left or right. And there are other choices for religion-substitute: popular music, sport... even climbing is often seen as a substitute for religious experience. Why are you particularly concerned about the left-wing case?

Uh huh, then why just pick on the “lefty” side of the political spectrum if you are so aware of the fallibility and hypocrisy of the other end as well?

Well you did manage to become one of the top posters here whilst only really talking about a few topics, and never about climbing.  I think we can be excused for getting the impression that you are obsessed.

By the way, my fevered imagination may have come up with some weird shit here and there, but it hasn’t come up with a “grand conspiracy”, yet.  The “grand conspiracy” is my named suggestion for what your opposition should be for your quixotic crusade: “Exposing the fallibility and hypocrisy of left wing politics”.

Have fun bouldering

Off the top of my head (searching through past posts for exact quotes which may, or may not have been deleted is a bit sad), something along the likes of “precious snow flake” which is a rather run of the mill insult bandied around by right wing press these days.

Anyway, you ignored my other question, did you ever get banned here?  If so curious as to what you did.

Well, as you say the post by you is pointless drivel.  We’re really only left with you and your quest to talk about.  Feel free to label it as my obsession once I make it as a top poster.

Answered above

In what way?

Because we are discussing left wing nastiness perhaps?

Mainly due to me being right leaning, and there is a surfeit of left wing views posted here. Those of a lefty disposition can do that if they wish.

I used to get bored at work on the emergency desk, it was a way of sharing banter with Brit folks, I enjoyed it.

Nah, that's nothing like a "grand crusade" it's more a tendency to enjoy the rough and tumble of debate, and a faint heart never won a fair lady etc.

Cheers.

I have to point out that "precious snowflake" is rather mild compared to the run of Jeremy C*nt's we've had, is it not?

No I disagree, I only used teh term "pointless drivel" to describe it, as you did first. I think teh OP has some merit as a debate point. But if my little fan club would prefer to talk about me, (and to disguise their love for me by posting childlike nasty comments,) who am I to object? 

It's rather flattering.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-london-local-elections...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43183344

While it's refreshing to note that no one has taken the side of the Guido Fawkes of UKC  in over 80 posts I think if we want to see the last of his smears and insults it would be best to treat him like any other troll and ignore him.

Best of luck with that.

So a bit of intellectual dishonesty then, at least in public

Judging from the volume, you certainly must get a lot of enjoyment from online posting.

I used the term crusade based on your somewhat grandiose term you use for what you described as your “work” here.  Maybe it’s just me but I don’t seem to get the impression of light hearted banter from your threads

Yes, but the crucial difference is that you did quite unnecessarily go around insulting the people you were having a discussion with, and then went on to flatly deny it by claiming  “I never personally insult, unless insulted first“.

Calling a third party individual who is a public figure silly names (not saying that’s particularly productive either) isn’t the same thing is it?  I mean, me saying Pol pot was a bit a dick, isn’t the same as calling you a dick is it.

Well that’s where we disagree.  What I said earlier is that if there happened to be some reasonably objective way of looking at political suppression and assessing whether it happened more frequently in one area of politics than another, then that is worth talking about.

Instead the original post makes some sweeping statements based on what someone with a vested interest has said.  To me that seemed of little value, and actually quite harmful in that it is just cherry picking little scraps of information to reinforce what you already thought.

Also I just find this lazy, simplistic pidgeonholing of everything in politics as “left” and “right” (such as the left is the nasty party) quite irritating now as it only seems to serve in widening tribalistic division we have in politics.

Edit:  Anyway, I’ve read your private message where you were more forthright.  Not being a frequent poster here, didn’t realised the amount of mud-slinging that went on.  Don’t think I want to partake in that, and as someone else pointed out earlier the threads is probably way too long now.

That doesn’t mean you can’t place your assertion in the wider context. It would improve its credibility. For instance you might have said ‘All ideologies can be seen as religion substitutes, but left-wing thinking seems to attract more than its share of religious fervour.” See what I mean? 

Grow up. It’s time.

'Holy' is a good choice of word, I think.  For many on the far left/SJW spectrum, it's a religion.  Dogma rules, and the response to heresy is hysteria.

Or that's just a lazy way to attack people you disagree with rather than their ideas. "Holy" in this context is just an sneering exaggeration of "doing the right thing", which we all think we're advocating - those on the left and the right - isn't it? Also notice that "virtue-signalling" only ever appears to be a problem when they're virtues that "the right" (*gross generalisation klaxon*) don't prioritise themselves. Talking about "self-reliance" and "common sense" never seems to gets classed as virtue-signalling, does it?

" Talking about "self-reliance" and "common sense" never seems to gets classed as virtue-signalling, does it?"

Maybe because "the left" do not label "the right" as virtue signalling when they promote ideas of self reliance/ common sense etc.and tend to use other terms which usually mean the opposite of virtue?  So that's why you don't see it I think, they don't see it as a virtue.

Is it just me or is it amusing everyone just as much that the OP is getting so wound up by jk's standard sign off?

You're simultaneously getting and missing my point. It's hypocrisy to denigrate your opponent for virtue-signalling whilst doing the same yourself. It points to the fact that virtue-signalling is as vacuous an insult as do-gooder. It just depends on what each of us thinks of as "good".

As someone who doesn't align with any particular political party or ideology... it seems pretty obvious that there are vocal morons on both sides in much the same way there are vocal morons in any group of any kind.  It's quite surprising this seems so unclear to so many.

Yes, Jeremy Hunt has had his name remastered to something offensive. One only need browse the Daily Mail comments to see this is not unique to the Left. Yes, the Left have committed acts of vandalism, and probably acts of assault. One need only look at the case of Jo Cox to appreciate the Left isn't alone in this. 

In summary, Bertrand Russell put it well:

Why are fools and fanatics so sure of themselves, yet the wise so full of doubt?

Based on this post, in which camp would you think you belong?

As I said earlier, "All ideologies can be seen as substitutes for religion, whether left or right. And there are other choices for religion-substitute: popular music, sport... even climbing is often seen as a substitute for religious experience. "

Your last sentence could apply to any number of political positions. How about the hard Brexit idea for one?

No, it isn't.  It's an observation about their behaviour.  Calling me lazy is just a lazy way attacking me because you disagree with my ideas.  See how that works?

Sneering: not the word I'd choose.  'Contempt' would be closer to the mark, although it's mixed in with heavy dose of concern. 

Broadly speaking, yes.  The point I was making is that those on the far left (you left out the 'far' bit -  I hope that was carelessness, rather than a sly elision) exhibit behaviours which are closer to religious fervour than they are to social or political thought.

I think that's because (may I borrow your klaxon?  Thank you.) the far left/SLW lot prioritise "my feelings" and the centre and moderate right prioritise responsibility.  And before anyone shouts 'gotcha', I am not suggesting that everyone on the right behaves responsibly.

Do you not think that is true of those with any extreme views?  In fact it's almost a definition of extreme.  Those with moderate views tend to hold them loosely and with doubts.

Sorry, you're putting in lots of effort to attack people rather than their ideas. Better?

As someone has pointed out upthread, any ideological extreme exhibits this (Aryan Brotherhood with tiki torches, anyone?), so why single out the left?

Only a valid point if "virtue-signalling" only got hurled at those on the far left*. Have you been on the internet lately?

*Argh! We need to start separating economics and government from social issues. For the sake of discussion let this ride, but to think that believing in the fair redistribution of wealth has a causal effect on believing people should have safe spaces and accept whatever made-up gender pronoun gets chucked their way is nonsensical. I know I've used "right" as shorthand for "socially conservative", which is just as bad, but sometimes it's just easier to use the accepted shorthand even if it's not accurate.

Agreed .

Is this true? There's no reason to believe that people on the left are any more abusive that people on the right.

The only study I've seen on this - which looked exclusively at abusive received by female MPs from 1Jan to 6June last year - concluded that abuse cuts across party lines. They had to cut Dianne Abbot out of the results because she received 45% of all abusive tweets aimed at female MPs and so was skewing the figures. Even after excluding her, they found that labour was receiving 35% of abusive tweets to the conservatives 18% (SNP came in for the biggest hammering). 

https://medium.com/@AmnestyInsights/unsocial-media-tracking-twitter-abuse-a...

Don't confuse him with the facts when he's made up his mind.

Respectfully, no.  Describing their behaviour puts me under no obligation to critique their ideas.  

Because the thread is about the conduct of the left.  Although my comments relate to the far end of that spectrum (caveat to follow in the last para).

A fine point (I'm not being sarcastic).  Unfortunately, though, I think the mainstream left have become to some extent infected by their lunatic cousins and they do sometimes engage in virtue signalling and radical silliness.  

I couldn't agree more and I've committed the same error, if I can call it that.  But it is handy shorthand and, broadly speaking, we all know who we're talking about, even if we are being imprecise.

Funnily enough it took me around 30s of searching to find instances on UKC of him referring to left wing politicians via childish name calling (via his previous (banned) persona "stroppygob").  I imagine he's one of those individuals who, whilst abhorring hypocrisy, is always prepared to make exceptions in his own case.

There's something extremely nasty about the way Dianne Abbot is always singled out for abuse, encouraged by the gutter press and hard-right media. It has deeply racist and misogynistic undertones. 

You don't really debate though do you, you berate, so even when you have something interesting to say, most people switch off. People are expecting you to be antagonistic for the sake of it, so when you're trying to make a valid point, your on-line persona has already tainted whatever you say with a certain nuance which you might not even be meaning. The problem with the written word is you have no visual indications of what the writer is trying to get across, so people reading infer what you mean, by what you've written before. A lot of your stuff borders on trolling, so that's what people come to the thread expecting.