The Hosts as Guardians of the Ships Woke-Left Purity

2

Comments

  • Chinese and Russians are not races. They are citizens of a specific country. Therefore disliking them is not racism.

    You remember how just a moment ago you were complaining about people using the Race Relations act, but that only prohibits actions and not thoughts, so you couldn't possibly be a racist for just having thoughts?

    The point of mentioning the RRA was to point out that the common English understanding of "racism" has included national origin, and not just "race" for at least the last 50 years.

    So this statement of yours is nonsense.
    The Ship's definition of "racist" is is meaningless. It encompasses everything from unspoken dislike through to engaging in genocide, and anyone from the smallest groups of people to vast swathes of humanity, providing they all share some specific social construct.

    The Ship is an online forum. You can't engage in genocide here, because it's a website. It does not provide you with an environment in which exterminating people from a country you don't like is even possible.

    It's a discussion forum. It provides a space where you can engage in (hopefully constructive) discussions with others, by typing on your computer. That's all it does.

    The Ship does not regulate your unspoken (un-typed) dislike, because it can't read your mind. But it can regulate the things that you type, with the goal of promoting constructive discussion.

    You're right that this has the effect of eliminating the racist parts of the political spectrum. You can't come on the Ship and promote racism. We can (and do) talk about racism, in various different ways, but I don't think it's possible to advocate for it and remain within the 10 Cs. And I can't say that missing out on the opportunity to have a discussion with a bunch of racists makes me think I'm missing out.

    It's perfectly reasonable (and happens) to discuss the actions of particular countries. We can have a discussion about evil things done by Russia, or China, or Israel, or the US, or whoever else. You can hate countries and their actions, you can think they're evil. It doesn't become racist until you extend that hate from the country and its government to each of its citizens.

    So in your case, hating Russia is OK. Hating what Russia does is OK. Thinking Vladimir Putin is Satan incarnate is OK. Assigning those views to random individual Russians? Not OK.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I was asking the hosts to join in the debate on the other thread because I felt that the hosts were part of the reason why right-of-centre people rarely join or stay on the Ship.

    Whatever you thought you were doing, ignoring a Crew instruction by continuing the challenge to a Crew decision in-thread instead of the Styx put you in clear breach of the rules, which is why I, posting as an admin, told you to take that issue here or face sanctions.

    Again, for the avoidance of doubt, that has nothing to do with your politics and everything to do with whether you abide by the rules; any suggestion that only right-wing posters might receive such a warning is ludicrous.

    The hostly warning itself - and it was no more than a warning - was that your post looked like racism, @BroJames has explained that warning, and he has the full support of the admins in that.

    Besides, this specific incident and your response is a symptom of what may best be described as a "racism/trolling quota buffer overrun" on your part. The admins' take is that, irrespective of political views, you're being deliberately disruptive, which, if persistent, adds up to a C1 offence.

    That's a shame, because you clearly have a brain that you could put to better use, and diversity of viewpoints here is fine, it really is - provided you abide by the rules. If you don't, then sanctions will follow. It's as simple as that.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    It is possible this just shows either your unwillingness to understand or your inability to understand points of view other than your own.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    It is possible this just shows either your unwillingness to understand or your inability to understand points of view other than your own.

    And inability to realize that how someone would like the world to be and someone's knowledge of how the world really is don't add up to cognitive dissonance. Wistfulness maybe. But not cognitive dissonance.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.


    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.


    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.

    Seeing as you've shown more interest in grandstanding than the latter you can hardly complain when people use the time freed up to help you with the former.
  • ThatcherightThatcheright Suspended
    edited July 2020
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I was asking the hosts to join in the debate on the other thread because I felt that the hosts were part of the reason why right-of-centre people rarely join or stay on the Ship.

    Whatever you thought you were doing, ignoring a Crew instruction by continuing the challenge to a Crew decision in-thread instead of the Styx put you in clear breach of the rules, which is why I, posting as an admin, told you to take that issue here or face sanctions.

    Again, for the avoidance of doubt, that has nothing to do with your politics and everything to do with whether you abide by the rules; any suggestion that only right-wing posters might receive such a warning is ludicrous.

    The hostly warning itself - and it was no more than a warning - was that your post looked like racism, @BroJames has explained that warning, and he has the full support of the admins in that.

    Besides, this specific incident and your response is a symptom of what may best be described as a "racism/trolling quota buffer overrun" on your part. The admins' take is that, irrespective of political views, you're being deliberately disruptive, which, if persistent, adds up to a C1 offence.

    That's a shame, because you clearly have a brain that you could put to better use, and diversity of viewpoints here is fine, it really is - provided you abide by the rules. If you don't, then sanctions will follow. It's as simple as that.

    Once again let me assure you that I have no problem with what the host ruling was. None at all.

    I didn't start the thread to debate the merits of that indivudual host intervention.

    Let me try to provide an analogy that may help.

    Imagine if you will someone - person X - appearing in court charged with theft because they had no money to feed their family with. They are found guilty and the judge sends them to prison for six months.

    Person X wishes to discuss the role of the courts and the judges in propogating poverty and crimes based on poverty.

    The courts and judges however insist that this is an appeal against the sentence and refuse to engage with X's debate, insisting on only discussing the matter as a formal appeal against the sentence.

    The hosts in this case appear to want to limit the discussion to one of appealing against @BroJames original ruling. Not the wider debate over the direction that the Ship is taking and the hosts acions in propogating the move leftward.

    I raised this as the issue and was told to bring it here. I pointed out that it would diminish the debate in the other thread as it would be discussing the direction of the Ship without being able to consider how host actions impact that direction.

    That has still not been considered. As @KarlLB said after I raised this thread...
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Or, just possibly, the substantive issue requires longer consideration whilst the issue of where such a discussion should take place is more simply addressed?

    Well, it's been a couple of days and I assume that the H&A team have given the substantive issue due consideration. I feel it is only fair to now ask what the results of that due consideration are, or if they are not ready, when the hosts and admins expect to give us the results of their deliberations on the substantive issue.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Once again let me assure you that I have no problem with what the host ruling was. None at all.
    That didn't stop you ignoring the host instruction to take the Crew aspect of your objection to the Styx. Ignoring Crew instructions to the extent that an admin has to weigh in on the thread is not a good way of getting our due consideration.
    The hosts in this case appear to want to limit the discussion to one of appealing against @BroJames original ruling. Not the wider debate over the direction that the Ship is taking and the hosts acions in propogating the move leftward.
    We expect allegations about Crew behaviour to be backed up by evidence. So far, the only evidence you've adduced is that particular host ruling, in response to which it's been pointed out that the ruling is a reflection of the law in the UK, where the Ship is based.

    To get from there to accusing the Crew of political bias in their hosting without further evidence is quite a stretch, and we're not likely to give it much more consideration until some is produced.
  • Eutychus wrote: »

    We expect allegations about Crew behaviour to be backed up by evidence. So far, the only evidence you've adduced is that particular host ruling, in response to which it's been pointed out that the ruling is a reflection of the law in the UK, where the Ship is based.

    To get from there to accusing the Crew of political bias in their hosting without further evidence is quite a stretch, and we're not likely to give it much more consideration until some is produced.

    The OP of the thread in Purgatory questioned why right-of-centre contributors fail to stay onboard the Ship?

    Well in that thread I said that it was feasible that one reason was the hosts, by enforcing the claims of racism using the wide open definition in play on the Ship, forced right-of-centre contributors off the Ship, thus dictating the direction of the Ship.

    Ironically the evidence was provided in that very thread by @BroJames wading in with a claim of racism against a country - there's that wide open definition again.

    But as I said, it was a debate. Something to be considered and discussed. But I doubt anyone will risk the wrath of the hosts by wanting to engage with that question now, seeing as how the debate has been handled by the hosts.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Do they in fact need guarding when they are doing a sterling job of enforcing the woke-left direction of the Ship?

    In answer to the OP on the other thread, I don't believe the Ship does actually want any right-of-centre contributors. They might claim they want to hear reasoned debate from both sides but that isn't really the case. They will never be welcomed and treated with respect. At best they will be tolerated until they are denounced, and then they will either stop posting on the Ship or be banned at some point.

    When someone who supported Kenneth Clarke in the 2005 Conservative Party leadership election can be accused of being a Nazi, I think it is time the Ship took a long, hard look at the direction it wants to go in. The thread in Purgatory was a good start but the role of the hosts and admins in setting that direction absolutely must be examined as part of that process. I think the hosts and admins are quite happy to have the debate on the direction but don't want their role in it being examined too closely.
  • Honestly, I think you'd have done a much better job of framing the question about whether the Ship's definition of being racist was too draconian if you hadn't first posted something that could be read as crossing that line, then calling foul when you were challenged on it.

    It seems more like a post-hoc justification of your actions than a premeditated and careful analysis of why you feel it's difficult to express your worldview here. To re-iterate, you're welcome here, but if you feel that expressing racism, sectarianism, and/or nationalist sentiments (including a blanket dislike of other countries' citizens) are core to your social and political views, you're going to find those expressions moderated by the Hosts.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    Well in that thread I said that it was feasible that one reason was the hosts, by enforcing the claims of racism using the wide open definition in play on the Ship, forced right-of-centre contributors off the Ship, thus dictating the direction of the Ship.

    Ironically the evidence was provided in that very thread by @BroJames wading in with a claim of racism against a country - there's that wide open definition again.
    You're wrong (or being deliberately disingenuous). You were brought to book for your comments about a group of people ("the Chinese"), not a country, against a backdrop of provocative and unsubstantiated comments about "the Chinese" being responsible for producing Covid-19. You are not the first person to be pulled up for generalisations about nationalities and such intervention is by no means limited to right-leaning posters.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Do they in fact need guarding when they are doing a sterling job of enforcing the woke-left direction of the Ship?
    The Styx is here to hold the Crew to account, and as has been pointed out, this kind of forum is not available on many other sites. We do listen to what is said here, and you don't have to look far to see changes being implemented on the back of issues raised by Shipmates here. What we won't do is listen to unsubstantiated allegations. I asked you for evidence, and so far you've produced none.
    In answer to the OP on the other thread, I don't believe the Ship does actually want any right-of-centre contributors.
    The "Ship" has not yet attained self-consciousness or volition. The Crew do not have uniform views on politics or much else, and so far as I can tell, don't do anything to exclude those with views different to their own, subject always to the rules. We never take disciplinary action without a minimum of consensus at the appropriate level, and often disagree before reaching that consensus.

    The Ship is more than just the Crew, though. Welcoming those of other views is as much about the attitudes of Shipmates as a whole as about Crew politics. Personally, I agree there is sometimes unneccesary hostility towards those expressing views other than what's perceived as the prevailing norm, but I also note that those with such views often seem to land here without feeling the need to earn some respect, find their way around, and understand the rules. Frequently, they are unable to provide support for the views they express and this does seem to be a particular failing on the part of those from the right.

    You yourself said of "the Right"
    the problem is we only need arguments good enough for Bolsover or Bakewell, not the Ship, and therefore we don't bother going any further than that.

    The Ship is not Bolsover or Bakewell, and the custom here is that you do have to bother going further than that. If your personal definition of "the Right" is a lack of desire or ability to come up with substantive arguments, I'm afraid there's not much more we can do for you.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.

    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.
    Well, bless your heart. Since you seem to take such pleasure in fulminating at great length around the subject, I thought you might appreciate a little help in making your essays more readable.

    I would be interested In your definition of “woke-left.” (sic)


  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Well in that thread I said that it was feasible that one reason was the hosts, by enforcing the claims of racism using the wide open definition in play on the Ship, forced right-of-centre contributors off the Ship, thus dictating the direction of the Ship.

    Ironically the evidence was provided in that very thread by @BroJames wading in with a claim of racism against a country - there's that wide open definition again.

    I'd agree with you that "racism" is used too widely.

    But hostly warnings for racism are rare in Purgatory. (Suggest you stay away from Epiphanies, where different standards apply).

    You've mentioned one specific instance. And then said you've no problem with that particular ruling. Which looks like it leaves you with no leg to stand on.

    ISTM you're quite right to have no problem with that particularly ruling. Which was for straying too close to racism in the narrow sense (i.e. the proposition that those who are ethnically Chinese are in some way inherently dislikable).

    Happy to accept your word that that wasn't what you meant.
    But am somewhat baffled why you keep on digging yourself into a hole instead of simply stating that that wasn't what you meant, that your beef is with the actions of the Chinese government, and you're sorry for any inadvertent offence given to any shipmates of Chinese origin who may be around.

    In your own words, of course.

    Purg hosts are not your enemy, and I've seen no evidence that they are driving the Ship's turn to port.
  • Well in that thread I said that it was feasible that one reason was the hosts, by enforcing the claims of racism using the wide open definition in play on the Ship, forced right-of-centre contributors off the Ship, thus dictating the direction of the Ship.

    So once again, you're assuming that right-of-centre people are racist (because if they weren't racist, then they wouldn't be troubled by the ship's rules against racism). Sure - it's true that there's a seam of racism in the populist right in the UK (cf. some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding Brexit), just like there's a lot of racism in the actions of Donald Trump and his supporters, but it's not at all true that all of the political right, in either country, is racist.

    In fact, the racism is mostly populist, rather than particularly right.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.

    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.

    I would be interested in your definition of “woke-left.” (sic)


    From Wikipedia:

    Woke, as a political term of African American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.

    Seems a reasonable POV to me, so I'm not sure why it's being used (as I suppose) in a pejorative way by the OPer.

  • Seems a reasonable POV to me, so I'm not sure why it's being used (as I suppose) in a pejorative way by the OPer.

    cf. the pejorative use of "politically correct"?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    When someone who supported Kenneth Clarke in the 2005 Conservative Party leadership election can be accused of being a Nazi, I think it is time the Ship took a long, hard look at the direction it wants to go in.
    Has anyone called you a Nazi?

    Kenneth Clarke's position on anything hasn't changed significantly since then and he's been expelled from the Conservative Party. Are you protesting about that? Or do you really mean you supported John Redwood?

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.

    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.
    Well, bless your heart.

    :worried: *shots fired*

    Is this sort of language allowed outside hell?
  • Seems a reasonable POV to me, so I'm not sure why it's being used (as I suppose) in a pejorative way by the OPer.

    cf. the pejorative use of "politically correct"?

    And social justice warrior (SJW).
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    The Styx is here to hold the Crew to account, and as has been pointed out, this kind of forum is not available on many other sites. We do listen to what is said here, and you don't have to look far to see changes being implemented on the back of issues raised by Shipmates here. What we won't do is listen to unsubstantiated allegations. I asked you for evidence, and so far you've produced none.

    The evidence is the virtual lack of right-of-centre contributors on the Ship (as discussed in the other thread).

    There are only two possible reasons for that lack...

    1. They either left of their own volition (which was mentioned a number of times in the other thread).
    2. They were forced - or led to believe they would be forced - to leave by the hosts (nobody else can force them off the Ship).

    That they are absent is surely not in doubt.

    Why this could be is the matter under debate. Would you like to join in?
  • Russ wrote: »
    Well in that thread I said that it was feasible that one reason was the hosts, by enforcing the claims of racism using the wide open definition in play on the Ship, forced right-of-centre contributors off the Ship, thus dictating the direction of the Ship.

    Ironically the evidence was provided in that very thread by @BroJames wading in with a claim of racism against a country - there's that wide open definition again.

    I'd agree with you that "racism" is used too widely.

    But hostly warnings for racism are rare in Purgatory. (Suggest you stay away from Epiphanies, where different standards apply).

    You've mentioned one specific instance. And then said you've no problem with that particular ruling. Which looks like it leaves you with no leg to stand on.

    ISTM you're quite right to have no problem with that particularly ruling. Which was for straying too close to racism in the narrow sense (i.e. the proposition that those who are ethnically Chinese are in some way inherently dislikable).

    Happy to accept your word that that wasn't what you meant.
    But am somewhat baffled why you keep on digging yourself into a hole instead of simply stating that that wasn't what you meant, that your beef is with the actions of the Chinese government, and you're sorry for any inadvertent offence given to any shipmates of Chinese origin who may be around.

    In your own words, of course.

    Purg hosts are not your enemy, and I've seen no evidence that they are driving the Ship's turn to port.

    And, with no snark intended, Russ is living breathing proof that the Hosts operate a pretty narrow definition of racism. In forums I know that do actually "stay woke" Russ would have barely made it in the door before being banned.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    The evidence is the virtual lack of right-of-centre contributors on the Ship (as discussed in the other thread).
    No, your charge concerns actions by Crew, not a lack of a certain kind of contributor. You can't argue from silence. You are basically admitting you have no valid reason to be here in the Styx.
    1. They either left of their own volition (which was mentioned a number of times in the other thread).
    I have seen a lot of people give up posting just as soon as they were required to substantiate their arguments. Nothing, prima facie, to do with their politics. Now if, as you yourself admit (op cit) your politics don't require you to substantiate your arguments, that's not our fault.
    2. They were forced - or led to believe they would be forced - to leave by the hosts (nobody else can force them off the Ship).
    This is bullshit and once again proffered in the absence of any substantiating evidence. Nobody is "forced to leave". Users are free to post, unless they are suspended after due warning because they've contravened the rules, or banned because of repeated breaches or particularly egregious ones (such as being a spambot). In my experience posters who respect their fellow-posters and the Crew have no difficulty in staying and in staying out of trouble from the Crew.
    Why this could be is the matter under debate.
    No, the matter under debate here is whether there is a substantive, evidence-based criticism of Crew actions to be made. It seems you don't have one.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    o once again, you're assuming that right-of-centre people are racist (because if they weren't racist, then they wouldn't be troubled by the ship's rules against racism). Sure - it's true that there's a seam of racism in the populist right in the UK (cf. some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding Brexit), just like there's a lot of racism in the actions of Donald Trump and his supporters, but it's not at all true that all of the political right, in either country, is racist.

    I might argue that anyone still supporting the political right in those countries (as expressed/"led" by Trump and BoJo) is either a racist or has decided it isn't a deal-breaker for them, which is hardly better in my book.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Would you like to join in?
    Actually, I did, posting as a Shipmate, on the thread in Purgatory, and offered some criticisms of left-leaning posters. But you've studiously ignored those, presumably because they don't fit your narrative.
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    jbohn wrote: »
    o once again, you're assuming that right-of-centre people are racist (because if they weren't racist, then they wouldn't be troubled by the ship's rules against racism). Sure - it's true that there's a seam of racism in the populist right in the UK (cf. some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding Brexit), just like there's a lot of racism in the actions of Donald Trump and his supporters, but it's not at all true that all of the political right, in either country, is racist.

    I might argue that anyone still supporting the political right in those countries (as expressed/"led" by Trump and BoJo) is either a racist or has decided it isn't a deal-breaker for them, which is hardly better in my book.

    Or the allegations of anti-semitism that appeared to be rife in the Labour Party under the last Labour Party leadership was problematic for some. You know a toss up between voting for a political party that has BAME people in high leadership positions and a leader that has made a few dodgy comments V a political party lead by someone who sympathised with terrorists, took money from a vile and repressive regime and whose party (along with the BNP) had been investigated by the EHRC commission.
  • I'm struggling to work out which party is which you're referring to.
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm struggling to work out which party is which you're referring to.

    Really? There have been 2 political parties investigated by the EHRC. One was the BNP. I'm sure you know which the other one was. But do look it up if you are struggling.
  • How come the officers are being called the Crew? Aren't Crew the ordinary sailors, and the officers (non-com and commissioned) a different group? Or alternately "crew" can mean the entirety of the ship's personnel. But it's not synonymous with the group of officers.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    With SOF, there is no differentiation between crew and officers. The rest of us are no crew, but passengers. The Ship's might be called a ship, but that is where the comparison really ends.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I’ve always thought that was a bit odd myself. I’d have happily been a junior officer! Crew is a bit ambiguous. Particularly since we call you all Shipmates.
  • The ambiguity could be deliberate ....
  • And social justice warrior (SJW).

    Was SJW originally used as a positive term by campaigners for social justice? I agree that it has the same perjorative use from those who are opposed to social justice, but I've only heard it in that context (whereas PC and woke started off only as positive terms, before they gained their pejorative use).

    Genuine question, in case it's not clear.
    jbohn wrote: »
    I might argue that anyone still supporting the political right in those countries (as expressed/"led" by Trump and BoJo) is either a racist or has decided it isn't a deal-breaker for them, which is hardly better in my book.

    I think you can distinguish between holding right-wing views, and supporting a particular right-wing party. You can still hold the same views, but decide that you can't support your "natural" party, because of something obnoxious they're doing. But as always, it's a question of tradeoffs. (If you remember, we had a shipmate from a different part of the political spectrum pose the question "can I keep supporting my party even though they've gone transphobic", and the general consensus seemed to centre on two things - how bad are the other parties on trans issues, and if you remain within your party, are you more likely to be able to push for a change than if you leave.)

    In this context, I don't think classing Trump and Johnson as the same is terribly fair. Trump is quite a lot worse than Johnson on race. I can see it being reasonable to vote Johnson as the lesser of two weevils, but less reasonable to vote Trump.
  • I see myself as more of a Social Justice Ranger...
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Alan Cresswell re deliberate ambiguity

    True. Respect the Ship's crew (Commandment 6) is a decent standard to apply to all Shipmates. But when Shipmates are acting as Hosts or Admin and give rulings, that introduces a different dimension. The phrase "for their official actions" is tucked neatly into C6.

    If I post as a Shipmate, get the wrong side of a Hostly ruling AND ignore it, then I break Commandment 6 and deserve the equivalent of the cat o nine tails. Hasn't happened. Yet!
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.

    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.
    Well, bless your heart.

    :worried: *shots fired*

    Is this sort of language allowed outside hell?

    The sniping was mutual and didn't cross into personal attack, though I did watch to see if that would be the next step.

    "Bless your heart" is definitely allowed outside Hell.

    Ruth, Styx Host
  • This may be a tangent...

    In WWII did brits say they hated the Germans and vice versa? (<- geniuine question!)
    And yet what they actually hated was the situation and the bombs ravaging their cities? I thought people in both countries were just trying as best they could to protect their families, friends and communities and get on with day-to-day life as best as possible. Obviously with others being swept up in more direct action.
    Hating the situation does not seem to warrant hating a particular group affected by it based on where they were born.
    To me, regardless of whether or not it’s racism, it just doesn’t make sense.

    ...yeah, tangent. (Fancied my tuppence)
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Bishop George Bell got it in the neck from some people before the war for saying the Nazis were bad, and then got it in the neck from the same people during the war for saying the Germans weren't all bad.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    This may be a tangent...

    In WWII did brits say they hated the Germans and vice versa? (<- geniuine question!)
    Though the sentiment has died down quite a bit, there are still echoes of it.
    I thought people in both countries were just trying as best they could to protect their families, friends and communities and get on with day-to-day life as best as possible.
    In purely political conflicts, this is still simplistic, but IMO closer to possible. In wars where there is genocide...maybe not so easy to look at it like this.
    Hating the situation does not seem to warrant hating a particular group affected by it based on where they were born.
    The famous football games between the trenches is an example of not hating the people one is fighting. Still a little simplistic, though.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    …Well, bless your heart.

    :worried: *shots fired*

    Is this sort of language allowed outside hell?

    The sniping was mutual and didn't cross into personal attack, though I did watch to see if that would be the next step.

    "Bless your heart" is definitely allowed outside Hell.

    Ruth, Styx Host
    Sometimes its literal meaning even applies.


  • LaudableLaudable Shipmate
    Replying to not entirely me:

    I was four years old when WWII began.

    When the Japanese bombed Darwin in February 1942, my paternal grandfather, his two sons, and his five sons-in-law enlisted in the Australian Army.

    My grandfather had served in the Royal Field Artillery in the Boer War, and he was sent to Murchison in central Victoria as a guard at the POW camp, which housed German and Italians, who were generally well pleased to be out of the war. Among the prisoners were survivors from the German cruiser Kormoran which had sunk HMAS Sydney off the coast of Western Australia. Most of the 399 men from Kormoran were saved, but all of the 645 from the Sydney were lost. Some of the German prisoners built this monument to 'Unseren gefallenen kameraden' [Our fallen comrades]. It still stands where almost every other trace of the camp has vanished.

    By contrast the Japanese were loathed. I was seven and a half years old when we learned the fate of the New Guinea Martyrs [f.d. 2 September]. Our parish has had an association with the New Guinea Mission from its inception in the 1890s: its members were 'our' missionaries. This particular barbarism, and thereafter the repeated accounts of Japanese atrocities meant that while VE Day was celebrated, Australia was wild with joy on VJ Day. We danced in the streets. I can remember being taken to a performance of The Mikado at His Majesty's Theatre where KoKo appeared with the Australian flag and the Union Jack tucked into his obi.

  • Ruth wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I wonder how many Ship'ites are struggling with a little bit of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
    I’m not struggling with that in the least. I do wonder - every time I see the title you affixed to this thread and again every time I read one of your posts - how an intelligent person with such a high opinion of himself can consistently add apostrophes where they don’t belong and omit them where they do. There’s surely some cognitive dissonance right there on your part.

    Thanks for the grammar/spelling lesson. Unfortunately I was too busy working on my paper delivery route when the English lesson at school covered the use of the apostrophe.

    It's helpful when people consider it more important to improve my writing skills than engaging with the debate. Thank you.
    Well, bless your heart.

    :worried: *shots fired*

    Is this sort of language allowed outside hell?

    The sniping was mutual and didn't cross into personal attack, though I did watch to see if that would be the next step.

    "Bless your heart" is definitely allowed outside Hell.

    Ruth, Styx Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    …Well, bless your heart.

    :worried: *shots fired*

    Is this sort of language allowed outside hell?

    The sniping was mutual and didn't cross into personal attack, though I did watch to see if that would be the next step.

    "Bless your heart" is definitely allowed outside Hell.

    Ruth, Styx Host
    Sometimes its literal meaning even applies.


    I should have been clearer that I was not being entirely serious, knowing the ambiguity in tone that can accompany that particular phrase.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    Replying to not entirely me:

    I was four years old when WWII began.

    When the Japanese bombed Darwin in February 1942, my paternal grandfather, his two sons, and his five sons-in-law enlisted in the Australian Army.

    My grandfather had served in the Royal Field Artillery in the Boer War, and he was sent to Murchison in central Victoria as a guard at the POW camp, which housed German and Italians, who were generally well pleased to be out of the war. Among the prisoners were survivors from the German cruiser Kormoran which had sunk HMAS Sydney off the coast of Western Australia. Most of the 399 men from Kormoran were saved, but all of the 645 from the Sydney were lost. Some of the German prisoners built this monument to 'Unseren gefallenen kameraden' [Our fallen comrades]. It still stands where almost every other trace of the camp has vanished.

    By contrast the Japanese were loathed. I was seven and a half years old when we learned the fate of the New Guinea Martyrs [f.d. 2 September]. Our parish has had an association with the New Guinea Mission from its inception in the 1890s: its members were 'our' missionaries. This particular barbarism, and thereafter the repeated accounts of Japanese atrocities meant that while VE Day was celebrated, Australia was wild with joy on VJ Day. We danced in the streets. I can remember being taken to a performance of The Mikado at His Majesty's Theatre where KoKo appeared with the Australian flag and the Union Jack tucked into his obi.

    The commemoration of the Martyrs' Day is shared around the non-Sydney parishes in Sydney. Last year was at Burwood (where we were treated to an excellent lunch after). Neither of us can remember where this year's is to be held.
  • In answer to the OP on the other thread, I don't believe the Ship does actually want any right-of-centre contributors. They might claim they want to hear reasoned debate from both sides but that isn't really the case.

    I think this is your problem - you make such allegations, without ever substantiating them. There are politically right contributors - I know, I keep meeting them.

    We (the ship, that is the people who contribute) have no problems with disagreement from any political position. The problem (it seems to me at least) is that the political right is losing the arguments. Both in public and on here.

    At least in public, they win the media battle, but lose the arguments.
  • Laudable wrote: »
    Replying to not entirely me:

    I was four years old when WWII began.

    When the Japanese bombed Darwin in February 1942, my paternal grandfather, his two sons, and his five sons-in-law enlisted in the Australian Army.

    My grandfather had served in the Royal Field Artillery in the Boer War, and he was sent to Murchison in central Victoria as a guard at the POW camp, which housed German and Italians, who were generally well pleased to be out of the war. Among the prisoners were survivors from the German cruiser Kormoran which had sunk HMAS Sydney off the coast of Western Australia. Most of the 399 men from Kormoran were saved, but all of the 645 from the Sydney were lost. Some of the German prisoners built this monument to 'Unseren gefallenen kameraden' [Our fallen comrades]. It still stands where almost every other trace of the camp has vanished.

    By contrast the Japanese were loathed. I was seven and a half years old when we learned the fate of the New Guinea Martyrs [f.d. 2 September]. Our parish has had an association with the New Guinea Mission from its inception in the 1890s: its members were 'our' missionaries. This particular barbarism, and thereafter the repeated accounts of Japanese atrocities meant that while VE Day was celebrated, Australia was wild with joy on VJ Day. We danced in the streets. I can remember being taken to a performance of The Mikado at His Majesty's Theatre where KoKo appeared with the Australian flag and the Union Jack tucked into his obi.

    Thank you for taking the time to share this.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    Laudable wrote: »
    By contrast the Japanese were loathed. I was seven and a half years old when we learned the fate of the New Guinea Martyrs [f.d. 2 September].

    I have a friend whose father survived a Japanese POW camp. It is, I think, well known that POWs in Japan were not treated well. As a result, she has to this day some difficulty interacting with Japanese people, and wouldn't dream of visiting Japan, because she can't get over the treatment her father received at the hands of the Japanese. She knows it's a mostly irrational prejudice, and she does her best with it, but hasn't managed to defeat it completely.

    Her father, while he was still living, had completely forgiven the Japanese for his treatment, but his daughter couldn't.
  • MrMandid wrote: »
    You know a toss up between voting for a political party that has BAME people in high leadership positions and a leader that has made a few dodgy comments V a political party lead by someone who sympathised with terrorists, took money from a vile and repressive regime and whose party (along with the BNP) had been investigated by the EHRC commission.

    You mean this chap sympathising with terrorists?

    https://twitter.com/josssheldon/status/869920823171178496

  • How many civilians burned to death in Dresden ?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    Replying to not entirely me:

    I was four years old when WWII began.

    When the Japanese bombed Darwin in February 1942, my paternal grandfather, his two sons, and his five sons-in-law enlisted in the Australian Army.

    My grandfather had served in the Royal Field Artillery in the Boer War, and he was sent to Murchison in central Victoria as a guard at the POW camp, which housed German and Italians, who were generally well pleased to be out of the war. Among the prisoners were survivors from the German cruiser Kormoran which had sunk HMAS Sydney off the coast of Western Australia. Most of the 399 men from Kormoran were saved, but all of the 645 from the Sydney were lost. Some of the German prisoners built this monument to 'Unseren gefallenen kameraden' [Our fallen comrades]. It still stands where almost every other trace of the camp has vanished.

    By contrast the Japanese were loathed. I was seven and a half years old when we learned the fate of the New Guinea Martyrs [f.d. 2 September]. Our parish has had an association with the New Guinea Mission from its inception in the 1890s: its members were 'our' missionaries. This particular barbarism, and thereafter the repeated accounts of Japanese atrocities meant that while VE Day was celebrated, Australia was wild with joy on VJ Day. We danced in the streets. I can remember being taken to a performance of The Mikado at His Majesty's Theatre where KoKo appeared with the Australian flag and the Union Jack tucked into his obi.
    Yeah, but...
  • How many civilians burned to death in Dresden ?

    Approximately the same number of fucks that I couldn't give.

    If they bomb our civilians, theirs get some back with interest.

    Oh if it were so today.
This discussion has been closed.