Benefit myths and those who fall for them

[SpineyNorman]

No, they are not the same thing.

Yes, I agree, everyone is prejudiced to an extent, but this is not the same thing as having an agenda.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agenda?s=t


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice?s=t

As the above notes, an agenda suggests that you have a plan for something. A prejudice is a feeling formed without knowledge.

Were you using the same very precise definition when you accused BA and existentialist of having an agenda then?

And of course when we enter into a debate we hope to influence people, bringing their views closer to our own - this is the agenda and it is informed by our biases.

 

[existentialist]

No, they are not the same thing.

Yes, I agree, everyone is prejudiced to an extent, but this is not the same thing as having an agenda.

*sigh* Not another semantic discussion. OK, I'll withdraw "prejudice". In fact, screw it - read Blagsta's post instead. "world view", "framework" - it is all about our subjective impressions. And all our impressions are subjective. Therefore, we approach everything with a preconceived notion of how we think it ought to be. That, in anyone's common parlance, is the same as an "agenda".

I am intrigued by the alacrity with which you dive off at tangents, rather than even attempting to stay with the general thrust of the discussion, though.

 

[Maltin]

Yes. We all have values, a world view, a framework. It comes from somewhere.

Again, I agree that we all (or at least the majority) have values. I wouldn't necessarily say that this equates into a framework. I'm a bit uncertain by what you mean when you say a "world view" in this context. Is this a view that one would like to see the world become or your opinion of the world and its inhabitants as it stands?

 

[existentialist]

Again, I agree that we all (or at least the majority) have values. I wouldn't necessarily say that this equates into a framework. I'm a bit uncertain by what you mean when you say a "world view" in this context. Is this a view that one would like to see the world become or your opinion of the world and its inhabitants as it stands?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Again, I agree that we all (or at least the majority) have values. I wouldn't necessarily say that this equates into a framework. I'm a bit uncertain by what you mean when you say a "world view" in this context. Is this a view that one would like to see the world become or your opinion of the world and its inhabitants as it stands?

Bloody hell, I'm not sure you could make it more obvious that you're dodging the point even if you tried. Is this some kind of windup?

 

[existentialist]

Anyway, back to the benefits myths. Maltin, the philosophy forum is ---> thataway. You'll like it there, though I don't think you'll last long.

 

[Maltin]

Therefore, we approach everything with a preconceived notion of how we think it ought to be. That, in anyone's common parlance, is the same as an "agenda".

Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think everyone does approach everything with a pre-conceived notion of how we think it ought to be. I certainly hope I don't. Obviously some things I feel strongly about. Others I don't.

 

[existentialist]

Let's agree to disagree then. I don't think everyone does approach everything with a pre-conceived notion of how we think it ought to be. I certainly hope I don't. Obviously some things I feel strongly about. Others I don't.

They do. Like I said, "consciously or unconsciously". Anyway, I am inclined to agree with SpineyNorman - having backed off one debate with you, you appear determined to engage in as many bits of sidetracking as you can with anyone else who will respond, which makes me also wonder whether your agenda is simply to distract from an interesting discussion on a useful thread.

So I'll play no more part in assisting you with that.

 

[Maltin]

Were you using the same very precise definition when you accused BA and existentialist of having an agenda then?

No. It was just the first source I came to.

The type of agenda existentialist was accusing me of having was a political agenda.

A political agenda is a set of issues and policies laid out by an executive or cabinet in government that tries to influence current and near-future political news and debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_agenda

The definition above better suits what I was accused of but the use of the word agenda in that phrase is still the same as per the definition I provided earlier and is not the same, in my opinion, as prejudice.

And of course when we enter into a debate we hope to influence people, bringing their views closer to our own - this is the agenda and it is informed by our biases.

Again, my opinion seems to differ from many of you here. When we enter into a debate (especially on a forum such as this), we don't have to come with the express purpose of trying to influence people or trying to bring people's views closer to our own.

That is entering a debate with an agenda.

One can enter a debate on a forum for many reasons such as to understand how others come to a view they have formed; to express an opinion on something without trying to push your viewpoint etc. You don't need to come with an agenda.

The fact that I haven't come with an agenda, and many of you feel that you have to have one, is probably the problem.

 

[butchersapron]

No. It was just the first source I came to.

The type of agenda existentialist was accusing me of having was a political agenda.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_agenda

The definition above better suits what I was accused of but the use of the word agenda in that phrase is still the same as per the definition I provided earlier and is not the same, in my opinion, as prejudice.



Again, my opinion seems to differ from many of you here. When we enter into a debate (especially on a forum such as this), we don't have to come with the express purpose of trying to influence people or trying to bring people's views closer to our own.

That is entering a debate with an agenda.

One can enter a debate on a forum for many reasons such as to understand how others come to a view they have formed; to express an opinion on something without trying to push your viewpoint etc. You don't need to come with an agenda.

The fact that I haven't come with an agenda, and many of you feel that you have to have one, is probably the problem.

What's my one then Maltin?

 

[Maltin]

you appear determined to engage in as many bits of sidetracking as you can with anyone else who will respond

I'm only responding to posts aimed at me. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of other posts on this thread that I am derailing.

 

[Maltin]

What's my one then Maltin?

patience!

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm only responding to posts aimed at me. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of other posts on this thread that I am derailing.

that's because you've driven everyone else away.

 

[Maltin]

that's because you've driven everyone else away.

 

[Maltin]

What's my hidden agenda then Maltin. You've identified it to yourself - now name it publicly.

It doesn't seem so hidden.

Your quote here seems to sum up your main thoughts about the topic i.e. the proper topic, not my displeasure with the infographic!

By treating them - even rhetorically - in the same breath you conflate them, thereby doubling - again, if only rhetorically - the amount of money that appears as going on fraud, and thereby further hammering home associations of benefit claims with fraud. This is the trick that govt pulled when it claimed over £5billion was going in this way two years ago, and as IDS was caught out doing this week. This is what the TUC report is all about, the way these things slowly build up and appear over time, the drip drip of small misiniformations becoming unquestioned social assumptions (despite the real figures) which are then used by the state to attack the conditions of the poorest.

From this (and other posts), it seems to me that you believe that the government is spreading misinformation about benefit claimants and that it is inflating fraud figures. You especially seem to believe that this focus on fraud is designed to make people believe that all benefit claimants are associated with fraud. You believe that the media is complicit in pushing this government agenda and that the public are becoming brainwashed into believing that all benefit claimants are fraudsters.

Your agenda appears to be to try to reverse this propaganda to try to change people's opinions about benefits to try to protect those on benefits, including supporting the publication of such information as the TUC poll results. It seems to have expressed itself in this thread with you defending the TUC press release, the infographic and in your reaction to my quoting from a government report (that the TUC took a figure from) that had the audacity to report on fraud and error together.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your posts and you don't believe in the above but you asked me what I thought your agenda was.

As I noted before, (assuming my assumption about your beliefs are correct), I don't have reason to disagree with the generality of your viewpoint.

From the govts own stats - and i suspect that was chosen due to the govts own attempts to pretend that the figure was actually 400% higher, in order to show their planned complicity in the production of these assumptions.

...and you've fallen for the trick - you've run together fraud and error, when the figure quoted is simply fraud. You've highlighted yourself how insidious this is.

Have you just missed two years of propaganda preparing attacks on legitimately claimed benefits by attempting to associate them with fraud in the popular imagination?

They're not "exaggerating the amount lost to fraud to prove a point," they're bundling the given figure together with error and legitimate claims in order to produce certain associations in the popular imagination with the intention of undermining the basis of the widespread social understanding of the legitimacy of benefits full stop

And i suggested that it takes a particularly naive reading to suggest that these changes - which just happen to fit in with a) what the govt has tried to achieve and b) what benefits them - has nothing to do with the politicians and the way they manipulate and work with the media.

The infograph pretty clearly does highlights a number of public misconceptions - that itself will not clear them up, but it does open a path up to wider circulation of the correct figures which might potentially form part of process that will challenge the misconceptions.

but that's simply because there are misconceptions about the level of benefit claims and claimant numbers - and they appear to be sort of self-generating and impervious to any media or state led interventions.

 

[cesare]

I don't like people like Maltin trying to obfuscate the fact that people claiming benefits (whether waged or unwaged) have been and are being demonised in an ongoing blatant mission (eg adverts on buses and tubes) by the major political parties to (a) divide and rule; and (b) gain political points using our benefits and health system as political currency.

 

[Maltin]

I don't like people like Maltin trying to obfuscate the fact that people claiming benefits (whether waged or unwaged) have been and are being demonised in an ongoing blatant mission (eg adverts on buses and tubes) by the major political parties to (a) divide and rule; and (b) gain political points using our benefits and health system as political currency.

Where have I tried to do that? Where have I argued against this fact?

 

[cesare]

Where have I tried to do that? Where have I argued against this fact?

That's my perception. If obfuscation of this fact isn't your intention, why are you quibbling about how this fact is presented?

 

[Maltin]

That's my perception. If obfuscation of this fact isn't your intention, why are you quibbling about how this fact is presented?

Because I was defending myself from being attacked and accused of things that I haven't said or tried to claim. I made one post stating that I didn't think a graphic was very good or did much, which isn't exactly controversial, and then spent four pages defending my opinion. This whole argument is utterly pointless and a waste of time.

 

[Serotonin]

Off you fuck then

 

[existentialist]

Because I was defending myself from being attacked and accused of things that I haven't said or tried to claim. I made one post stating that I didn't think a graphic was very good or did much, which isn't exactly controversial, and then spent four pages defending my opinion. This whole argument is utterly pointless and a waste of time.

That's a slightly revisionist interpretation. Quite a lot of that four pages wasn't you defending your original assertion, but making more (unwarranted) claims and defending those.

I really don't think you have any grounds on which to base a claim of victimhood!

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't like people like Maltin trying to obfuscate the fact that people claiming benefits (whether waged or unwaged) have been and are being demonised in an ongoing blatant mission (eg adverts on buses and tubes) by the major political parties to (a) divide and rule; and (b) gain political points using our benefits and health system as political currency.

That sounds like an agenda though. He (or she) doesn't have any of those.

 

[Onket]

I don't like people like Maltin trying to obfuscate the fact that people claiming benefits (whether waged or unwaged) have been and are being demonised in an ongoing blatant mission (eg adverts on buses and tubes) by the major political parties to (a) divide and rule; and (b) gain political points using our benefits and health system as political currency.

S/He isn't doing that, though! Maltin is only answering the constant accusations that are being peppered at him/her. If anyone is at blame here it's those people.

 

[cesare]

 

[girasol]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/09/skivers-v-strivers-argument-pollutes

Good article on skivers vs strivers bullshit and also on the nomenclature change from social security to welfare - and what it implies...

 

[existentialist]

S/He isn't doing that, though! Maltin is only answering the constant accusations that are being peppered at him/her. If anyone is at blame here it's those people.

I think it's telling that so much of that poster's contributions to the thread have been to quibble about niceties of usage, rather than to address the substantive issues. And that, despite this being pointed out by quite a few people, they've gone even further down that route.

I don't believe that anyone who has posted figures on this thread is under any illusion that they are more than a general illustration of the kind of myth making that this thread is all about, and that they are being used merely to illustrate the discrepancy between perceptions in some quarters about benefits claimants and the (approximate) reality of the situation, yet at every turn this poster seems to want to insist that any data presented should be subject to the most forensic justification. Given that they don't seem to want to challenge any of the specifics, I don't think it's unreasonable that suspicions about their motives are surfacing.
It would be easy for them to address this by simply providing some refutations to the kind of standard they appear to be demanding from others. I think it is telling that they haven't done that.

 

[Onket]

And it continues!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm only responding to posts aimed at me. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of other posts on this thread that I am derailing.

That's because people are checking the thread, reading your interminable burblings and asking themselves "will he ever shut up?".

 

[ViolentPanda]

S/He isn't doing that, though! Maltin is only answering the constant accusations that are being peppered at him/her. If anyone is at blame here it's those people.

Stirrer!

 

[Onket]

And your post #148 wasn't?

You tit.