. I reckon that the BBC’s idea of the dream nation state is Venezuela under the guiding fist of Hugo Chavez. The communist thug Chavez has earned his brownie points by nationalising anything that moves, oppressing private enterprise – and you can read all about it on various approving BBC posts. Just select through the sidebar menu of this latest story expressing Venezuelan outrage that there has been an alleged violation of its airspace by an American military aircraft. Defence Minister Gustavo Rangel said the jet had been tracked by country’s air defences over the Venezuelan-owned island of La Orchila on Saturday. You can just tell how in sympathy the BBC writer of this report was in the admiring tone that Chavez “is a fierce critic of Washington.” It strikes me that the BBC admires those thuggocracies like Venezuela who delight in attacking the USA and this seeps through to the tone of the reports it files.
THE IDEAL BBC APPROVED STATE – VENEZUELA
Bookmark the permalink.
Good dinner.
Gunnar – apologies, I missed your earlier response.
When I say we should be free to call either Bush or Chavez a thug, I was not declaring that in my book insults are ok. I do agree with you substantially that they are not, and I have taken issue with comments here in which people whom I dislike have been labelled “scum”. Scum is an insult. “Thug” on the other hand, as you kindly pointed out, has a definite and applicable meaning. One can hold that definition up and determine whether or not the subject fits it.
The answer to that may be subjective and nuanced (fat chance!) but that doesn’t alter the fact that the word has a specific meaning applicable to human behaviour. As such I do not take it as being insulting, but purely descriptive – where it is factually applicable. I do not consider that it hinders debate to use accurate language, as long as that accuracy is not a mere byproduct of bile. What hinders debate is the belief that the purpose of debate is to find a middle ground or to discuss without the risk of offence being taken.
Broadly, having spent the entire thread disputing with each other, I think we agree on the issues. The devil, as ever, is in the detail.
Paul S – I think I agree. I always think of what a neutral interested visitor to this site would think on reading a post and its comments.
When the only substantial part of a post is an inference that you can just tell how much the BBC love the commie Chavez from the way they call him a critic of Washington, I think we are in danger of having people immediately take us for a bunch of right-wing extremists with no valid arguments.
And they would be right; but we must somehow disguise ourselves as reasonable, thoughtful citizens with legitimate concerns about the BBC.
“have taken issue with comments here in which people whom I dislike have been labelled “scum”. Scum is an insult. “Thug” on the other hand, as you kindly pointed out, has a definite and applicable meaning.”
So does “scum”.Thug,BTW,is derived from Thugee,the stranglers of India,worth a look at.
Yes, scum is a pure insult derived from a description of extraneous matter that has usually to be removed and disposed of. I choose not to use it with regard to people whose politics do not coincide entirely with my own. Others here have done. I have been stupidly called a leftie and scum on this site merely for defending the role of the teacher in society. That is the kind of thing Mr Vance seems to want to end, and I concur with him entirely in that regard.
“scum (skm)
n.
1. A filmy layer of extraneous or impure matter that forms on or rises to the surface of a liquid or body of water.
2. The refuse or dross of molten metals.
3. Refuse or worthless matter.
4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.”
Interesting thread, and how nice to have one that seems to only have attracted the adults 🙂
I think BaggieJohnathan’s point is fair – we come here at our own risk and shouldn’t expect to be liked. And a bit of name-calling seems fair enough too, however the complete absence of charm (and meaningful contribution bias-wise) from some current posters makes me long for the wit and charm of People’s Front of Judea LOL. That when we are not around, these posters then attack fellow commentors means that they are totally discredited in my view.
While I understand the reasoning a bit, it does piss me off when I say my politics are freemarket/right of centre, and people say NO you are a poloneck wearing Marxist ie I am a liar. Oh and repeatedly being told you are anti-Semitic grinds you down too, but then that last bit is just part of the charm of the Internet these days.
It’s fair enough that David uses hyperbole in his posts, but I think he has to consider how much that shifts them from evidence to opinion, and also that he then sets a tone which the misguided may take the wrong way. He is always polite enough to me.
Hope I haven’t brought this thread about with my well-meant $20 whore comment.
“people say NO you are a poloneck wearing Marxist ”
Some things are unforgivable,a polo neck is one of them.
Alex,”You’re so vain,you probably think this song is about you”.
Hi gharqad tree
Glad you enjoyed your dinner. Mine was neither here nor there.
Agree with you on scum. In my books “thug” is obviously not as severe but has certain connotations. I believe one can place many contributors into left/right categories simply by the words they are using.
“Scum”, “Thug”, “winge and whine” appear to be favoured by posters from the right. They are not meant to be descriptive but to tar one. I am sure, the left has it favourite words and for sure they will be pointed out in due course.
“What hinders debate is the belief that the purpose of debate is to find a middle ground or to discuss without the risk of offence being taken.”
I agree on the first point. If one person states A and another B the truth is quite likely not (A+B)/2. What debate should provide is to listen to each others arguments, to weight them and to point out areas that are not understood. After this one can part without necessary being convinced by the others points, but both sides have not humilated each other, the only win-win situation I know 😉
“Broadly, having spent the entire thread disputing with each other, I think we agree on the issues. The devil, as ever, is in the detail.”
Exactly 🙂
“I have been stupidly called a leftie and scum on this site merely for defending the role of the teacher in society.”
Have not seen this debate, but it sounds strange indeed for being called leftie and scum for defending the role of teachers.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. Guess we may discuss other topics on the same or opposite sides of the fence.
Much appreciated!
Sue I entirely agree with you, thud you say this is David Vance’s site,
gunnar…David can follow or break his own rules if he wants to…it’s his site…you and I don’t have to visit if we don’t wish too.I’m happy with the way things are run here but you obviously are not…..feel free to leave but if you do stay then you should understand that we don’t have ownership rights here…we don’t set the rules,if you feel strongly about this then start your own blog like the rest of us.
Is this the case is he now in ownership or is he contributing, or standing in for someone?? Does anyone know exactly what his status is?
On the other hand, the frequency of DV’s posts does relieve the congestion on the general thread and provide a kind of focus. So my respectful plea to DV would be • please hold your fire until you spot a genuine case of slanted reporting.
PaulS | 20.05.08 – 6:27 pm
I find Paul’s comment to be a fair one. I would endorse his plea.
Sue I also agree with your comment that at least this thread has attracted the adults.
“Agree with you on scum. In my books “thug” is obviously not as severe but has certain connotations.”
Then you obviously do not know the meaning or derivation of the word Thug.
The Thugee were murderers.
Peter: thank you. You rather make my point for me with the now obligatory dictionary definitions.
Scum is clearly a slang insult drawn from waste matter, and when that notion is applied to a human it relegates him or her to a state of utter subhuman worthlessness. No-one will forbid you to use it if that’s what you want, but you’ll never convince me that its use is anything but an imitation of thinking, employed by a lazy or frustrated mind.
Gunnar – thanks for a courteous disagreement. See you next time, no doubt.
When we might even discuss….. something to do with the BBC? I look forward to it.
Peter: The Thugee were murderers.
yes. That’s why I argue that “thug” is not inappropriate when used of a man who has his armies torture and sometimes kill opponents.
That’s why thug is a descriptive term, while scum is merely subjective abuse.
only me:
If Mr Vance wants moderation, as we all do, blah blah blah
Er…right. Speaking only for you? Moderation in the relentless pursuit of today’s BBC is no virtue, nor is single-minded dedication to its destruction a vice. And if it makes you fret to know many loathe and despise what you and the BBC represent, well, poor baby. But you speak only for yourself, as you say. Except when you don’t. Of course.
Well – what a thread this has turned out to be!
OK – let me make a few points.
1. I write in my own style and see no reason to alter this for precious little souls who object to me calling a thug like Chavez..well, a thug!
2. Baggiejonathan – please re-email me at ATW and I will de delighted to register you!
3. Only Me – my status is I am here, now get over it. Oh, and stop pretending you are a newbie here, nobody buys that tripe.
4. Gunnar – you’re shooting blanks. I’m not here to devote endless time to provide you with multiple sources each time you request them. I seek civility but Queensbury rules to not apply when discussing terrorists and tyrants and if you don’t like that, tough.
5. Paul S – No, I will NOT hold my fire. When I want to comment, I will, no-one forces you to read. Further, BBC bias cuts to the heart of many political stories and I intend to cover it. With respect.
“No-one forces you to read”.
David, that’s not the most mature response to a sympathetic reader who merely fears that a scattergun approach is not as effective as a selective one.
That said, I appreciate the frequency of your posts, as Paul S also appears to. You do sound a little hyper-defensive in the comment above, if I might say so.
Perhaps Gunnar is not the only sensitive little soul here? You can surely respond to well-intentioned criticism without the bluster you display there? (And no, I am not sensitive. Quite the opposite. I’m just worried that you are!)
GT see number 4 Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless”
“That’s why thug is a descriptive term, while scum is merely subjective abuse.”
Unfortunately Thug was and is subjective abuse.Are you saying Chavez is a follower of Kali?
You will have to be careful GT,you are sounding like a double act with Gunnar,I’m sure you don’t want to give that impression do you?
Sarah Jane | 20.05.08 – 9:03 pm,
While I understand the reasoning a bit, it does piss me off when I say my politics are freemarket/right of centre, and people say NO you are a poloneck wearing Marxist ie I am a liar. Oh and repeatedly being told you are anti-Semitic grinds you down too, but then that last bit is just part of the charm of the Internet these days.
I think you tend to misconstrue people’s comments perhaps because you identify strongly with the BBC. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone here call you a Marxist or anti-Semitic though those labels have been applied at times to the BBC as a collective.
It must get a bit lonely being a right of centre free marketeer at the BBC. Which makes me wonder why you are such an ardent defender of your employer.
Re the charm of the internet, it is totally flooded with anti-Semitism. This should be the cause for concern rather than sensitivities over the application of the “anti-Semitic” label, which is more often than not quite accurate.
How many times does this have to be said?…..David vance gets to do as he wishes…if you don’t like it…don’t visit…it doesn’t come any easier than that.I for one don’t want to be part of a polite debating society that seems to chase it’s own tail,afraid to take a stance. Plus it always seems the lefts default position that there are two sides to every story…well folks not for me with chavez etc.
The problem with the polite debating society modus operandi is that,polite trolls insert lame and spurious arguments into the thread,then indulge in lengthy,meaningless verbosity and call it debate.
gharqad tree
Hey, where I used to be disgusted now I try to be amused. I respect your comments though so thx for the feedback.
Deja vu Baggy Jonathan; the ferocity of your reply was astonishing. I stated that I prefer to engage with those responsible for the damaging bias that this site is here to expose, but you evidently are content to attack someone who is more or less on the same side as you.
Are you afraid that Mr Vance will modify the site to accommodate my preferences? Fat chance.
Sarah Jane | 20.05.08 – 9:03 pm “I think BaggieJohnathan’s point is fair…”
Which of Baggy Jonathan’s points did you think was fair? Surely not the one where he inexplicably bit my head off?
B.J. says he doesn’t want to engage with BBC employees, I say I do. Then, to add insult to injury one of them puts in an appearance to support Him! What madness is this?
Sarah-Jane: “How nice to have a thread that’s only attracted the adults”.
Speaks volumes! Now cd David perhaps leave an “adults only thread” for the “polite debating society” while BiasedBBC gets on with its job everywhere else?
Peter: “thug” is derived from thugee, as you keep reiterating, and in English it has now come to mean something else – someone who gets their way by violence or threats of violence. Chavez fits, so I call him a thug.
By your own definition – ie, the one you keep presenting to me – “scum” has no such concrete meaning, and is more subjective. It is slang derived from waste matter, in the same way that calling someone a “shit” is slang derived from waste matter, without any concrete meaning. Hence the phrase “regarded as” in your beloved definition – ie, by definition, subjective. Regarded as what? – “despicable or worthless”; despicable and worthless are words with entirely different meanings, hence my contention that this word is merely subjective abuse whereas a man can be defined as a thug or not a thug by reference to his propensity to threaten or use violence to get his own way.
Your question re Chavez and Kali is too risible to respond to. The word “thug” now means something other than “thugee”, Peter. As I’m sure you know in less anal moments. Trolls are not the only ones who can indulge in lame and spurious arguments it seems.
And as for damning me by association because I fail to act like an aggressive child when disagreeing with Gunnar, and telling me I’ll “have to be careful about that” – you go ahead and think whatever you will, I personally could not care less what you think if that really is the level of your reasoning.
Thud: congratulations on your vehemence. I am not “afraid to take a stance”, and indeed I spent almost this entire thread arguing that the term “thug” had a definite meaning which is rightly applied to Chavez. What I am afraid of is this site drifting so far towards open hatred of anything left of centre, so far towards immoderate dogmatic political positions, that it loses any credibility as a tool to be used in exposing BBC bias.
I am – you could say – afraid to take a stance that is hysterical, overblown, immoderate, and founded as much on paranoia and bile as it is on reason and solid fact.
Those things can be dismissed as “polite” and “tail chasing” if you wish. If that is the majority view here then this site will retreat further and further from its stated aim into utter McCarthyite irrelevance, where anyone who doesn’t find crypto-communist plots in every nuance of BBC phrasing is derided as a leftie traitor who probably wears a Che t-shirt.
Bryan, you might be right about the anti-Semitic bit, at least as far as you are concerned, but not the Marxist bit. From many commentors it would just be a wind-up, but this one is totally certain of his position.
If you like the BBC that is David Attenborough programmes and I Claudius and the Age of Terror, then it is quite easy to work for it, whatever your political perspective. It is actually quite a conservative (small C) organisation at heart, not unlike the National Trust.
I have posted many times to the effect that I think the license fee is an anachronism, and something has to change, and these days I am also freelance – so that sorts out the free-market bit.
gharqad tree – your comments are very sensible, there are lots of lots of very good blogs where people can go to complain about leftys and leftism in general as ‘rudely’ as they like, Guido immediately spings to mind.
This one is rather better when it sticks to point and does what it says on the tin.
Don’t know why I am saying that, it is much easier to ignore it when the general tenor is one of ‘bloody lefty poofters’.
(PS because I have chimed in there are posters here who will now by convinced that you are a beeboid, and a certain kind of Dave Spart dinosaur trot beeboid at that. What a horrible thought. I do apologise.)
Sue it was this one:
“The day we amend the site to suit the BBC employees I’m out of here, it would become a mockery, you might as well call it ‘points of view 2’.”
From my perspective, I am curious and find different perspectives to my own help me do my job rather better.
The anger about the BBC that is displayed on this board is quite stimulating, in its own way, and there are consequences to that anger.
Its when commentors tear chunks out each of other, or are just boringly rude while never making any point of consequence, that it is a turn-off.
So by BJ not wanting to engage with us, it makes me interested to find out a bit more about what he thinks. Feel any better 😉
Sarah Jane, I take your point to some extent, but you won’t convince me that News and Current Affairs is anything other than radically left-leaning. It doesn’t feel that way from the inside because, as Jeff Randall states on the sidebar, they think they are in the middle. They are (I know from experience) frequently shocked and puzzled when they meet someone from outside the bubble.
My BBC friend wakes up, listens to BBC Radio 4 whilst eating breakfast, reads the Guardian or the Observer on her way to work at White City, spends all day working with a group of rather young, inexperienced people who came to the BBC straight out of college, as she did, (and among whom are – compared to English society generally – a disproportionate number of gay males, Asians, and socialists), then she comes home, listens to BBC Radio 4 whilst eating her dinner, watches BBC 3 for some right-on comedy, then goes to bed.
That’s why, to my amusement, she thinks of me as a cranky radical neo-con. Others here – Peter and Thud, for example – would find that hilarious, suspecting me perhaps of being too engaging and pleasant to the Beeboids. But that’s how sheltered from the real world she is at the BBC. And even before the recent local elections, when I told her the large percentage of voters in England that had voted Conservative at the last election, she simply stared blankly, as though her brain did not know how to process information that could be so contrary to her view of normality…
She is a perfectly lovely, decent, caring human being who thinks of herself as a centre-ground pragmatist. But something has become hardwired in her brain to the extent that when she sees the flag of St George in a window or a garden she invariably uses the word “racists” in her next sentence.
What I am driving at is that the bias is so ingrained, so natural, and so unstoppable, that you are absolutely right to concentrate on the anachronism of the Licence Fee.
The bias will never be eradicated, so the Licence Fee must be.
I asked her once, whilst she was reading the Guardian, “How would you feel if you had to pay the Daily Mail money for the right to legally buy the Guardian?”
She just laughed. Then looked at me, worried that I acually meant it.
I do mean it – why should I not be legally allowed to watch documentaries on Nazis and sharks and Charles Manson without funding leftist broadcasting? (No humour intended – they’re my favourite shows.)
It’s the Licence Fee we need to attack. We need to sensibly demonstrate the genuine bias, and use it to attack the Licence Fee.
Is this comment long enough yet?
Sarah-Jane, thanks for your concern 😉
If some of the more feral contributors suspect me of beeboidosity then more fool them. What matters is whether people have valid points to make, and whether they have evidence to back them up. Anything else is just identity politics, which I’m usually happy to leave to the Left.
Christ why do you lot even bother? It’s like standing at a bus stop full of old dears.
Just stop paying the fucking license fee already.
BWIA: I have done. Some of care about fairness as well, and that’s why we try to expose the bias that renders the fee an anachronism. People are spending today in prison for failure to pay the tax. But hey – as long as you’re alright, yeah?
You might learn something from an “old dear” one day. If learning is something you do…
I’m still here you know. Just because I don’t post anymore doesn’t mean I don’t lurk.
By the way, I’m wanking as I write this.
Well I contest your expert knowledge of learning things from “old dears” gharqad tree, as I’m sure you still live at home with your Nan.
BWIA: my sex life is none of your business.
Mwarrrrrrrrrr!
Sue,
I did not inexpicably bite your head off and ‘side’ has nothing to do with anything.
I feel very strongly that if this blog about BBC bias makes concessions to the BBC just to get them to ‘engage’ it will be much worse than useless and have no future.
I believe I made that clear before.
Which you knew.
It remains the case, if anything more so.
So it is fully explainable and not at all inexplicable.
If you wish to ‘engage’ those ‘responsible’ for the bias I think you have to do better than the few of relatively little influence that did come here, where are the high ups, the decision makers, the producers, the editors, the jounalists, never here at all.
How much less in an official capacity, rather than a personal and usually anonymous view.
However let me make it clear there is no problem with BBC employees becoming ‘engaged’ on this blog.
You have misunderstood and misquoted me if you think I say that.
What I do say is that this blog should not be amended in any way in order to acquire that engagement, which is a whole different thing.
I hope my boss doesn’t sack me for snorting ketamin at my desk and coming here for a bit of the old verbal fisticuffs at B-BBC.
I’d do some proper work but my hands are too big and keep getting in the way of the keyboard.
David Vance at 10.09pm – what a display of infantile behaviour. Do your self a favour and read this again:
gharqad tree:
What I am afraid of is this site drifting so far towards open hatred of anything left of centre, so far towards immoderate dogmatic political positions, that it loses any credibility as a tool to be used in exposing BBC bias.
as “polite” and “tail chasing” if you wish. If that is the majority view here then this site will retreat further and further from its stated aim into utter McCarthyite irrelevance, where anyone who doesn’t find crypto-communist plots in every nuance of BBC phrasing is derided as a leftie traitor who probably wears a Che t-shirt.
gharqad tree | 21.05.08 – 12:08 pm | #
Keep reading it, and maybe – just maybe- some of it will sink in.
Especially this part:
What I am afraid of is this site drifting so far towards open hatred of anything left of centre, so far towards immoderate dogmatic political positions, that it loses any credibility as a tool to be used in exposing BBC bias.
That is what is happening under your stewardship, for I know , that you don’t own this site, you are writing
for it. Continue as you are doing and you will destroy it completely. You’ve added nothing here except division.
3. Only Me – my status is I am here, now get over it. Oh, and stop pretending you are a newbie here, nobody buys that tripe.
I CAN get over it, but the mission of the site will not survive you. You’ve already steered this ship way of course. You’re right, I’m not a newbie, and this is not the site it was.
only me, do you remember that character from Viz a while ago. Mr.Logic. The one with the bottle end specs and the ice creeam cone hair-do?
That’s you that is.
I make no apologies for that last post, and if David Vance wants to ban me from this blog, that’s fine.
But in my rage, I have dropped a Toffo down my underpants and now I am having to retrieve it.
Only Me – I wasn’t attacking Mr Vance with those words. They were directed at some of the more enthusiastic commenters.
Mr Vance offers the site talking points, and even though I disagree with some of his points, there is nothing wrong with that.
I understand gharqad tree and I agree with respect to Mr Vance. He often makes some very worthwhile comments regarding the BBC.
I hear he’s hung like a T-Rex too. A proper ankle spanker if ever there was one.
In case anyone is in any doubt, I rather suspect that ‘John Reith’ and ‘Nick Reynolds’ are no such thing – made me laugh though.
BaggieJohnathon “the few of relatively little influence that did come here”
ooh that hurt that did.
Sue:
If anyone disagrees with the above, please jump down my throat in a polite and orderly fashion.
gharqad tree:
Sue, ignoring the delicious innuendo of your last request, I agree.
only me:
I hear he’s hung like a T-Rex too. A proper ankle spanker if ever there was one.
Good Lord. I’ve only been away a few weeks and it’s like stepping into the pages of Readers’ Wives. Has it come to this?
.
hillhunt – thank god you’re back, to dampen the atmosphere then.
gt:
thank god you’re back, to dampen the atmosphere then.
I’m hoping that that’s not another risque pun….
.
Hillhunt; if it were, it would be quite a grandiose compliment indeed.
It wasn’t.
😉
Could whichever idiot is hijacking various user names and posting infantile comments, kindly go away.
I don’t come to this blog to have to trawl through such nonsense. I come here in the hope that I will find a boyfriend. And fulfil my desire to have his rough palms stroke the mildewy peach hair of my soft boyish buttocks.