Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Are you offended?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...solve-internet

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
      Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
      ... it's become so intolerant!
      Part of the problem might be that we've become intolerant of intolerance rather than, say, developing a 'live and let live' attitude.
      I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. The louder I disapprove of, let's say, homophobia, the more I show how I'm not homophobic. Obviously there is an intrinsic paradox about being intolerant to intolerance, but I think a simple "I respectfully disagree with every word you say on said issue" should suffice in most instances. Obviously if the Intolerantee is burning down the subject of their intolerance's house, then this is more than just a difference of opinion, but in terms of someone saying that for whatever reason they dislike whatever, then that's just a difference of opinion. Obviously if they've put their perspective in a public forum then I or whoever should have an equal right to challenge them and then they me... It's just debate, really. Maybe we've become so unsure of our on opinions we wish to hush every dissenting voice?


      Rule No 1 is: don't form a mob on the basis of anything you read less than a minute ago.

      Rule No 2: accusations of child abuse don't go down very well, even if you try to "lighten the mood" midway through them by typing LOL.

      And rule No 3 is: don't be a dick.
      Ha! Not bad. I've an idea that the whole of society could be 'governed' by no more than three or four rules, but yes, these will do. But I might add one and change one

      Rule 3 (alteration): everyone is allowed to be a dick if their dickness doesn't harm (either physically, financially or psychologically) someone else either through gross irresponsibility(shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre) or directly (bullying, libel, etc..)

      Rule 4: Failure to comply to Rule 3 means that other people are allowed to be dicks to you, although not as to cause more harm than the Dick's original dickness.

      Originally posted by Pebble View Post

      Where we more or less intolerant few years ago?
      It's hard to know. I think intolerance has changed in polite society. No doubt there have always been cases like the one's highlighted in this thread, but the media is just preferentially reporting them at the moment because these are considered 'hot' stories or whatever... As for the wider view of intolerance (racism, homophobia, sexism), I think there is a lot less acceptance of these things. But I'm not sure why the positioned has moved as far as it has (other than David's hypothesis), because I don't think there is enough intolerance in wider society to justify clamping down any descenting view. Without wanting to start an off topic debate, I used to work with a lot of Eastern Europeans as on the rare occasion that migration came up as a subject the perspective of my co-workers was that if Poland had the amount of immigrants that Britain has that there would be blood on the streets... I have no personal knowledge about the validity of their observations, but from what little I know it doesn't sound an unrealistic appraisal of the situation. I'm actually amazed as to how tolerant we are as a country - but I don't think that tolerance is helped by closing down any disagreement, which I think is what has happened in recent years. Anyway, all a bit off topic... (again)
      Last edited by The English Assassin; 11-19-2012, 05:03 AM.
      forum

      1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
      2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
      3. a public meeting place for open discussion

      Comment


      • Interesting article, with a clear message : if you don't watch what you say you could end up in jail. Or dead if his imaginary mob (notice he puts "vigilante mob" in quotes) gets you. And, particularly, don't make allegations of child abuse.

        "accusations of child abuse don't go down very well"
        Not false accusations mind, any accusations.

        He also talks a lot of complete nonsense - "God knows what it was like in the early days of motoring". Balls - everyone except, apparently, Charlie Brooker, knows what it was like. (And he does too, really - hence the number of times "maybe" turns up in his article.) Basing an argument on sheer fantasy is typical Brooker, of course.

        Is it just me that sees a concerted campaign to make us distrustful of the internet and scared to post anything controversial? Discrediting the one source of information we have that's not under tight control?

        Which has also been the effect of Schofield's little publicity stunt. As intended? This Morning is definitely NOT the kind of programme that tends to interview politicians - as even Brooker says in his article, This Morning is all about "Milf makeovers, celebrity interviews, and the occasional headline-grabbing interludes where they get someone to drop their pants to raise awareness of bum mumps or something". So why was Cameron involved at all in a programme that's always been pure trivial fluff?

        There's a clear narrative being pushed :
        "Shut up and let us tell you what's true and what isn't - trust the newspapers, not each other...".

        Let's face it, we go through life hearing lies from all kinds of sources - the press, some guy in the pub, the government. It's up to us to learn how to discriminate - thinking about WHY we're being told something is usually a good starting point.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Robin View Post
          This Morning is definitely NOT the kind of programme that tends to interview politicians

          Oops.

          I don't actually know how often politicians appear on This Morning (my wife watches it, I don't) but my instinct is that is a) not uncommon for them to do so because b) the interviews tend to be quite 'soft' as opposed to the 'harder rides' they tend to get from the likes of the BBC's John Humphries, Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil. (Which is one reason why I don't watch TM.)
          _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
          _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
          _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
          _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
            Originally posted by Pebble View Post

            Where we more or less intolerant few years ago?
            It's hard to know. I think intolerance has changed in polite society. No doubt there have always been cases like the one's highlighted in this thread, but the media is just preferentially reporting them at the moment because these are considered 'hot' stories or whatever... As for the wider view of intolerance (racism, homophobia, sexism), I think there is a lot less acceptance of these things. But I'm not sure why the positioned has moved as far as it has (other than David's hypothesis), because I don't think there is enough intolerance in wider society to justify clamping down any descenting view. Without wanting to start an off topic debate, I used to work with a lot of Eastern Europeans as on the rare occasion that migration came up as a subject the perspective of my co-workers was that if Poland had the amount of immigrants that Britain has that there would be blood on the streets... I have no personal knowledge about the validity of their observations, but from what little I know it doesn't sound an unrealistic appraisal of the situation. I'm actually amazed as to how tolerant we are as a country - but I don't think that tolerance is helped by closing down any disagreement, which I think is what has happened in recent years. Anyway, all a bit off topic... (again)
            One of the places I worked, we had terrible trouble with a female East European and Asian, throw in a lot of personal differences with the rest of staff as well. Never worked in a place like it, usually it was the bosses playing politics.

            Forgotten whom suggested with Leveson, we were going to see the establishment at war with itself. I was highly suspicious of all the Twitter travails of late and it looked that a plot that backfire so spectacularly; then the DM comes up with conspiracy theories.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...know-best.html
            Papa was a Rolling Stone......

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pebble View Post

              One of the places I worked, we had terrible trouble with a female East European and Asian, throw in a lot of personal differences with the rest of staff as well. Never worked in a place like it, usually it was the bosses playing politics.

              Forgotten whom suggested with Leveson, we were going to see the establishment at war with itself. I was highly suspicious of all the Twitter travails of late and it looked that a plot that backfire so spectacularly; then the DM comes up with conspiracy theories.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...know-best.html
              No surprise to see the Mail (and the rest) pushing their own agenda re Leveson. However, I'm not sure if loads of new legislation is really needed, just an enforcement of the legislation that already exists would have done the trick re hackings and media harassment. Easier said than done, I know, with the influence that money has on the British legal system.

              And yeah, I concur with David, This Morning has had a long track record of interviewing PMs, especially around election times, which obviously there was at this time. I'm sure DC wanted to address the Newsnight story, but I'm sure he also wanted to boost turnout for the Police Commissioner elections too.

              @Robin: interesting that you see Brooker as part of a sustained attack upon the internet, as I think its fairly balanced really for what is just a flippant little piece. His car argument is pure rhetoric, of course, but he doesn't seem to be calling for massive amounts of new legislation with his three point plan, just warning that there could be consequences if you're not aware of what you are saying... which kind of makes sense in light of current events.

              It has to be said that my sympathy of McAlpine has thoroughly dried up... Indeed, he seems to be using the whole thing as an excuse to get even fatter and richer... I'm afraid talking about something that is already in the public domain doesn't seem to be very libellous to me. Ultimately only those who actually accused him of paedophilia deserve any kind of legal action. If someone just tweets "hey, have you heard about this McAlpine story that is trending" or whatever, which is after all a story that is already out there, then that's hardly the same thing saying that its true... I'm sure many of us have posed a question about Freddy Star or whoever despite the fact that none of the accusations have stuck (as yet). Does that last sentence make me guilty of libel against him? I'd argue not. So what is the difference in McAlpine's case? Indeed, the more I think of it being called a paedophile is hardly going to ruin his reputation any more than the shame of being a well known Tory. Basically all that has happened is a new witch hunt has replaced the old, but this time parasitic lawyers and Tory scumbags are getting their feed out of it too...
              forum

              1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
              2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
              3. a public meeting place for open discussion

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
                Originally posted by Robin View Post
                This Morning is definitely NOT the kind of programme that tends to interview politicians
                I don't actually know how often politicians appear on This Morning (my wife watches it, I don't) but my instinct is that is a) not uncommon for them to do so because b) the interviews tend to be quite 'soft' as opposed to the 'harder rides' they tend to get from the likes of the BBC's John Humphries, Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil. (Which is one reason why I don't watch TM.)
                I suspect you're right, although I don't watch it either, just seen bits of it occasionally - until I could find the remote control, basically. But you're obviously right about the soft interviews - I loved the bit in your linked one where Gordon Brown is told his interview is "a chance to be a human being". It did make him look way more uncomfortable than Paxman ever did, but that wasn't This Morning's fault.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The English Assassin View Post
                  It has to be said that my sympathy of McAlpine has thoroughly dried up... Indeed, he seems to be using the whole thing as an excuse to get even fatter and richer... I'm afraid talking about something that is already in the public domain doesn't seem to be very libellous to me. Ultimately only those who actually accused him of paedophilia deserve any kind of legal action. If someone just tweets "hey, have you heard about this McAlpine story that is trending" or whatever, which is after all a story that is already out there, then that's hardly the same thing saying that its true... I'm sure many of us have posed a question about Freddy Star or whoever despite the fact that none of the accusations have stuck (as yet). Does that last sentence make me guilty of libel against him? I'd argue not. So what is the difference in McAlpine's case? Indeed, the more I think of it being called a paedophile is hardly going to ruin his reputation any more than the shame of being a well known Tory. Basically all that has happened is a new witch hunt has replaced the old, but this time parasitic lawyers and Tory scumbags are getting their feed out of it too...
                  You won't be surprised that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for him either. As is happened, the whole business meant that practically the only thing anyone really knew about MacAlpine was that he was definitely not a paedophile. I would have thought the novelty of being in that position for once should have mollified his reaction somewhat.

                  Comment


                  • I think you're both being very unfair on McAlpine. He has every right to ensure that his good reputation is protected.

                    It has not been made clear what he has done with the money paid to him by the BBC in settlement for them implicating him in the child abuse scandal, and he has every right to keep it if he sees fit to do so.

                    However, he has publicly stated that those Twatters who come forward and apologise will be asked to pay a nominal £5 to a childrens' charity.

                    Anyone who doesn't come forward will be persued in the courts. Fair enough. He'll win some and he'll lose some, but that's his choice. How would either of you like it if you were defamed in the worst possible way in front of you friends, family, work colleagues and local community. You'd do whatever it took to restore your good name.

                    If, in suing all his defamers for libel he succeeds in reining in some the worst excesses of Twatter users by demonstrating that they are not above the law and can't hide behind anonymity, then that can only be a good thing.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Robin
                      Actually, there are reasons to suspect we're being much fairer to him than he deserves. Note - everything I'm going to say here is 100% factual and readily verifiable.
                      I'm sorry but I'm uncomfortable with where Robin is trying to lead this conversation now, so - with my apologies - I'm going to lock the thread and I'm (soft) deleting Robin's post above [so the other Admins can peer review it] because I think this discussion has now veered way off-topic from TEA's original post.

                      If anyone wants to discuss conspiracy theories about how the Establishment is covering up paedophilia can I suggest they take such theories somewhere else please.

                      Thanks.
                      Last edited by David Mosley; 11-20-2012, 04:58 AM.
                      _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                      _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                      _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                      _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X