Brexit or Bremain - Urban votes

[butchersapron]

what "see you from the other side" means.

Also that when the word is used as a general insult it loses what value it has - it's like when Republicans talk about 'commies' - they know what they mean and I know what they mean but we don't mean the same thing.

Like I say, Chomsky uses the word as a description rather than an insult which is how I feel it should be used if you're trying to get a point across rather than just throw an insult.

Great well done. Of course the disgust inherent in description is impossible. Why are you focusing on him? That makes it look like you've bothered to read the thing i tried to help you with but that you didn't.

 

[butchersapron]

Which comes back to my other question: is what you mean by a liberal actually someone who doesn't believe in violent revolution?

Here i link you to a contextual history of the term and then you pretend to have read it.

Just asking questions man.

 

[two sheds]

Great well done. Of course the disgust inherent in description is impossible. Why are you focusing on him? That makes it look like you've bothered to read the thing i tried to help you with but that you didn't.

But then you're moving away from the nuanced description that Williams gave, and you're just using it as a " loose swear-word".

Focusing on him as in Chomsky? Because I respect his political analysis and the sort of society he describes is one that I'd like to live in.

 

[butchersapron]

But then you're moving away from the nuanced description that Williams gave, and you're just using it as a " loose swear-word".

Focusing on him as in Chomsky? Because I respect his political analysis and the sort of society he describes is one that I'd like to live in.

First off,i posted that to give you some context and history as you were after both. Not that it was worth me bothering. Secondly, my usage fits exactly with williams definition of a soppy liberal cunt.

Chomsky because he doesn't appear in the thing that linked you to and that we were talking about. But you want to talk about him right?

 

[two sheds]

Here i link you to a contextual history of the term and then you pretend to have read it.

You like calling people liars. I read it.

Just asking questions man.

which you're not answering after repeated asking in this case. I presume it's because I'm close.

I respect your political analysis when I can understand it. I don't agree with violent revolution (as I think you do) - I think *that's* why you have a hatred of liberals and think I'm going to be on the other side of the barrier.

I mentioned Chomsky because the references I saw from him used liberal in a specific sense rather than as a general insult.

 

[butchersapron]

Do what?

 

[two sheds]

How many?

 

[butchersapron]

You like calling people liars. I read it.



which you're not answering after repeated asking in this case. I presume it's because I'm close.

I respect your political analysis when I can understand it. I don't agree with violent revolution (as I think you do) - I think *that's* why you have a hatred of liberals and think I'm going to be on the other side of the barrier.

I mentioned Chomsky because the references I saw from him used liberal in a specific sense rather than as a general insult.

You're over 40 - you're not noel gallagher, you don't have to pretend to be some i don't understand nothing ape. You know damn well what political points i am making and on what basis. Why do this?

 

[butchersapron]

You like calling people liars. I read it.



which you're not answering after repeated asking in this case. I presume it's because I'm close.

I respect your political analysis when I can understand it. I don't agree with violent revolution (as I think you do) - I think *that's* why you have a hatred of liberals and think I'm going to be on the other side of the barrier.

I mentioned Chomsky because the references I saw from him used liberal in a specific sense rather than as a general insult.

What are you close to?

I mentioned past discussion - with you - of the use of liberal. You've ignored it in favour of talking about something else. All very peacefully. No aggression.

 

[two sheds]

How have I ignored it? I'm talking about the use of the word liberal.

I'm doing it because I think that using 'liberal' as a general insult is as useful as Republicans using 'commie' as a general insult.

And because I have a feeling that the people who use 'liberal' as a general insult are in general the same people who believe that the only way that society will change is from violent revolution (as your statement about the barriers suggest). Which is a fair view but one I don't agree with and at least if I know then I can discuss it, but while it is unstated I can't.

That's why I'm doing it. You've not convinced me that 'liberal' is worth just being an insult.

 

[butchersapron]

How have I ignored it? I'm talking about the use of the word liberal.

I'm doing it because I think that using 'liberal' as a general insult is as useful as Republicans using 'commie' as a general insult.

And because I have a feeling that the people who use 'liberal' as a general insult are in general the same people who believe that the only way that society will change is from violent revolution (as your statement about the barriers suggest). Which is a fair view but one I don't agree with and at least if I know then I can discuss it, but while it is unstated I can't.

That's why I'm doing it. You've not convinced me that 'liberal' is worth just being an insult.

By not responding on either of the threads about its use beyond empty passive aggression. Esp when you know...

Why you think you're doing this(which is to admit that you are) is the first step to recognition. It's not always everyone else being wrong.

 

[butchersapron]

Unstated.
Unstated.
Stated.

 

[two sheds]

By not responding on either of the threads about it's use beyond empty passive aggression.

Well I said I understood when it was used in a specific context like "liberal media", that seems a valid use of it: criticism can be "thus far and no further". I've seen no valid justification for its use as just an insult. Williams mentions it in passing and criticizes liberals but he doesn't show the hatred that you do. I don't think that hatred is healthy.

Is that passive aggression?

Why you think you're doing this(which is to admit that you are) is the first step to recognition. It's not always everyone else being wrong.

Don't fully understand that.

But I'm going to bed.

And I do appreciate the pointing me to relevant references - it's just that if I don't agree then I'm going to say. The way you use liberal, although standard on urban, is not the usual use of the word - which is the Oxford online dictionary one that I pointed to before.

 

[youngian]

I wonder why people hearing your 'grown up' arguments switch off? is it because condescension and arrogance rapidly make people switch off? Or is it cos they are thick racists? so hard to tell

Just to clarify I'm just a foot soldier but thanks for thinking I'm one of the snobby intellectual Metropolitan elite experts. But what do they know facts can prove anything and experts built the Titanic and crashed the banks. A bit of plain common sense over a pint with Nigel will reveal the truth. Another thing I want to know about populists is why you don't step up to the plate to take power from the corrupt elites who are just in it to line their pockets and are so much more lazy and less virtuous than keyboard warriors? At least Nigel is about to next week (Boris has offered Lord Farage of Nuremberg a peerage) with the help of Lexit twats who think this referendum is just a game.

 

[mauvais]

Because as a mass,we'd have a better chance of changing or overcoming the current political consensus than from within a project whose raison d'etre is service to capital.

For someone who used to go on about war so much, your sense of strategy seems somewhat under-developed.

Hence 'other than theoretical terms'. How and when? It's the skeleton of a concept, not a strategy or a route with probability attached. You could just as well argue that it'll be more effective to change the entity from within, not something I subscribe to but about as tangible.

We're back to this whole argument where fantasy positive outcomes are used to justify a stance, ignoring that there's a much higher and more tangible chance of enabling the exact opposite.

 

[DotCommunist]

Just to clarify I'm just a foot soldier but thanks for thinking I'm one of the snobby intellectual Metropolitan elite experts. But what do they know facts can prove anything and experts built the Titanic and crashed the banks. A bit of plain common sense over a pint with Nigel will reveal the truth. Another thing I want to know about populists is why you don't step up to the plate to take power from the corrupt elites who are just in it to line their pockets and are so much more lazy and less virtuous than keyboard warriors? At least Nigel is about to next week (Boris has offered Lord Farage of Nuremberg a peerage) with the help of Lexit twats who think this referendum is just a game.

you really don't like being called on your shit do you? good job you didn't knock on my door, I wouldn't have 'glazed over' like them 'sheep' who you've failed to convince. You'd have this, an argument you've lost badly by the nazi bollox and 'I'm the only one who takes it seriously'. Patronising, condescending twat

 

[belboid]

I don't.

Yes you do

 

[Dowie]

So has this whole debate now been basically lost to people just reducing it to celebs, egotistic politicians and assorted arseholes on both sides and what they have to say? Rather than what it might mean for pro-worker, pro-socialist positions whether we stay or leave. Very depressing.

that is what is really annoying me, prominent business leaders all say you should do X and they know what is best for you, this nasty person is voting Y so you shouldn't vote that way because then you'll be supporting a nasty person

apparently Baroness Warsi has switched sides over a poster - I don't really understand why a poster is relevant to the actual issues, it is surely just an unfortunate symptom of having some arseholes supporting one particular side, switching sides over a non issue like that just seems ridiculous, if you actually believe in your position the fact that some arseholes will also vote to support it (albeit for very different reasons) shouldn't be reason to change

 

[stethoscope]

...
with the help of Lexit twats who think this referendum is just a game.

You're still doing it you sneering, say nothing prick. I've not seen any of us left-leave thinking this is just a game, in fact we've been the ones putting out arguments for why a leave on pro-working class, pro-socialist grounds should be considered. Those of us doing things in communities, for social housing, fighting against the further privatisation of services, union organising, anti-fascism, etc.

Unlike the utterly useless shit you've peddled all the way through this - 'but Farage/Gove/Boris', 'siding with the right', 'racist thickos', 'Lizards', etc. Do you have any fucking self awareness? If anyone is treating this as a 'game', its been you.

(I'm still seething about the shit that some have been doing here towards those of us who have been seriously looking at what possibilities there might be through a leave. Its really making me wonder whether to post on urban any more).

 

[brogdale]

Ashcroft's last focus group post contained this gem from Totnes....

“I usually think, if you haven’t got an opinion, don’t bother. But this is pretty big.” (Not everyone was so resolute: “My mum always said if you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything. I’ve lived by that.” How did you vote at the general election? “Liberal Democrat.”)

 

[Pickman's model]

that is what is really annoying me, prominent business leaders all say you should do X and they know what is best for you, this nasty person is voting Y so you shouldn't vote that way because then you'll be supporting a nasty person

apparently Baroness Warsi has switched sides over a poster - I don't really understand why a poster is relevant to the actual issues, it is surely just an unfortunate symptom of having some arseholes supporting one particular side, switching sides over a non issue like that just seems ridiculous, if you actually believe in your position the fact that some arseholes will also vote to support it (albeit for very different reasons) shouldn't be reason to change

You know nothing.

 

[andysays]

Yes we did, and I did. The most relevant bit seems:

This says about "liberal" being a pejorative by socialists and Marxists.I know you (and he) feel it equates with weak and sentimental beliefs but in that sense I feel it's *just* being used as a pejorative and doesn't add any clarity to a criticism.

All in all, I think I largely find it difficult because I'm used to criticism of "liberal" from the right, and when I see the word I think of the Oxford-dictionary style definition rather than the political one.

I see that Chomsky uses it much like you do, though, so perhaps I ought to get used to it. It just seems to be used on urban as equivalent to "neo-liberal", though, and to me there's a sizeable difference between them.

This, for me, is the most relevant/significant bit for what we're discussing on this thread

"But this masks the most serious sense of the socialist use, which is the historically accurate observation that liberalism is a doctrine based on INDIVIDUALIST theories of man and society and is thus in fundamental conflict not only with SOCIALIST but with most strictly SOCIAL theories. The further observation, that liberalism is the highest form of thought developed within BOURGEOIS society and in terms of CAPITALISM, is also relevant, for when liberal is not being used as a loose swear-word, it is to this mixture of liberating and limiting ideas that it is intended to refer. Liberalism is then a doctrine of certain necessary kinds of freedom but also, and essentially, a doctrine of possessive individualism."

Nothing to do with believing/not believing in violent revolution...

 

[chilango]

As I've mentioned somewhere I'm probably going to end up voting "Remain", but the only actual argument I've heard on here (or in IRL) that has any positive political content is the "Lexit" (yuk) one advanced by the likes of stethoscope, butchersapron, DotCommunist et al.

 

[andysays]

At least Nigel is about to next week (Boris has offered Lord Farage of Nuremberg a peerage) with the help of Lexit twats who think this referendum is just a game.

There's been some cuntish smearing comments from some Remain supporters on these threads, but I think we may now have reached peak-Remain-cunt-smear.

 

[redsquirrel]

Just to clarify I'm just a foot soldier but thanks for thinking I'm one of the snobby intellectual Metropolitan elite experts. But what do they know facts can prove anything and experts built the Titanic and crashed the banks. A bit of plain common sense over a pint with Nigel will reveal the truth. Another thing I want to know about populists is why you don't step up to the plate to take power from the corrupt elites who are just in it to line their pockets and are so much more lazy and less virtuous than keyboard warriors? At least Nigel is about to next week (Boris has offered Lord Farage of Nuremberg a peerage) with the help of Lexit twats who think this referendum is just a game.

You really are a prick aren't you. If you had any integrity you'd apologise to DC.

 

[andysays]

Yes you do

People are only "bedfellows" with other people if they're arguing for the same thing on the same premises and with the same or similar arguments.

To suggest otherwise is just more of the same smearing bollocks which so many have resorted to, generally in absence of any genuine argument. Those are the real bedfellows here.

 

[JimW]

I'm a Lexit twat.

 

[Libertad]

To the point, I really don't know whether to hang post on urban any more

Hold on Steth, I value your posts and would miss you. youngian is just the shit on your shoe, brush them off.

 

[xenon]

Just to clarify I'm just a foot soldier but thanks for thinking I'm one of the snobby intellectual Metropolitan elite experts. But what do they know facts can prove anything and experts built the Titanic and crashed the banks. A bit of plain common sense over a pint with Nigel will reveal the truth. Another thing I want to know about populists is why you don't step up to the plate to take power from the corrupt elites who are just in it to line their pockets and are so much more lazy and less virtuous than keyboard warriors? At least Nigel is about to next week (Boris has offered Lord Farage of Nuremberg a peerage) with the help of Lexit twats who think this referendum is just a game.

you talk of those seeing it as a game whils you come out with all this cartoon, condescending crap.

 

[DotCommunist]

apparently Baroness Warsi has switched sides over a poster

can't stand that one. Stealth cunt. Baroness. Think she used to be co treasurer of the tory party but cba to check cos lifes to short. She's on the damn List, thats all I need to remember

You really are a prick aren't you. If you had any integrity you'd apologise to DC.

not interested in one, not that he'd give one. Reeks of Progress this lad. Blairite