Thrashing Out The Issues
Time for an open thread, I think. But first,
Yes, let’s squeeze in another visit to the Guardian‘s Dining Across the Divide series, in which “strangers from across the divide” – albeit strangers with, very often, eerily similar opinions and a common choice of newspaper – “discuss the divisive issues of our time” and attempt to “bridge their political differences.” Should any significant differences actually materialise.
Yes, a series in which the entire breadth of conceivable political thought – as imagined by the Guardian‘s intellectual powerhouse Zoe Williams – is given an airing. And where left-leaning teachers, left-leaning writers and left-leaning university administrators discuss just how awful and stupid those non-leftwing people are, and whether Net Zero is super-imperative or just really, really important.
A series in which totally random Guardian readers – sorry, totally random members of the public – encounter “the opposite point of view,” while chewing on kale and butternut squash. Except that they both vote Green and are named Tamsin and Matilda.
This week, the clashing titans are BJ, a vegan and Lib Dem-voting writer, and Toby, a Labour-voting student now enthused by the Greens.
As you’d imagine, there’s much laughter and gaiety:
“I don’t see there’s any debate,” says Toby.
It’s all going terribly well, this debate thing.
Sadly, details of any clashing are for the most part left to the imagination. Filthy details are few and far between. Though BJ is slightly more concerned by exactness of terminology, and by antisemitism, of which both disapprove.
Says BJ,
I know. It’s just one blow after another.
To which, Toby replies,
At which point, I could just leave this here.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And…
Well, we’ll be here all day. And we must push on.
And so, during dessert:
Again, it’s all clash, clash, clash. Whether either participant is married or in some way entangled is, alas, not divulged.
And in a final, shocking twist:
Do take a moment to recover from all that spirited thrusting.
Previously in this bare-knuckle arena of Guardian debate:
Or, in effect, to themselves.
As commenter Rafi quipped following the above,
‘I think Trump is Hitler but in a slightly different way.’
THE DIVIDE!
Well, indeed. On poking through the series, of the three Conservative voters I could find, two were very soft Conservative, in the sense of actually voting for Labour, and the token Reform voter was oddly steeped in the Guardian tongue, showing great enthusiasm for “wealth taxes,” and disliking Mrs Thatcher.
This seems to be a common pattern – lefties and, well, almost lefties bonding over their dislike of Reform or Mr Trump. There’s very little substance to be had. It’s chiefly leftist boilerplate with some occasional and oddly flaccid pushback. Hardly representative of rebuttals one might offer. And not exactly capturing the tensions of our time.
Update, via the comments:
EmC quotes this,
And adds, not unfairly,
Quite.
Among the many miracles conjured into being by the Green Party in Brighton were numerous, long strikes interrupting basic services; residents having to wade through mountains of uncollected garbage for weeks on end; subsequent invasions by rats; plans to abolish car use in the city; and – despite the party’s ecological mania – the lowest recycling rates in the country.
Not to mention the endless manufactured congestion and astronomical parking fees, due to the council’s hostility to car ownership; the loss of tourism revenue as a direct result of these policies; countless failures to maintain simple infrastructure; and pavements overgrown with weeds to a degree that endangered the elderly and called to mind some dystopian science fiction.
For those unfamiliar with the farce in question, long-time Brighton resident Julie Burchill conveyed something of its scope and flavour:
And what every voter wants is a city councillor laughing at their frustration when trying to do formerly simple things. A frustration entirely the fault of said councillor’s own party and their bizarre policies. In this case, a policy based on a belief that when people go to the local dump – sorry, recycling centre – they do so by bicycle.
Readers are welcome to picture Brighton residents making three-mile journeys by pedal bike with old fridges and unwanted microwaves strapped to their backs.
Oh yes, I almost forgot. Open thread. Share ye links and bicker, baby.
If you’d like to help keep this blog here, there are tip-jar buttons below.
Is he new to this planet?
It is quite dizzying to think that there are people who regard the Green Party with affection, as something other than a nesting site for the psychologically marginal.
The series is presented as if it were bold, daring, taking risks. But the overall effect is of endlessly restating some assumed and quite narrow consensus, in which the underlying assumptions – almost always left of centre assumptions – are shielded from any substantive scrutiny. Details of any meaningful disagreement, assuming any occurred, are very rare indeed, practically non-existent.
There’s nothing to get hold of.
And so, we get Tamsin (Green/Labour) and Matilda (Green-curious) telling each other how lovely and totally-not-racist they are, and differing only slightly – and in ways oddly undisclosed – on the exact level of third-world swamping our country should be happy to endure. Because “we are an island of immigrants.”
The series’ only merit is as an unwitting snapshot of the Guardian‘s readership.
If you don’t live a good life, and earn the punishment of Hell, it will be an eternal production of Sartre’s No Exit with you and these two as the cast.
Heh.
No doubt muchly due to mainstream news being unable to tell shit from shinola.
Unwilling, not unable.
It reminded me of the time, some years ago, when the Today programme, one of the BBC’s flagship institutions, gave Laurie Penny half an hour of airtime to read at length from her own blog and make endless, often bewildering pronouncements, essentially unchallenged, in a broadcast pitched as a “fresh, provocative and fiery debate.”
Quite how one can have a debate with no contrary point of view, and no prospect of factual correction, remains something of a mystery. (Naturally, the Guardian, with which the Today programme is easily confused, described this uncontested airing of far-left boilerplate and random, disjointed sentences as “the best argument for the licence fee yet put forward.”)
And which also, needless to say, captures something of the infernal.
*Everyone in Brighton enters the chat*
Heh. Quite. I’d somehow forgotten about that. As long-time Brighton resident Julie Burchill put it,
And what every voter wants is a city councillor laughing at their frustration when trying to do formerly simple things. A frustration entirely the fault of her own party’s bizarre policies. In this case, a policy based on a belief that when people go to the local dump – sorry, recycling centre – they do so by bicycle.
Readers are welcome to picture Brighton residents making three-mile journeys by pedal bike with old fridges and unwanted microwaves strapped to their backs.
[ Post updated. ]
I understand this from the Islamist side of the Green party: They get support for the policies that benefit them, while the spread of LGBTetc doesn’t affect them as they’ll continue policing it heavily within their own communities. They don’t care if the kaffir are ruined by it; in fact, that’s a benefit. They sacrifice no principles.
But the LGBTetc side makes less sense. You could argue that they benefit in the same way (support for their stuff, while what muslims do won’t affect them), but for them it involves betraying every principle they claim to hold. Maybe the answer is that, like all the Left, they don’t really have any principles?
Pushing the envelope.
[ Post updated again. ]
[ And updated a third time. ]
Crikey, I’m bashing this stuff out today. Better throw some lunch together.
Did she just tell them what to do with those . . . scented . . . candles?
The general political divide appears to be:
Conservatives: get things done, not overly concerned about ethics
Liberals: get some things done, but ethical concerns prevent them from some
Progressives: get nothing done, block those who do, congratulate themselves for being ethical above all.
Given a trolley problem, Conservatives and Liberals will debate the ethics of it, and ultimately make a decision that the other side will disagree with, and implement it.
Progressives will look at a trolley problem, refuse to make a decision, wait until a Liberal or Conservative deals with it, then demand that they be prosecuted for the resulting deaths (either by action or inaction), and pride themselves for their moral purity.
The OG Progressives were insufferable and useless, but at least they stayed out of the way so productive people could get things done. Now, they’re obstacles.
How can we best deal with this? Well, as a family member in the military used to put it, “obstacles are for killing”.
He’s not wrong.
Technically.
Women can increase their bra sizes with minds.
They just can’t increase the size of what goes in the bra with minds.
If anyone’s exerting some uncanny telekinetic influence on the ladies’ bras, or on the contents therein, I’m upping the price of the drinks.
To clarify, women can choose to buy bigger bras.
The telekinesis is reserved to snaffling drinks.
[ Sets up elaborate camera system to monitor any untoward bosom-heaving. ]
Bookmark. I have named her Amanda.
She’s looks starved, poor mite. Chuck her some chicken scraps.
Pretty sure she ate a baby fawn last week. A guy around the bend used to keep chickens. Either he has taken them elsewhere or he doesn’t keep chickens anymore. For some reason.
There’s only so much meat on a baby fawn, you heartless monster.
Soon David will be able to once again afford to employ henchlesbians.
Make yourself useful. Help me set up this enormous bosom scanner.
To be clear, it’s the scanner that’s enormous.
It also throws off a lot of heat.
[ Wheels in enormous, bafflingly complicated apparatus. Tubes wobble, valves flicker. ]
Another Dr. Who episode?
Hey, I never got to do boob jokes as a sweaty adolescent. It’s all new to me.
Cut me some slack.
I see, easier in this dive to get a mammogram than with the NHS. Good info for the ladies of Blighty, but is that a scanner for enormous bosoms, or just a large machine?
And in where-we-are-at-this-moment-in-time news.
You’re certainly keeping well abreast of things.
Three days ago?
As you can see, I pay very close attention to what goes on here.
David, if you don’t nip it, things could get out of hand.
At least we’ll always have the mammaries.
Mistakenly? Unlikely. Someone concocted that lie in order to bully the museum. And the people running the museum were happy to go along with the lie.
Because I can, that’s why.
And because I can.
via dicentra:
The Religion of Peace (TM):
I read about this a year or more ago. Nasty. But far from unprecedented in Islam.
Don’t make me bust out laughing.
Will this turn into a booby thread?
.
..
…
….
…..
……
Pushing the envelope…
This is actually a real, practically ancient research technique. NASA would photograph supersonic planes in flight, from the ground or air, with any sort of bright contrasty background. The refractions caused by the shock waves are then visible, allowing their shape, intensity, and points of origin to be observed. Goes back to the mid-50s I think.
You wouldn’t believe what goes out the door with the blazing coats.