7 things of which I am in favour
I've been squabbling with Paulie at Never Trust A Hippy about whether it's better to be in favour of good things (his view) or against bad things (the correct view). But while I do believe that opposing stuff is at least as useful as being for it (as well as being easier and more fun), you can certainly have too much of a good thing. Or rather, erm, an inadequacy of another good but less good thing.
So to get the year off on a positive note, here is a list of things of which I approve:
1. Mad bastards advertising their madness in big blue letters across their faces. [Via Matt T]
2. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Chicken Out campaign. Of course I'm mostly supporting it because Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall is a comedy posh nutter with lank curly brown hair and oblong glasses. But it is also true that battery farming sucks gaping arse. (Objection: "But you're putting battery farmers out of business!" Answer: "Ha ha ha ha ha.")
3. Animals which eat their own brains.
4. Newspaper headlines such as the one the New York Post ran on the occasion of Ike Turner's death a few weeks ago. [Via Ivan]
5. Aggers's take on the latest crisis to hit test-cricket:
Ricky Ponting’s men have trampled all over the spirit of cricket by offering the lame excuse that they are "hard"...
Cricket can be an aggressive sport, but it is the ball and the bat that should do the talking. The hostile, nasty and intimidating environment that the Australians create on the pitch is a key ingredient in unsettling an opponent.
Little wonder that, sometimes, a volatile character lashes out in what he would perceive as self-defence, and what does it say of these "hard" men that they then go and report him to the umpire?
They can give it, but can’t take it.
6. Repealing the blasphemy laws.
7. Using political disputes as a thinly veiled pretext to post the same inane hotch-potch I was going to anyway.
How about making it a meme? It seems appropriate to tag some negative miserablists: Philip, Rodent, K-Bitches, Ivan, Matt T, and Yoghurt (when it recovers from its latest assassination attempt).
And to make it up to seven, a variant on the theme just for Paulie: 7 things which you really fucking hate. Not including me. Or "negativism".
27 Comments:
I think what Paulie means is Do as I say, not as I do, which will be the epitaph on the headstone of Decency's grave.
As for Will, see "The Working Class Superhero" in the EoD. Even trawling the American wingnut sites, I've rarely encountered such a self-important, jumped-up little cunt.
I'll have a crack at this later
Cunt.
PDF
Cunt.
You'll be sorry.
Does being negative about negativism make Paulie a negativist?
And having slogged through that comment thread I'd hardly describe him as a paragon of positive engagement. Physician, heal thyself.
BTW, I take it that Paulie isn't supportive of the murder of Iraqi employees or the arrest of Saudi bloggers?
Us 'negativists', eh? Never a word in support of anybody from us.
Rodent - ah I hadn't picked up that reference. Pretty obvious really.
Philip - I am sorry.
Justin - I asked Paulie that. This was his answer.
I see. Yes, very Do as I say, not as I do.
Wait a minute, if anyone's going to start calling people a cunt round here, it's me. You CUNT.
(Sorry, felt the need to shout it, if people are going to engage in this, I insist on doing it the loudest.)
Justin,
"BTW, I take it that Paulie isn't supportive of the murder of Iraqi employees or the arrest of Saudi bloggers?"
What's this supposed to mean?
Oh, and 'positive engagement' doesn't stretch to spending ages explaining myself to snarky trolls that crop up in the comment boxes of my blog - having not read the post that they are commenting on.
The other whine that came up a lot on that Chicken Out programme was "how can poor people afford chicken?"
Well, cutting the incredible mark-up on veg might help.
It's supposed to mean Paulie, that some of those 'negatavists' have banded together in the name a good cause or two. Petitions were signed, letters written and meetings organised.
Were you or any of your Decent mates signatories, publicisers or attendees?
I'm not going to get into a slanging match with you about this Justin. I like the way - by the way - that you've decided that I fit this little 'decent' template because I signed the Euston Manifesto.
That said, as far as I recall, a fair few people who signed the EM also supported the campaign about Iraqi interpreters. I didn't get around to signing it for a number of reasons.
One of them is that I'm inclined to the view that we should generally have a more liberal attitude to anyone who seeks asylum on political grounds (I'm also generally very liberal on economic migrants as well). However, immigration is a big problematic policy area that I'm not an expert on, and I'm a bit reluctant to write about it when I don't have anything new or interesting to say. It's the main reason that I've never written much about Iraq in general.
I thought about adding a post to my site saying that it was a good cause, but maybe the left has a wider message on immigration and that supporting single issue campaigns isn't the best way of promoting that message. I was going to try and find a *contribution* to make to the debate rather than just doing a 'me-too' on it. My dislike of petitions is one of the regular themes of my blog as well. In the end, I didn't know what to say on it, so I said nowt.
Having said that, I wasn't *against* the campaign either. I *do* get a little bored with people who can be relied upon to *always* support a cause as long as it's fashionable, without ever discussing wider issues. I'm sceptical about the fashionable orthodoxy of, say, 'The Liberal Conspiracy', for example.
I think that you actually do know what I'm saying here, but - you know - just carry pretending that I'm some sort of two-dimensional hypocrite if you like?
Fair's fair - Harry's Place supported the asylum campaign, I think.
Paulie -
Well the EM = decent equation is good enough for you:
Whatever you think of the Euston Manifesto, one of the reasons that they are called the ‘decents’ is because this project is all about raising the standard of debate...
And anyway you count yourself as one:
Now, I’m aware that Parkinson’s Law is more often quoted by rightwingers than by us decent lefties...
Nice try.
You're a great man for skim-reading aren't you Larry?
As you did a search on my site for the word decent, you will see the way I used it. So your first and third example don't work - they weren't in any way a reference to any identifiable grouping on the left. In both cases, they meant 'worth listening to / reading'.
The second one was flippant. I don't like the term 'decent left' much, and generally think that it has been used to rope a diverse group of people together and dismiss them in one go.
It's funny, Justin, that a while ago, you posted something under a post of mine - responding to you - and you said it was "excellent". You seemed to agree with me then. What's happened since?
Have you decided that the way that *other* people argued with you at the time somehow invalidates what I said there?
your first and third example don't work
I only offered two...
...and both of them were totally obviously in the context of the identifiable grouping known as the "decent left".
Nice detailed reading there Paulie.
1. The title
2. The quote
3. The second quote
... oh troll-with-a-blog.
Much as he might deny it, Paulie has Decency down to a tee.
Standards that don't apply to himself? Check.
Lengthy, tedious political declarations essentially excluding all who disagree? Check.
"Centrist" bullshit aimed at "the Left" which other leftists consider to be utter, utter bullshit? Check.
Grief-stricken sobbing over the unseriousness of Leftists? Check.
Snarky digs at Lefty websites? Check.
Paulie's Place, you are cleared to fuck right off, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Bloody Hell! If this thread were a movie, I'd have slashed the seats and fucked off to the pub on my BSA Goldstar by now.
Just popping up to thank Larry for indirectly leading me back to the comment thread at Paulie's, where Will notes that "this idiot is also poisonous and he is one of the better ones... basically a troll with a blog.". This description pleases me immensely.
For all my negativism, it should be noted that I've never (to the best of my recollection) called Will, Paulie, or any other blogger an idiot, a cunt or deployed ad hominem epithets of any kind against them (let alone 'trolled' on their comment threads). Such vilification is reserved, on my blog, for politicians and journalists, not fellow bloggers. In return, I've repeatedly, in so many words, been called pondlife.
Ironically enough, it seems I'm the one observing the correct blogging 'netiquette'.
animals which eat their own brains are infinitely better than animals which eat other animals' shit. globus had a dog which did that once. yeuch. at least brains are considered a delicacy in some pre-generate societies, whereas globus is yet to come across a convincing shit sandwich.
Mr E - I hear you - trolls-with-blog solidarity, brother.
For the record, though I am guilty of trolling decent websites occasionally, I completely deny it in this instance. I was seriously trying to engage with Paulie on his pet issue, and a fat lot of fucking good it did me.
Incidentally, is the author of comments such as this
really in any position to cunt off other people as "trolls"? Especially when his own blog contains fuck all except videos of the Jam and links to anything and everything written by Christopher Hitchens?
Globus - agreed without reservation.
Larry,
I've been dismissive of you throughout this whole discussion because you got involved in it fairly early (a year ago), were snarky pretty well straight away, and I'd noticed you elsewhere being snarky. I decided for myself - rightly or wrongly - that any attempt to argue with you would just get me more of the same.
Your first comment on my blog (I think) - ages ago - presented an argument that I'd argued against in the actual post concerned without acknowledging it. Most people would be dismissive under those circumstances. Your more recent comments on this debate have also re-packaged my arguments and asked me to defend things that are way-off what I've actually said. So I've just been hoping you'd just go elsewhere ever since.
I'm only going to spend time arguing with someone who I can get an actual conversation with (and I think I got that with DSquared in the end).
Mr E. I generally don't go for ad hominem epithets much either unless someone puts me on the receiving end of it first. I don't think I've called *you* anything. I've been rude about *your arguments* and your general worldview which is a bit different. And I'm not even usually rude about politicians either (they've been elected and the public can sack them). If I'm rude about anyone, it's usually journalists and pressure groups.
I've had a grand total of two serious spats since I started blogging, and both with people who wrote long posts that were fantastically rude about me and what I've written first.
Now, I understand that a fair few people have decided that because I don't tick Will off, or delete him that I'm endorsing his comments.
This is not the case. That said, Will sometimes calls someone a c*nt when I'm only *thinking* that they are a c*nt in the privacy of my own head.
And not one of the people who have decided that I should delete Will have had anything to say about the terms that DK and others have used towards me.
I find it quite upsetting just thinking about what he would say about Malky / Rodent.
Really Paulie, where the fuck do you get off?
I have been entirely polite and unsnarky to you for at least a year. And since then I have spent time and effort thinking about your stupid "negativist" horse-shit, and trying to discuss its flaws with you.
And what do I get from the great positive engager? Nothing except perpetual sneering, evasiveness, condescension, accusations of trolling, and the none too subtle suggestion that frankly I'm not in the same intellectual league as you, and really I shouldn't be bothering my betters (even if it is to point out what shit you're talking). That and of course the occasional buggering from the gimp you keep in your cellar. And now...
Your more recent comments on this debate have also re-packaged my arguments and asked me to defend things that are way-off what I've actually said.
Total fucking lies.
In the three comments from here you quite clearly say that it is never enough simply to criticise, you always have to make counterproposals. It is the "never" and "always" I've been pressing you on, because by they turn what could be a defensible position into nonsense.
The only other thing you could possibly mean by "things that are way-off what I've actually said" is this : the suggestion that you prefer "positive propaganda" to "thoughtful negative argument". Notice how I specifically asked you whether I'd understood you right.
And what happened? Either through willful dishonesty or through being a complete moron, you managed to misunderstand my perfectly straightforward question and instead helped me to two servings of patronising-pie, with side-dish of talking-to-me-as-if-I-was-4-years-old.
Incidentally, you do prefer "positive propanda" to "thoughtful negative argument". You said as much here. And quite frankly that seems to be a monumentally fuckwitted position to occupy: your whole anti-negativism campaign is nothing but a spin-doctors' charter. It's not us negativists who are the "objective allies" of Guido - it's you, you stupid twat. You've even written a post entitled "In Defence Of Guido", how much more "objectively allied" do you want to get?
By the way I don't know if anyone here's suggesting that you should delete Will's comments - I'm certainly not. But perhaps lavishing praise upon the cancerous little shit while simultaneously carrying on a crusade about the "standard of public debate" displays a teensy touch of double standards, wouldn't you say?
And not one of the people who have decided that I should delete Will have had anything to say about the terms that DK and others have used towards me.
Oh boo fucking hoo - piss off and play your violins somewhere else Paulie, I find the stench of burning martyr tiresome.
Oooh! The gloves really are off now, aren't they?
Let me adopt your tone for a second:
You describe yourself as a troll in this very thread, you hypocrite!
That said, I've noticed you around other weblogs trolling, and when you first appeared on my site, I resolved not to take you seriously. That's what people do with habitual trolls, and maybe I've not noticed the times that you aren't trolling, for which I apologise. But I'd only noticed you trolling up to that point, so I've treated you like a troll. And I found your tone snarky, whatever you say. Eye of the beholder, and all of that.
And if that weren't enough, I wouldn't generally bother arguing with someone who isn't very clear about where they stand on some things. I take it you're familliar with the 'moving target - don't bother arguing with them' argument?
We agreed on this very early on, didn't we? I said "I don't bother with negativists". You said "I'm a negativist." We had a contract, no? This whole argument is so uneven. I bet that - as soon as you've read this comment, you'll get busy trawling my site looking for some other point at which I contradict myself, or argue something you don't like. I'd love to pick a hole in something that YOU have written here, but it's a bit tough finding holes in a hole, isn't it?
Your last comment here illustrates my original point about you. Shrill. You say I 'lavish praise' on Will. You say that I'm mounting some 'crusade'. You've crawled all over my site, sites that link off my site, comments boxes that I've visited, looking for petards to hoist me on with overstated claims. Your criticism of me is shrill Larry. Like I said one of the first times you appeared in my comments box and made a shrill comment.
And there is no better example of this than your last comment here. If you think that the comments that you link to bear the weight of the statement ... "it is NEVER enough simply to criticise, you ALWAYS have to make counterproposals" ...then you are illustrating why I've not bothered to argue with you. In the comments that you are quoting me from, I was responding to Ian - who for a few weeks, kept popping up in my comments threads asking me to explain posts I'd written a year ago. They are not fulsome replies. There is NOTHING in any of the posts that Ian was linking to that would suggest the ALWAYS / NEVER formula that you claim I'm pushing, indeed, there is plenty in those posts that outline a more flexible position.
You think that pouncing upon an ill-considered bit of shorthand is an effective argument. Like the way that you sieze upon the title 'defence of Guido' to argue that I'm somehow siding with him. Taken out of context, when someone writes a post called 'A defence of Guido', it would be reasonable to assume that I'm agreeing with him. But I'm not, as the longish post under it makes clear. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from this than that you have no clue what the term 'objective ally' actually means, do you?
Your "positive propaganda / thoughtful negative argument" line was so ridiculously leading that it deserved less respect than anything else you'd bored me with up until then. "Are you saying that you'd rather eat this really delcious nourishing bowl of raspberry pudding, or this disgusting poisonous shit sandwich?"
Draw no conclusions from my answers to you other than the certain knowledge that I was hoping that you would just go away.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not - and have never - argued that one should ALWAYS have to make counterproposals. My objection is to people who NEVER make counterproposals.
About the time of the original 'negativist' spat, I wrote an off-the-cuff 'code of conduct' for my own blog, saying...
"I will try not to criticise any substantial position that someone else has taken without trying to indicate what I think is a workable alternative approach. Wherever possible, I will try to demonstrate an understanding of the totality of power relations around any particular issue when I comment. Otherwise, I will ask for help.
If I disagree with a position that someone else has taken, I accept that it would be a mistake not to address the problem that they are aiming to solve and offer my own solution (unless I think that the 'problem' concerned is exaggerated or non-existent, in which case I should say why I think this). I will try and acknowledge counterfactuals fairly."
So, not 'never' or 'always', because I've not made shrill overstated points. More 'try to' and 'wherever possible'. I think I've explained my 'moving target' objection to context-free criticism enough now, and outside of this debate, I've never ever heard anyone argue that context-free criticism is generally a useful thing.
The next time I hear it, I'll say to myself "Aha! A shrill troll!" And when I do, I may end up being grossly unfair.
What I've learned, Paulie, is that a "shrill" tone is obviously the way forward when trying to talk to you.
I wasted a good long time politely asking you questions about your position which you've only bothered to address now that I've started swearing at you.
Well, whatever, I'm not interested any more.
As for the always/never thing - you can take it and ram it up your pompous arse. You've deliberately misrepresented me on this exact issue on your blog in the past, so if you say I've misconstrued your position now (not from want of trying to wring it out of you, I should add), then apologies ain't going to be forthcoming.
And you're lying about me again by the way - I've never suggested for a second that you're "siding" or "agreeing" with Guido. Since you can't understand what I'm accusing you of re Guido or Will (it's around that "leading" question of mine), I'm not going to bother addressing your half-arsed defence.
(Having said which, look what I found trawling you blog: "One of the reasons that Guido's blog is better than most is that he is quite clear about what he is in favour of." Oh noes! Out of context, erm,... not a fulsome reply, uh,... ill-considered shorthand, erm,... agh,... Shrill! Shrill!)
Now please fuck off. You've said you're not going to bother with me, and I've no further interest in bothering with you.
I'm wary of prolonging a thread which the blog owner has stated he's not interested in continuing, so just this:
For the avoidance of doubt, Paulie, I wasn't calling for you to distance yourself from Will's 'abuse', and I'm certainly not suggesting you delete it. (Anyway, he said that of all the poisonous fascists, I was "one of the better ones", which makes me all warm and tingly inside.)
And it's fair comment to say that you haven't been personally abusive towards me, so apologies if I implied that.
I'm merely making the point that if negativism and needless vulgarity are perceived as demeaning blogging, it should be noted that they are not the sole preserve of one particular group or worldview.
I don't mind being called a "poisonous idiot", but let's not confuse it with constructive progressive political commentary.
Post a Comment