@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
You’re still not answering the question. Exactly how is the social fabric actually harmed? It’s simply not enough to say the social fabric is harmed; if there is real harm, then it shouldn’t be difficult to describe that real harm and its effects.
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
We're not allowed to talk about such things here.
@WhimsicalChristian You have been cut some slack because you are new here, but this kind of thing must stop. If you wish to discuss moderation policies on the Ship of Fools, craft an appropriate OP and post it in Styx. Do not post passive aggressive asides about it in Purgatory.
For clarity, we do not tolerate trolling, racism, sexism ableism, homophobia or transphobia - these are violations of our 1st commandment. We do not tolerate these on any of our forums, and patterns of posts that indicate this, even when dressed up as dog whistles or “just asking a question” will be called as c1 violations and may result in suspension of posting privileges or ultimately banning.
We also see and understand brinksmanship, wherein a poster constantly posts just to the side of where they think the line is, in order to gradually shift the social norm / ship policy - rather than making their case in Styx. We also consider this jerkish behaviour.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sending your child to private school while also working to improve the state sector. I don't see why that should be seen as strange or hypocritical. I don't personally think that private schools are inherently bad, I think the problem comes from privately educated people being disproportionately favoured by certain areas of society. The solution is to improve state schools to the same level, especially in access to the arts.
There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sending your child to private school while also working to improve the state sector. I don't see why that should be seen as strange or hypocritical. I don't personally think that private schools are inherently bad, I think the problem comes from privately educated people being disproportionately favoured by certain areas of society. The solution is to improve state schools to the same level, especially in access to the arts.
There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.
Can you provide some examples of that happening? I've never heard anyone suggest that rich people should be forced into sending their children to state school.
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
Tom Holland - aka Spider-Man - has said that he can't wait to have children so that he can be a stay-at-home dad. Obviously he has a lot more wealth than the average man, but I thought it was heartening to see a young man be so enthusiastic about doing his share of childcare.
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
But may I please just say my comment about "LOL, good luck with that" was taken completely the wrong way? I completely approve of men assisting with chores and childrearing. It's just that, at least in Australia, women still bear the majority brunt of it.
I will say no more.
Of course, all the blame there is on others taking the comment “completely the wrong way,” without any acknowledgment that the comment may have been poorly worded and susceptible to being taken the way it actually was taken.
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
Indeed they don't and I've had robust discussions with my uncle on Brexit, racism and all sorts of other issues without calling him names.
I've told he's been talking bollocks at times but that's a comment on what he says not an ad hominem attack.
You'd be the first to complain if a right-winger used offensive language towards someone on the left but somehow it's alright for leftwingers to use it against people on the right.
Besides it was counterproductive. Calling him a 'c**t' only reinforced his view that the left he used to support has moved away from him. He used to be a very lefty shop-steward.
Racism on the left has a long history, him having previously been very left-wing does not absolve him of his racism.
I didn't say it did.
He doesn't think he's racist but then neither do a lot of racists.
'I'm not racist but ...'
And yes, he can act like a jersey at times. I've no idea why he was so against the Aboriginal Indigenous Voice thing that he felt constrained to go out campaigning against it rather than simply voting against it quietly as is his right and prerogative if he didn't agree with it.
He insisted that plenty of indigenous people were also against it, which may well have been the case, First Nation people are no more homogenous than anyone else.
From what I can gather there were a whole range of views on both sides.
My impression was that he was against it because he's 'that way out' as they say in Yorkshire and like many converts from one position to another can rail against anything and everything that comes from his former political affiliation.
To be fair to him, he does speak highly of individual Labor politicians over there in Australia.
He can act like a jerk at times and that was true when he was a lefty and not the curmudgeonly right-wing reactionary he's become.
No political persuasion is without its jerks.
@Basketactortale it wasn't a First Nations person who called him a 'c**t' but a white activist supporting the Indigenous Voice cause.
Yes, Australians can use language in a way that offends English speakers from elsewhere. I was shocked when I heard young Australiansvof Greek and Italian heritage referring to their own communities as 'w*gs', for instance a term originally applied to them no doubt by Australians of UK heritage when their parents and grandparents first arrived.
We had a discussion about the C-word on these boards a while back. Many US posters find the word highly offensive, some British and Irish Shipmates less so. I'm still one of those who doesn't think it's a mild expletive, and neither does my uncle in Australia.
Anyhow ...
Anyhow @Arethosemyfeet doesn't give a shit so that makes it alright then ...
Anyhow @Arethosemyfeet doesn't give a shit so that makes it alright then ...
I mean, your example of the 'toxic left' was someone yelling an insult at a racist - something you expressed in rather circuitous terms. And if you are going to compare the racism with the insult, I'm not going to take you particularly seriously.
I didn't say it was an example of the 'toxic left'. What I said was that it was counterproductive.
Calling someone a 'c**t' outside a polling station isn't an example of reasoned debate and all it did was reinforce my uncle's view that he held the moral high ground and those who opposed him didn't.
He responded very politely he said.
I'm not comparing the racism with the insult. A majority of Australians voted against the Indigenous Voice initiative including, according to my relatives, some First Nations people.
The onus is on them to say whether that was for racist reasons or otherwise.
I think Reform are intrinsically racist but I don't accost them in the street and call them 'c**ts' when they are out canvassing.
There was a big racist element in the Brexit vote but I didn't accost people outside the polling booth and call them 'c**ts' if they were going to vote Leave.
I did 'lose it' to some extent with a R*f*rm councillor on one occasion - I was no longer on the council at the time - and was accused of 'muttering insults' under my breath.
I did no such thing. I told them exactly to their face what I thought of them but without using 'strong language' and it was in response to what I took to be provocative behaviour on their part.
They went to town on it and played the victim card of course. I was right to be angry but wrong to respond the way I did as their supporters made hay with it.
I don't like my uncle's views but he is democratically entitled to go round handing leaflets out for whatever cause he wishes, however reprehensible we might consider them to be.
He wasn't chanting racist slogans or wearing a T-shirt with an offensive comment on it. He was handing out leaflets opposing the Indigenous Voice initiative in the same way that its supporters were doing.
Mind you, there was that stand-up comic - I forget his name - who quipped during the Brexit debate that it was wrong to think that only racists were going to vote Leave.
Tolerance is a social contract, not a moral principle. The default for the left is that it is offered to all. It's withdrawn when the offer is not reciprocated. The right starts with groups of people they will not tolerate. That's the difference.
Some of us (me!) consider it a moral principle, at least up to a certain point or with regard to various things. The whole “do as you would be done by” thing.
@WhimsicalChristian - So being open and consistent in one's intolerance is a virtue?
That's a new one on me.
FWIW I'm not sure any of this stuff maps neatly into a left/right divide or a party political one.
I've met very illiberal liberals as well as people who are highly conservative on some things but 'progressive' on others.
It does tend to separate along ideological lines but there are fuzzy boundaries on some issues too of course.
I don't think a binary 'the left are all hypocrites while the right are squeaky clean,' works any better than 'the left have halos whereas the right have horns sticking out of their heads.'
It's possible to take a position one way or the other without ad hominems.
But then I'll be accused of 'both-sides-ism.'
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
I completely agree. But the OP was quite clear on the black and white issue of pegs and holes and conservatives. That's what I'm objecting to.
It's a little early in your career here on the Ship to be sub-Hosting like this, and using it to dodge some of us. If any of the questions asked of you, or suggestions made that you haven't answered something adequately (which is true for at least a few of us here) were inappropriate, an actual Host would weigh-in.
You haven't specified anything at all about the harm you insist is ongoing. I'm just gonna say you're taking offense, meaning you're self-harming b/c of your mindset.
I have been reprimanded a large number of times already. I don't wish to be banned.
@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
You’re still not answering the question. Exactly how is the social fabric actually harmed? It’s simply not enough to say the social fabric is harmed; if there is real harm, then it shouldn’t be difficult to describe that real harm and its effects.
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
We're not allowed to talk about such things here.
@WhimsicalChristian You have been cut some slack because you are new here, but this kind of thing must stop. If you wish to discuss moderation policies on the Ship of Fools, craft an appropriate OP and post it in Styx. Do not post passive aggressive asides about it in Purgatory.
For clarity, we do not tolerate trolling, racism, sexism ableism, homophobia or transphobia - these are violations of our 1st commandment. We do not tolerate these on any of our forums, and patterns of posts that indicate this, even when dressed up as dog whistles or “just asking a question” will be called as c1 violations and may result in suspension of posting privileges or ultimately banning.
We also see and understand brinksmanship, wherein a poster constantly posts just to the side of where they think the line is, in order to gradually shift the social norm / ship policy - rather than making their case in Styx. We also consider this jerkish behaviour.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
I'm sorry. I post in order. I didn't see this. I will not say it again.
Can you advise what I should say? Because otherwise it seems I am ignoring people.
@WhimsicalChristian - I've been planked- or suspended rather - in the past and try to play by the rules these days.
FWIW it may help if you used the right boards for the right purposes as per Admin advice.
Also and this isn't a comment on rules and protocols but one of etiquette, if I may be permitted to make one. It may help if you didn't post several messages in succession. I have a tendency to 'double-post' and it's not a good habit to get into.
It can look as if you are trying to 'overwhelm' other posters with rapid fire contributions rather than allowing points to settle and sink in.
I hope I haven't strayed into 'junior hosting' there. I will stand corrected if I have done.
Calling someone a 'c**t' outside a polling station isn't an example of reasoned debate and all it did was reinforce my uncle's view that he held the moral high ground and those who opposed him didn't.
I'm not sure "reasoned debate" does any good against racism. It's not really possible to reason someone out of a position that they didn't arrive at via reason in the first place.
On the other hand, one of the primary conceits of racists is that everyone else (or at least everyone who counts) secretly agrees with them and is just too intimidated by "them" (however defined) to admit it. Public expressions of disapproval are often quite effective at showing them how wrong they are about this. Silence is often interpreted as tacit agreement.
I would agree with that @Crœsos and certainly in the case of my Australian relatives. That isn't to suggest that all Australians are the same.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
There's a difference between a tactical argument for what's effective and a moral argument that you shouldn't ever use insults no matter how much of a shitheel someone is being. I don't use the c-word, out of respect for innocent people who find it offensive, but at the same time find it impossible to get worked up about people being rude to racists. It might not stop them being racists but if enough people did it that might at least get us back to the point where racists STFU about it. Make Racists Afraid Again, as I have seen posted elsewhere.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
If your words and actions provoke a steady stream of insults, verbal abuse, and contempt from others and you consider this as proof that you're in the right, I'm not sure there's anything that would convince you otherwise. Humans are social animals and will typically react to social pressures.
I would agree with that @Crœsos and certainly in the case of my Australian relatives. That isn't to suggest that all Australians are the same.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
There's a difference between a tactical argument for what's effective and a moral argument that you shouldn't ever use insults no matter how much of a shitheel someone is being. I don't use the c-word, out of respect for innocent people who find it offensive, but at the same time find it impossible to get worked up about people being rude to racists. It might not stop them being racists but if enough people did it that might at least get us back to the point where racists STFU about it. Make Racists Afraid Again, as I have seen posted elsewhere.
I'm not saying that it's ever wrong to use insults.
Our Lord did it.
'Go tell that fox ...' (Luke 13;32)
Speaking truth to power.
I'm not 'worked up' about people being rude to my Australian uncle. I bit my lip most of the time I was there as they were putting me up - and putting up with me - and being very hospitable. I did tell him he was talking bollocks on two occasions but I didn't call him names.
Play the ball, not the man.
Besides, if we are going to take the Gospel seriously then as well as calling out racism in others - and rightly so, we should also weed out racist attitudes within ourselves. As I'm sure we are doing.
@Crœsos sure and I don't think my uncle will change his spots, and the incident was a one-off. He would deny his position was racist of course and would claim not to be racist at all despite a whopping big blindspot in terms of his comments and attitudes.
No amount of swearing at him is going to socialise him into behaving differently.
FWIW I was impressed by a liberal couple who are friends with my relatives. They listen politely and use reasoned arguments to counter his rants. They know darn well it's not going to change his mind but equally shouting and swearing at him isn't going to work.
Ok, I know that conversations over a long boozy lunch are different to a confrontation outside a polling booth but are you seriously suggesting that swearing and shouting at people is going to win them over to whatever position we might prefer them to adopt?
A Labour activist I know in a largely leafy historic town told me how they drummed it into their canvassers not to shout or get cross with people on the doors, partly because that's what many Conservatives would expect them to do and partly because that's what some of the young earnest canvassers were doing.
They urged everyone to be on their best behaviour when door-knocking in a particularly well-heeled and predominantly Tory part of town.
The canvassers did as they were told and responded politely despite hearing views they found unpalatable.
My friend knocked one door and after there was no answer posted the Labour Party leaflet through the letterbox.
As she and her companion walked away the door opened and a rather cross looking old lady called out after them, waving the leaflet above her head.
'Did you you post this? Did you post this?!'
My friend replied that they had and prepared to face a tirade.
'Good on you!' the old lady cried. 'It's about time someone stuck it to the Tories! Stuff the Tories! Bloody Conservatives ...' etc.
@WhimsicalChristian - I've been planked- or suspended rather - in the past and try to play by the rules these days.
FWIW it may help if you used the right boards for the right purposes as per Admin advice.
Also and this isn't a comment on rules and protocols but one of etiquette, if I may be permitted to make one. It may help if you didn't post several messages in succession. I have a tendency to 'double-post' and it's not a good habit to get into.
It can look as if you are trying to 'overwhelm' other posters with rapid fire contributions rather than allowing points to settle and sink in.
I hope I haven't strayed into 'junior hosting' there. I will stand corrected if I have done.
Alas, I have other responsibilities during the day. I have only limited time on the ship so I try respond when I can. Can't help it if it's all in one go.
Comments
@WhimsicalChristian You have been cut some slack because you are new here, but this kind of thing must stop. If you wish to discuss moderation policies on the Ship of Fools, craft an appropriate OP and post it in Styx. Do not post passive aggressive asides about it in Purgatory.
For clarity, we do not tolerate trolling, racism, sexism ableism, homophobia or transphobia - these are violations of our 1st commandment. We do not tolerate these on any of our forums, and patterns of posts that indicate this, even when dressed up as dog whistles or “just asking a question” will be called as c1 violations and may result in suspension of posting privileges or ultimately banning.
We also see and understand brinksmanship, wherein a poster constantly posts just to the side of where they think the line is, in order to gradually shift the social norm / ship policy - rather than making their case in Styx. We also consider this jerkish behaviour.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.
Can you provide some examples of that happening? I've never heard anyone suggest that rich people should be forced into sending their children to state school.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
For example, you're allowed to openly laugh at the idea of fathers putting in more time doing child care or domestic chores or say that such defiance of traditional gender roles is actually harmful to others, but you don't get to dictate how other people react to your claims. Other folks are "allowed" to express their disagreement with you, even in highly unflattering terms.
Wait a sec....WC went after stay at home dads?
How intriguing.
Of course, all the blame there is on others taking the comment “completely the wrong way,” without any acknowledgment that the comment may have been poorly worded and susceptible to being taken the way it actually was taken.
I didn't say it did.
He doesn't think he's racist but then neither do a lot of racists.
'I'm not racist but ...'
And yes, he can act like a jersey at times. I've no idea why he was so against the Aboriginal Indigenous Voice thing that he felt constrained to go out campaigning against it rather than simply voting against it quietly as is his right and prerogative if he didn't agree with it.
He insisted that plenty of indigenous people were also against it, which may well have been the case, First Nation people are no more homogenous than anyone else.
From what I can gather there were a whole range of views on both sides.
My impression was that he was against it because he's 'that way out' as they say in Yorkshire and like many converts from one position to another can rail against anything and everything that comes from his former political affiliation.
To be fair to him, he does speak highly of individual Labor politicians over there in Australia.
He can act like a jerk at times and that was true when he was a lefty and not the curmudgeonly right-wing reactionary he's become.
No political persuasion is without its jerks.
@Basketactortale it wasn't a First Nations person who called him a 'c**t' but a white activist supporting the Indigenous Voice cause.
Yes, Australians can use language in a way that offends English speakers from elsewhere. I was shocked when I heard young Australiansvof Greek and Italian heritage referring to their own communities as 'w*gs', for instance a term originally applied to them no doubt by Australians of UK heritage when their parents and grandparents first arrived.
We had a discussion about the C-word on these boards a while back. Many US posters find the word highly offensive, some British and Irish Shipmates less so. I'm still one of those who doesn't think it's a mild expletive, and neither does my uncle in Australia.
Anyhow ...
Anyhow @Arethosemyfeet doesn't give a shit so that makes it alright then ...
I meant 'jerk' of course.
Perhaps 'jersey' can enter the lexicon of potentially offensive words.
I mean, your example of the 'toxic left' was someone yelling an insult at a racist - something you expressed in rather circuitous terms. And if you are going to compare the racism with the insult, I'm not going to take you particularly seriously.
Calling someone a 'c**t' outside a polling station isn't an example of reasoned debate and all it did was reinforce my uncle's view that he held the moral high ground and those who opposed him didn't.
He responded very politely he said.
I'm not comparing the racism with the insult. A majority of Australians voted against the Indigenous Voice initiative including, according to my relatives, some First Nations people.
The onus is on them to say whether that was for racist reasons or otherwise.
I think Reform are intrinsically racist but I don't accost them in the street and call them 'c**ts' when they are out canvassing.
There was a big racist element in the Brexit vote but I didn't accost people outside the polling booth and call them 'c**ts' if they were going to vote Leave.
I did 'lose it' to some extent with a R*f*rm councillor on one occasion - I was no longer on the council at the time - and was accused of 'muttering insults' under my breath.
I did no such thing. I told them exactly to their face what I thought of them but without using 'strong language' and it was in response to what I took to be provocative behaviour on their part.
They went to town on it and played the victim card of course. I was right to be angry but wrong to respond the way I did as their supporters made hay with it.
I don't like my uncle's views but he is democratically entitled to go round handing leaflets out for whatever cause he wishes, however reprehensible we might consider them to be.
He wasn't chanting racist slogans or wearing a T-shirt with an offensive comment on it. He was handing out leaflets opposing the Indigenous Voice initiative in the same way that its supporters were doing.
That's not a crime.
'C**ts are also supporting it.'
Some of us (me!) consider it a moral principle, at least up to a certain point or with regard to various things. The whole “do as you would be done by” thing.
I completely agree. But the OP was quite clear on the black and white issue of pegs and holes and conservatives. That's what I'm objecting to.
I have been reprimanded a large number of times already. I don't wish to be banned.
I'm sorry. I post in order. I didn't see this. I will not say it again.
Can you advise what I should say? Because otherwise it seems I am ignoring people.
Doublethink, Admin
FWIW it may help if you used the right boards for the right purposes as per Admin advice.
Also and this isn't a comment on rules and protocols but one of etiquette, if I may be permitted to make one. It may help if you didn't post several messages in succession. I have a tendency to 'double-post' and it's not a good habit to get into.
It can look as if you are trying to 'overwhelm' other posters with rapid fire contributions rather than allowing points to settle and sink in.
I hope I haven't strayed into 'junior hosting' there. I will stand corrected if I have done.
I'm not sure "reasoned debate" does any good against racism. It's not really possible to reason someone out of a position that they didn't arrive at via reason in the first place.
On the other hand, one of the primary conceits of racists is that everyone else (or at least everyone who counts) secretly agrees with them and is just too intimidated by "them" (however defined) to admit it. Public expressions of disapproval are often quite effective at showing them how wrong they are about this. Silence is often interpreted as tacit agreement.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
There's a difference between a tactical argument for what's effective and a moral argument that you shouldn't ever use insults no matter how much of a shitheel someone is being. I don't use the c-word, out of respect for innocent people who find it offensive, but at the same time find it impossible to get worked up about people being rude to racists. It might not stop them being racists but if enough people did it that might at least get us back to the point where racists STFU about it. Make Racists Afraid Again, as I have seen posted elsewhere.
If your words and actions provoke a steady stream of insults, verbal abuse, and contempt from others and you consider this as proof that you're in the right, I'm not sure there's anything that would convince you otherwise. Humans are social animals and will typically react to social pressures.
I'm not saying that it's ever wrong to use insults.
Our Lord did it.
'Go tell that fox ...' (Luke 13;32)
Speaking truth to power.
I'm not 'worked up' about people being rude to my Australian uncle. I bit my lip most of the time I was there as they were putting me up - and putting up with me - and being very hospitable. I did tell him he was talking bollocks on two occasions but I didn't call him names.
Play the ball, not the man.
Besides, if we are going to take the Gospel seriously then as well as calling out racism in others - and rightly so, we should also weed out racist attitudes within ourselves. As I'm sure we are doing.
@Crœsos sure and I don't think my uncle will change his spots, and the incident was a one-off. He would deny his position was racist of course and would claim not to be racist at all despite a whopping big blindspot in terms of his comments and attitudes.
No amount of swearing at him is going to socialise him into behaving differently.
FWIW I was impressed by a liberal couple who are friends with my relatives. They listen politely and use reasoned arguments to counter his rants. They know darn well it's not going to change his mind but equally shouting and swearing at him isn't going to work.
Ok, I know that conversations over a long boozy lunch are different to a confrontation outside a polling booth but are you seriously suggesting that swearing and shouting at people is going to win them over to whatever position we might prefer them to adopt?
A Labour activist I know in a largely leafy historic town told me how they drummed it into their canvassers not to shout or get cross with people on the doors, partly because that's what many Conservatives would expect them to do and partly because that's what some of the young earnest canvassers were doing.
They urged everyone to be on their best behaviour when door-knocking in a particularly well-heeled and predominantly Tory part of town.
The canvassers did as they were told and responded politely despite hearing views they found unpalatable.
My friend knocked one door and after there was no answer posted the Labour Party leaflet through the letterbox.
As she and her companion walked away the door opened and a rather cross looking old lady called out after them, waving the leaflet above her head.
'Did you you post this? Did you post this?!'
My friend replied that they had and prepared to face a tirade.
'Good on you!' the old lady cried. 'It's about time someone stuck it to the Tories! Stuff the Tories! Bloody Conservatives ...' etc.
Well, it amused me anyway...
In England, for a long, long time, the basic social contract has been this: the property and assets you have, you and your children can keep.
Alas, I have other responsibilities during the day. I have only limited time on the ship so I try respond when I can. Can't help it if it's all in one go.
I tend to post from my phone in between doing other things. I find though that the most hasty I am the more mistakes I make.