Why the Green Party is shit

[elbows]

Workers of the world unite, ps. we think your stuff is shite.

Thats what I'm complaining about. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result you've decided that I'm a secret neoliberal and apologist for the Chinese regime. Well done.

 

[free spirit]

Still misrepresenting my stance again then. My possible reputation round these parts for being a Fukushima bore may make the task of painting me as uninterested in nuclear safety critical kit and regulatory regimes trickier.

yes, you should know better.

I'm not painting you as being uninterested in nuclear safety, I'm merely pointing that you've chosen to completely ignore the multiple problems that clearly exist in that area in the Chinese manufacturing supply chain that we're now reliant on to build our next generation of nuclear plants, for reasons I can only see as some form of muddled ideology... or more properly the next generation of plants China will be funding, building and profiting massively from in this country, they won't be ours in any way until it comes to the clean up costs and deaing with the long term waste disposal.

 

[free spirit]

Workers of the world unite, ps. we think your stuff is shite.

Thats what I'm complaining about. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result you've decided that I'm a secret neoliberal and apologist for the Chinese regime. Well done.

You're making out that the state of the regulatory regime, corruption, supply chain, working conditions, environmental regulations, and even multiple cases of failures due to quality control issues within the steel supply chain within that country should not be seen as casting any doubt over the reliable quality of the end product.

That is either a neoliberalist position, or you've arrived at the same position as the most extreme neoliberalists through some misguided ideology of your own.

 

[elbows]

I can see little difference between your position and the neoliberalist position on this.

* actually, seeing as some of what I said on that was in discussions with you on the WTO, I'll have to go with the latter option. Unless you've really not understood the point being made.

Next time you run into someone who has the discourtesy to laugh at your crude caricature of the WTO and its origins, don't make the mistake of thinking that simply must mean they are on the WTO's side or are blind to neoliberal agendas pissing at their door.

Also don't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with all of the points you've made. You are not going to paint me as utterly opposed to all of the sensible stuff that you come out with. I'm not going to take that phrase you came out with and use it to label you a nationalist, kindly return the favour and stop insinuating I'm a fucking neoliberal just because we disagree about some historical details and implications of language in the way we relate to other nations and peoples, and the economic and trade policies we deem acceptable as a result.

 

[free spirit]

Also don't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with all of the points you've made. You are not going to paint me as utterly opposed to all of the sensible stuff that you come out with. I'm not going to take that phrase you came out with and use it to label you a nationalist, kindly return the favour and stop insinuating I'm a fucking neoliberal just because we disagree about some historical details and implications of language in the way we relate to other nations and peoples, and the economic and trade policies we deem acceptable as a result.

I'm not, I'm pointing out quite clearly how your position is basically the same as the neoliberalist position on this specific subject.

It's got nothing to do with what your views are on the formation of the WTO, it's specifically the position you've taken on this thread.

 

[elbows]

You're making out that the state of the regulatory regime, corruption, supply chain, working conditions, environmental regulations, and even multiple cases of failures due to quality control issues within the steel supply chain within that country should not be seen as casting any doubt over the reliable quality of the end product.

I've not made that out at all.

I've called you a cunt for compressing those issues into a shit phrase, a crude generalisation lazily spouted in a manner that I don't think sets us up to have a bright new global order that respects and gives power to those who deserve it and are presently denied it.

 

[free spirit]

I've not made that out at all.

I've called you a cunt for compressing those issues into a shit phrase, a crude generalisation lazily spouted in a manner that I don't think sets us up to have a bright new global order that respects and gives power to those who deserve it and are presently denied it.

so all this is merely over my precise choice of words is it?

tell you what, why don't you try summing it up in 3 words of your own choice instead, or should i have to write an essay to explain in detail every minor side point I want to make within a post just to satisfy your snide habit of picking at any minor issue in the precise wording of any post I make because you like to take me down a peg or 2 whenever you see the opportunity (I well remember your previous form on this).

Let me just repeat what you;ve said previously on this though, as actually you've not just questioned the term shoddy, you went further than that.

Anyway issues of whether something is the exact same quality is not necessarily the same as whether something can fairly be called shoddy. If the heat & pressure testing of the vessels is done properly and with a wide safety margin, and both types of manufacturing result in pressure vessels that more than adequately pass the tests, then the word shoddy hardly applies. So one of the reasons for wanting more information about your claim is to find out what the problems actually were.

in nuclear terms if there is any minor flaw at all then it's shoddy, and if the regulatory regime is such that the test results you mention can't be 100% trusted then it's shoddy. There is no room for doubt.

 

[elbows]

I'm not, I'm pointing out quite clearly how your position is basically the same as the neoliberalist position on this specific subject.

It's got nothing to do with what your views are on the formation of the WTO, it's specifically the position you've taken on this thread.

I will assume that the most obvious example of where this misreading of my position would come from would be the issue of protectionism.

I don't think I came out in favour or against protectionism. I think I just wanted to explore some of the issues that come with it. Especially when people are calling for protectionism in the name of fostering local industries that can then go on to export their products all over the world. I'm not even saying there is a total incompatibility/double standard there, or even anything wrong with it per se, just that such calls at least demonstrate where the dangerous ground is to be found when it comes to international trade. Competition, the rules of the game, global imbalances in power and worker equality.

The context in which I first mentioned protectionism may also be subject to misinterpretation. I was talking about why the Green party, given that they want to reform trade and economics in a manner that no longer externalises various costs (e.g. environmental), would probably be vulnerable to accusations of protectionism when it came to certain specific policies. I didn't mean that I think protectionism is a dirty word to me, though I clearly think it comes with baggage which I am always keen to explore. But it is obviously a dirty concept to the dominant ideology of today, at least when it suits powerful nations to label another actions as protectionism while still indulging in their own. So one of the problems the Greens would face if they ever got to try implementing certain policies, would be that various nations etc would cry 'protectionism' and try to foster great cynicism about the true motives of the Greens for bringing in that legislation.

Why does it matter especially to the Greens that they are vulnerable on that front, given that protectionism can also be yelled at any other force that treads on neoliberal toes? Because lots of people are already rather paranoid and suspicious about Green agendas. When governments try to, for example, change consumption habits via taxation etc many people prefer to focus on the revenue raising motivations of the government and express cynicism about either the need or government desire to do something better about the environment. It seems reasonable to expect that related phenomenon would also occur when it comes to green policies that affect global trade.

Or perhaps you were confused by some of my more direct responses to your stuff about the sheffield company. I wasn't expressing a lack of solidarity for them, I was trying to demonstrate that because your crude stance was sharply pointed in a particular direction, it was trivial to rotate it back at you 180 degrees.

 

[elbows]

tell you what, why don't you try summing it up in 3 words of your own choice instead, or should i have to write an essay to explain in detail every minor side point I want to make within a post just to satisfy your snide habit of picking at any minor issue in the precise wording of any post I make because you like to take me down a peg or 2 whenever you see the opportunity (I well remember your previous form on this).

Yes, I well remember you taking it personally on previous occasions.

Lets get this straight. I don't pick on you. I pick on a handful of points you've made over a period of several years, because I disagreed with the points strongly, or they got me thinking about points I would like to make. Sometimes during the course of that you puff yourself up in a way that makes taking you down a peg or two seem worthwhile to me, but its not something I am looking for when I first start the argument. The fact you've used that peg phrase makes me think you've remembered me openly admitting that I really enjoyed doing it on some previous occasion, and decided that meant that was my entire motivation during the entire argument, rather than simply being a side effect of your pomposity.

There are a wide spectrum of words, phrases and sentiments that can be expressed in quantities more than three but less than essay, that do justice to delicate concepts and balances of rights. I don't go following you around waiting for you to slip up according to my standards. On this occasion you said something that really pissed me off, so I responded in a rather crude way that was hardly a well-considered starting point to a intellectual debate. Look how far its come since then

Think of all the interesting points you got to make during this argument.

 

[free spirit]

fuck me, is it that hard to grasp?

I'm specifically referring to your strong condemnation on this thread of any suggestion that there might be any cause for concern regarding the likely quality of the components coming from China vs those that Forgemasters could have been producing in the UK.

You've maintained this position despite me posting up clear evidence of the issues that do exist within the steel supply chain in China, the concerns about corruption, the regulatory regime, the impact of poor workers rights, lack of a free press to highlight any problems etc.

It is pretty much a core neoliberalist position to argue that none of the above matters, the market will decide, the market will provide, we can trust global corporations to get on with it without all that regulatory nonsense, drive prices down and crucially that quality won't suffer.

By taking issue with my concerns about the reliable quality of those products / the likely shoddy nature of them, you're also effectively agreeing that none of the above should be viewed as having any impact on the likely quality of the end product.

That specifically is what I've been saying is the position that you and others on this thread appear to be sharing with the neoliberalists.

But yes, there are also other elements of your position that do seem relatively sympathetic to the neoliberalists position.

And I also can't help but note that you've not addressed a single one of the examples I gave to back up my position

 

[Idaho]

Just seen this thread. Is it worth reading 36 pages to find out why it has become a bun fight about nuclear power?

I'm guessing that the early jist was that the greens are a liberal sop and people voting for them this time are like the suckers voting lib dem last time?

 

[killer b]

Christ, if you're going to ascribe positions no-one has to them, at least use the right word. Neoliberal. there's no -ist.

FWIW I'm just here to poke the weird fantasist.

 

[free spirit]

Yes, I well remember you taking it personally on previous occasions.

Lets get this straight. I don't pick on you. I pick on a handful of points you've made over a period of several years, because I disagreed with the points strongly, or they got me thinking about points I would like to make. Sometimes during the course of that you puff yourself up in a way that makes taking you down a peg or two seem worthwhile to me, but its not something I am looking for when I first start the argument. The fact you've used that peg phrase makes me think you've remembered me openly admitting that I really enjoyed doing it on some previous occasion, and decided that meant that was my entire motivation during the entire argument, rather than simply being a side effect of your pomposity.

You marked your own card long ago, and reminded me of that with your mentioning of the 'arrogance of specialism line', so let me refresh your memory on what you actually said about that.

it is a principal that guides me, especially when faced with people initially trying to win an argument based on little more than their own apparent credentials. Experts end up in a bubble, formed by their own experiences and the relative isolation that comes from having a level of understanding that sets them apart from others. Its worse when their specialism is very narrow and deep. I make no apologies for attempting to occasionally shove them from the comfortable and well worm path which comes so easily to them. Complacency is not a great crime, it is inevitable, but it is not without consequence and ideally people should welcome the challenge of being made to work harder from time to time by gits like me. It's not like I'm on your case all day every day.

I'll also take the opportunity to say that my sometimes unpleasant and less than loving approach is based largely on the idea that its almost always a good thing for humanity that individuals be challenged and taken down a peg or two, especially when discussing a subject they have become very knowledgable and complacent about. If the only way I know how to get people justify their stance in more detail is to be a rude git then unfortunately so be it, I've got my issues that I cannot remove from my debating style.

Basically you feel entitled to / that you have some sort of duty to deliberately troll posters who actually do know what they're talking about because of some notion about the 'arrogance of specialism' and how specialist should always be challenged and taken down a peg or 2 regardless of whether you or they are actually right or wrong on the subject.

You do it deliberately to provoke a specific reaction, and as shown here you even ignore anything that doesn't fit with your mission to take them down a peg or 2 - eg completely ignoring the detailed post I made with multiple examples of what the issues actually are that are of concern.

There are a wide spectrum of words, phrases and sentiments that can be expressed in quantities more than three but less than essay, that do justice to delicate concepts and balances of rights. I don't go following you around waiting for you to slip up according to my standards. On this occasion you said something that really pissed me off, so I responded in a rather crude way that was hardly a well-considered starting point to a intellectual debate. Look how far its come since then

Think of all the interesting points you got to make during this argument.

Think of all my time that you deliberately wasted yet again by being a prick on a mission to take anyone down a peg or 2 who might have a vague clue what they're talking about.

I'll put this in terms you might understand - your approach when you do this is virtually identical to that of the Watt's up with that crowd. You're also wrong, you don;t just do it when people puff themselves up and rely on their credentials, you've also entirely ignored the long post I made with multiple examples to back up my concerns, just as the Watt's crowd ignore any evidence posted up to support a position and continue to attack that position and that person from a position of ignorance rather than actually stopping and adjusting their position in light of that evidence, or even acknowledging it.

 

[elbows]

I would complain about you desperately seeking old quotes from unrelated threads, except I think those quotations do as much to back up my points and stance, then and now, as they do to explain your weird conclusion that I can be written off as a troll. If the only way you can live with my criticisms is to dismiss me as a troll whose got it in for you then thats your business.

All of the points that you made that I did not respond to were because I didn't feel they were central to the point. And why would I bother to respond to them when you are busy attaching every dirty label to me that you can? Neoliberal, troll, now apparently I am identical to the Watts Up crowd. These are desperate attempts to undermine me so that my criticisms don't sting so much. Tough shit, I'm not here to pander to your sense of self.

 

[elbows]

Think of all my time that you deliberately wasted yet again by being a prick on a mission to take anyone down a peg or 2 who might have a vague clue what they're talking about.

I can see why you might regret your decision to spend so much time defending yourself. A doomed mission indeed.

You seem to have missed the meaning of one of the words in the phrase 'arrogance of specialism/specialists'. I'm not fighting a broad crusade against knowledgable people, seeking to degrade the reputation of the information they provide. Rather I'm keen to expose the blind spots and the lazy assumptions that their positions of knowledge may lead them toward, even if only on occasion. Arrogance and complacency, and the dismissal of others who have not had the opportunity to work with the same level of detail, and people, on a routine basis. It keeps coming up when I'm arguing with you because once we've got into an argument, you try to pull knowledge rank on me, and you often do it while wearing clown shoes.

 

[free spirit]

Christ, if you're going to ascribe positions no-one has to them, at least use the right word. Neoliberal. there's no -ist.

neolberalist - a supporter of neoliberalism.

a neoliberalist position is the position of a supporter of neoliberalism, in the same way that a capitalist position would be a position of supporter of capitalism.

But thanks for the nitpicking contribution.

 

[elbows]

Wazzuppp?

Trust me, I'm an expert.

Ok Daddy, with this paternalism you are really spoiling us.

No cliches about Greens were harmed during the making of this dribble.

 

[killer b]

According to who? Unlike our most expert googler not to include a link to his research.

Oh yeah. Some shoddy wiki dictionary.

 

[elbows]

Arrogance and complacency, and the dismissal of others who have not had the opportunity to work with the same level of detail, and people, on a routine basis.

Oops I nearly forgot....

The idea that when you have specialists, their own interests in an issue, policy decision etc may vary from the multitude by virtue of their position, rather than the pure merits of their knowledge. And that the multitude must guard against the implications of this, by continually testing the experts to ensure their advice and wisdom is not corrupted by self-interest.

 

[free spirit]

It keeps coming up when I'm arguing with you because once we've got into an argument, you try to pull knowledge rank on me, and you often do it while wearing clown shoes.

That's mainly your own insecurity on show. I will pretty much always back up my knowledge if challenged on it rather than just pulling knowledge rank, if you then completely ignore or misunderstand the evidence produced to back up my original points then yes maybe I will point out that you don;t know what you;re talking about. Tbh though for all the good it seems to do I may as well just cut to the chase.

Why would you want me not to reference where I'd first got these concerns from - does it not make any difference if they've come from some random down the pub, or a nuclear engineer with several decades first hand experience of building and working in UK nuclear plants?

You'll also note that I wasn't actually claiming personal specialist knowledge there, as this isn't my specialist field, though I have enough of a related background to understand the issues involved.

 

[DaveCinzano]

I'd like to canvass opinions on velocipedist/motorist kerbside interactions

 

[free spirit]

According to who? Unlike our most expert googler not to include a link to his research.

Oh yeah. Some shoddy wiki dictionary.

is nit picking all you're good at, or do you actually have a meaningful contribution to make?

And please do explain how you;d prefer me to back up statements and opinions without giving links to evidence to support my position.

You appear to have missed the fact that I've not made up my position on the basis of google searches, I'll use the google searches to produce the evidence to back up my position if someone decides to challenge it, as that's the simplest way of doing it.

But it appears I can't win on this, either I can just assert my knowledge and expertise on a subject, and piss elbows off, or I can use google to produce evidence to support my position, and provide the links for people to follow to enable them to make up their own minds, and piss you off.

 

[elbows]

That's mainly your own insecurity on show. I will pretty much always back up my knowledge if challenged on it rather than just pulling knowledge rank, if you then completely ignore or misunderstand the evidence produced to back up my original points then yes maybe I will point out that you don;t know what you;re talking about. Tbh though for all the good it seems to do I may as well just cut to the chase.

Your evidence that demonstrates I don't know what I am talking about does feature rather a lot of total misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position.

Come on, your original attempt to backup your claim was a dud, and you've been overcompensating ever since. Relax, you made a boo-boo, don't worry about it. I'm very knowledgeable about fuckups, I've made enough myself, perhaps I'm an expert in the field of fuckups and that qualifies me to talk down to you on these matters if I start to lose the actual argument.

 

[elbows]

But it appears I can't win on this, either I can just assert my knowledge and expertise on a subject, and piss elbows off, or I can use google to produce evidence to support my position, and provide the links for people to follow to enable them to make up their own minds, and piss you off.

Yeah, you truly are a real martyr to the causes of science and saving the planet. The barbarian hordes are at the gates, trying to urinate on these concepts, and with only your wit to guard the precious knowledge and scientific principals from this onslaught I think we are in trouble.

 

[free spirit]

Oops I nearly forgot....

The idea that when you have specialists, their own interests in an issue, policy decision etc may vary from the multitude by virtue of their position, rather than the pure merits of their knowledge. And that the multitude must guard against the implications of this, by continually testing the experts to ensure their advice and wisdom is not corrupted by self-interest.

I'd not have so much of an issue with this if you actually took on board the points made and evidence produced to back them up, instead of ignoring anything that gets in the way of you trying to take them down a peg or two.

as I said, you and Watts have a lot in common in your ethos and approach, you both have an absolute distrust of anyone professing expertise in a subject and think you should be able to judge what they're saying based not on years of structured training and education followed by years of research and work in the field, but just on what you've managed to teach yourself about the subject from a few internet articles and forum discussions.

It's also a lot of what's wrong with UK government IMO, the notion that nobody who actually knows what they're doing should ever be allowed near the top of the decision making process. All decisions should ultimately be made by generalists with PPE degrees rather than specialist engineers or scientists, resulting in civil servants and ministers making massive decisions on complex areas that they barely understand and often even ignoring the opinions of the experts they have deigned to consult.

 

[free spirit]

Your evidence that demonstrates I don't know what I am talking about does feature rather a lot of total misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position.

Come on, your original attempt to backup your claim was a dud, and you've been overcompensating ever since. Relax, you made a boo-boo, don't worry about it. I'm very knowledgeable about fuckups, I've made enough myself, perhaps I'm an expert in the field of fuckups and that qualifies me to talk down to you on these matters if I start to lose the actual argument.

If I've lost the argument how come you refuse to actually pass comment at all on the evidence produced to back up my argument?

or was this really all you could muster?

I hope the lubricant required to maintain such wriggling is bio-degradable.

 

[elbows]

an absolute distrust of anyone professing expertise in a subject and think you should be able to judge what they're saying based not on years of structured training and education followed by years of research and work in the field, but just on what you've managed to teach yourself about the subject from a few internet articles and forum discussions.

There you go again. I do not profess absolute distrust in expertise. I am simply aware of some of the pitfalls that go with that territory, especially when chumps like you decide that such expertise gives special status to the opinions and politics of the experts.

 

[elbows]

If I've lost the argument how come you refuse to actually pass comment at all on the evidence produced to back up my argument?

Because those were later attempts by you to salvage something from the stinking corpse of your original point. Your original own-goal proved that your sloppy cliches were very much sponsored by faulty information when you first made them, and anything that followed was a wriggle.

 

[elbows]

Blessed are the technocrats, for they know best eh.

 

[killer b]

is nit picking all you're good at, or do you actually have a meaningful contribution to make?

I'm not really that interested in your tedious squabble - my entry to the thread was to complain about the language used in a green party policy document, which I think demonstrates their commitment to business as usual - a mild tweaking within the rules, but no challenge to the way things MUST apparently be done. For this, I'm apparently a 'neoliberalist' (sic)

FWIW I too would prefer things like these nuclear power component thingys to be made in the UK, but not because I want the British to be world leaders in some field or the other or to compete economically, but simply because I'd rather that money raised by taxing people in the UK was spent on wages in Sheffield than wages in China. Doesn't really need to be anything more than that.