The jovial tone of this item, on the publication of the names and addresses of BNP members, and the sombre coverage of a ‘hate campaign‘ – to wit the publication of the names and addresses of child killers.
Compare And Contrast
Bookmark the permalink.
Accusing the blog of supporting the bnp because you dont like what some posters say.
Your a piece of trash.
Adam
MWL agenda is clear. Try to smear the blog by pining unfavourable labels on the posters. He arrvies at his own erronous conclusions regardless of the data available, as that is his purpose. He sees what he wants to see, rather than the reailty.
Economist,
Unlike the bbc, it seems anyone can post here.
There will be supporters of all parties. Thats how it should be.
Trying to apply individual views to the site as a whole is disingenuous at best.
Minor or not, it is the kind of point a bad faith debater will try to slither through when his back is against the wall.
And how come you are such an expert on the constitutional arrangements of the nbpa all of a sudden. Where do we unenlightened ones look in order to confirm your interpretation?
Google npba, then look at their website. Very boring. but ostensibly harmless. I provided a link to the bnp’s constitution in an
earlier thread. Its membership requirements are on one level rather hilarious. Lots of talk of norse folkish roots. griffin looks half munchkin, half ork to me, so perhaps they do welcome diversity.
A distressingly high number of people who post here would disagree though.
Interesting statement of…’fact’. Up there with ‘no bias here’. As to the rest…
‘Are you, or have you ever been…?”
Mcarthyism at its best.
And yet another attempt at bunching a collection of individuals together in an all too lazy, and convenient pigeon-holed ‘them’ to pit against a ‘we’ or in this case… ‘you’.
What’s the plan? Get everyone on the rack and squeeze out a ‘confession’, ‘repentance’ or ‘denial’ to make the inquisition hive mind ‘happy’.
For a while some arguments were worth debating, but as most were being demolished this slide to a familiar trend of petty personal tripe. Hence no longer worth engaging with.
Perhaps time for yet another name change?
mikewineliberal | 24.11.08 – 6:26 am |
Isn’t this whole effort at trying to prove that commenters here are mostly racist and/or Islam haters just your way of discrediting (in your mind and for those who share your mindset) this entire blog, while avoiding taking responsibility for your own religious bigotry?
Of course, once again this keeps you well away from defending the BBC against bias. You can apply your own adjectives to the (non) debating tactic of demonizing the opponent as a way to avoid discussing issues.
As you say, very boring. It is still not clear to me how you conclude that the racist membership policies belong to the constituent associations rather that the NBPA itself. It makes me wonder how many other ethnic trade associations share the BNP’s most controversial policy. BTW Can white muslims be members of the NBPA via the muslim police association? I expect they can. You missed a chance to wriggle free there.
David, adam, economist, Peter: I wouldn’t take mwl’s slurs too seriously. As David P correctly pointed out mwl is trying to divert attention away from his weak arguments. We should take a leaf out of the “queer theory” handbook. By accepting the slur we weaken its power
I am gay and i’m proud! There I have said it now. Here is my favourite gay seal joke.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F5HhhxbwiQQ
clapping seal | 24.11.08 – 7:27 pm |
I hope you’re not implying that I’m saying that I accept the charge that we’re racists. I’m most certainly not saying anything like, “yeah, we’re racists, but that’s just a distraction.” Not even close.
These days I take very little too seriously, but that does not mean it isn’t important to stick up my hand when a pol, their media tool or one of their apologists says ‘we’ or ‘you’, and point out that it does not necessarily mean ‘me’.
I am my own person, belong to no group, and operate on the basis of objectivity, fact and well debated argument in offering opinion and coming to a view. It’s a refreshing freedom that many who are so dogmatically tribal as to go beyond reason deny themselves, and end up isolated and looking foolish. Such as the BBC.
Meanwhile the likes of MWL have used up their cache of diversions and drifted too far into personal intrusions, so their bolt, in this incarnation at least is, for me, shot.
Hence another nickname to simply skip over in getting to appreciate what those with more worthwhile opinions have to say, even if I may disagree with them.
David Preiser (USA) 24.11.08 – 11:34 pm
Given that on the one hand you are a racist if you treat people differently according to their ethnicity and on the other hand you are a racist if you believe the opposite – that you should not make allowances for ethnic difference – you will find you are regarded as a racist whatever you say. So what is the point of denying it, or getting worked up. The word has no meaning. It only has power over you because you let it.
Peter 25.11.08 – 8:34 am
This is going way off the topic of BBC bias but have you considered that it may be your dogmatic individualism that is beyond reason?
Human beings are adapted to work as a group, or do you believe a loose collection of individuals can out-compete a tight nit group held together by a strong culture?
clapping seal | 25.11.08 – 5:15 pm |
Your argument is better suited to Strictly Come Dancing.
DP I am in awe at the power of your rhetoric.
clapping seal | 25.11.08 – 5:43 pm | #
This is going way off the topic of BBC bias
The mods may agree, but I fear I may not. From government through its mouthpiece to those who roam blogs to try and sideline ‘off-message’ threads, ‘being a team player’, ‘not rocking the boat’, and how such views get represented goes to the very core of how such as the BBC plays it part. I would reference any pol who is daft enough to query ‘accepted dogma’ and ends up not debating the issue but defending against accusations of ‘talking down..’, ‘stirring hatred…’, etc.
but have you considered that it may be your dogmatic individualism that is beyond reason?
Not in those terms, no. But then I have decided I am not… yet… the Borg. And would prefer not to be assimilated.
I simply claim my right (while I can) to have an opinion, reject others’ attempts to tell me what I am thinking, and fail to accept that just because you might end up chatting in a group at a party you can thereafter be deemed to somehow to have absorbed some collective view… concocted by observers from across the room because they don’t happen to like the background of one of the participants.
There would be a certain irony if… when Ms. Blears’ Blogstapo kicks in that certain IP addresses gleaned from certain ‘non-sycophant’ sites were from those who were in fact defending the cause, but were lumped together when the squads move in. That’s the problem with catch-alls. And hence why I am more of a fan of rugged individualism in deed… and description.
Human beings are adapted to work as a group,
Granted, but only to an extent. It’s not, or at least shouldn’t be ‘you are either totally with us or you are totally against us’, unless you are George W. (in daft word, mostly), various religious entities (often in dastardly deed, mostly).. or certain media outlets that now see all needs to be ‘interpreted’ to ensure it is ‘understood’ in the ‘correct’ way.
or do you believe a loose collection of individuals can out-compete a tight nit group held together by a strong culture?
Compete in what way? If you mean such as the loose collection of voices that come, stay and often leave the park corner soapbox that is this site raising concerns about what I think is now the near propaganda broadcast arm of the current power base, then I blooming well hope so. If nothing else, there is a commitment to giving voice to the individual, to debate, and if that focus starts to attract the interest of others then great. Just… let’s hope with such growing power the inevitable does not soon follow. Then I’ll be off.
It is my personal view, and one I seek to impose no more than by sharing it here, that there is an unhealthy groupthink from an out of touch minority ‘elite’ in Westminster, being brought to the majority in a less than balanced manner by another, this time unelected minority who think ‘they’ ‘know’ ‘better’.
I beg to differ. And would seek to say so. Preferably through fact and proof above hype, spin, and ‘interpretation’ a la Jon Humphrys.
Or I could get absorbed by the hive and end up ‘only obeying orders’.
No ta.
Well said, Peter.
clapping seal,
Try addressing the issue instead of dancing around it.
DP What are you talking about? it was you who fired the ridicule weapon as a method of distraction. You obviously have a point to make – “strictly come dancing” and “dancing around it” – but I have no idea what it is. If you can’t debate civilly then you should sod off.
Peter. Very well put. You’re wrong on many counts, but admirally put never the less. It’s too late and I am too pissed to do your comments justice right now but maybe if I am feeling inspired I will have a crack at it tomorrow.
Been wrong before. Will be again.
Happy to be persuaded otherwise and change my ways.
However, since my dear Ma & Pa first tried ‘because we say so’ by way of a justification, I have not been too convinced by those who claim to know what’s ‘right’, especially by just saying so.
If you don’t know what I mean when I refer to groups out competing individuals then I can only assume that either you do not live in one of England’s ethnic frontier postcodes or your rugged individualism has blinded you to the real purpose of “community leaders”. Did you ever hear a community leader say “I think my community has too many resources. we should share them with members of other communities”?
That may not be the way you (and I) think, but ask yourself, are people like you gaining more or less power, resources, control of our culture? Us rugged individualists are losing ground to what you dismiss as the hive minds of religious and secular groupthink. That should matter to you, particularly if you have children. Individualism is a luxury that our culture cannot, sadly, afford any longer.
The Bushism you quoted about being with us or against us reminds me of this.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
He says it much better than I can. And if you get passed that one try this about the function of individuals within groups.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/david-sloan-wilson
clapping seal,
Any interest in discussing BBC bias, or is just word games and glibness you’re here for?
dp are you engaged in some kind of sophisticated mind fuck. It was YOU who started with the glibness. wtf are you talking about? I’ll ignore the discourtesy you showed with your come dancing jibe. Now…wtf are you talking about man? Was my reply to Peter glib? If you have a point to make then make it