Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Alternative Vote


Guest doogie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But we are. It's you and Neil that are seemingly stuck in that way of thinking. The self can be interested in things beyond greed, yet you're both still conforming to that very definition.

Individual responsibility, that Thatcher helped to promote, is a good thing. You shouldn't hide behind institutions and what someone higher up the chain told you. If you think it's wrong, then you should go out and challenge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't answer for Neil (and anyway he's more than capable of answering for himself) but I don't accept that I'm conforming to that definition. What I try to do is get others to recognise that they don't have to conform and, as you say, go out and challenge. My point was that, sadly, too many people are still tempted to vote on the basis of self-interest. So if you can help people see that improving or challenging the present situation for others would also be in their interests you may get people to push for real change.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I was referring to and reckon you may have been on about it too, Grumpyhack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't answer for Neil (and anyway he's more than capable of answering for himself) but I don't accept that I'm conforming to that definition. What I try to do is get others to recognise that they don't have to conform and, as you say, go out and challenge. My point was that, sadly, too many people are still tempted to vote on the basis of self-interest. So if you can help people see that improving or challenging the present situation for others would also be in their interests you may get people to push for real change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You've just done it again! You've just said self-interest in a negative sense.

that's because self-interest has a negative sense. :rolleyes:

As for the philosophical bollocks you've posted, come back when you're able to show it as meaningful and not right-wing propaganda to justify right-wing self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, the left use it to explain how and why class defines one's self-interests. So, in the case of yourself, it is due to the fact that you live in a relatively affluent society that you can become educated, informed and outwardly concerned enough to see that the world would be a better place without capitalism. For a lower class person living amidst a survivalist culture, it would be far more likely to be interested in finding food, shelter and safety from danger than to bother with such outward concerns.

This is an entirely leftist view.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Only if you think that the person's interests are negative. The term itself doesn't because there's nothing wrong with having interests. It's perfectly natural.

using an individualist's view on an individualist's view tells no one anything useful at all. :rolleyes:

While it might be "perfectly natural" (tho normally you like telling people that there's no such thing as natural :lol:) for a person to put their own interests first, that says nothing at all about the effects of those interests onto others. If the "perfectly natural self-interests" idea is followed thru on fully then it only results in war, death, and subjugation.

It is simply not possible for all people to follow their self-interests. And so the view you put forwards is nothing more than a bullies charter.

Whatever you're interested in is your self-interest. Both left and right wing academics use self-interest in this way. It's got nothing to do with politics.

Bullshit. That's merely self-justification for being a c**t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

using an individualist's view on an individualist's view tells no one anything useful at all. :rolleyes:

While it might be "perfectly natural" (tho normally you like telling people that there's no such thing as natural :lol:) for a person to put their own interests first, that says nothing at all about the effects of those interests onto others. If the "perfectly natural self-interests" idea is followed thru on fully then it only results in war, death, and subjugation.

It is simply not possible for all people to follow their self-interests. And so the view you put forwards is nothing more than a bullies charter.

Bullshit. That's merely self-justification for being a c**t.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

What irrelevant rubbish.

The bit you struggle with as always is the 'enlightened' part. I'll repeat it for the fourth time:

Self-interest is what everyone operates from because if you're interested in righteousness and acting for the greater cause of a group, that's your self-interest. This is why your above rationale is utter shite.

Repeat it as many times as you like, it's still worthless self-interested bollocks, the bullies charter - which is why you find it so meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Erm, you're the one repeating unenlightened shite mate because you see the term as right wing when it isn't.

It is a fact that whatever you value is your self-interest. Some people are interested in only greed and pleasing themselves, thus they are unenlightened, whereas others are interested in society and a better world for all, thus they are enlightened.

Your value of society and not being a selfish twat is your self-interest. It is not a synonym for greed and selfish desire, as being greedy and hedonistic will be detrimental to the self.

What's the alternative? Social interest? That would still be self-interest. unself-interest? That's absurd. So what is your desire for an equal and fair society all about then? Martyrdom? That's still self-interest.

right wing brains just don't get it. :rolleyes:

What is driving my desire for an equal and fair society? Not self-interest, as there's no benefit in this idea for me - it's the opposite. Not martyrdom - I am not sacrificing myself.

What is driving my desire for an equal and fair society? Rights. The right that others also have to what I might have. I have no rights above any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No I assume they come from a list, but do they just start at the top of the list and work their way down till they've filled all the seats they've got?

yup - that's the way it normally works with PR lists.

That part of things is the most unappealing part of PR, because each MP who gets his seat via a list* gets his powerbase from the party leadership and not the electorate. This means that they have less scope to assert their own ideas against the party's ideas.

(* depending which PR system is used, it's not necessarily the case that every MP gets his seat via a party list. The system used for the Scottish parliament [i forget which version of PR it is] has a mix of constituency MPs and list MPs).

Having said that, it's pretty much the case that they all follow the party line with the current FPTP anyway, so I'm not sure it's that big a deal. As far as I'm concerned, the downside of lists is more than compensated for by the more equal representation that's achieved via PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Leftist zealout.

tory scum. :rolleyes:

Of course there is: Self-satisfaction, self respect, integrity, dignity or in your case self-righteousness. These things are important to you because you aren't struggling to stay alive.

Those things might be important to me, but it's still the case that wanting equality and fairness is not in my self-interest. I gain no benefit in giving away any advantage I have other others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...