|
U-Know! Forum » CS Gas at Peaceful Protest |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 12:21
|
||
|
Keith and Dave: everybody on this board disagrees with everyone else about something. The point of this board is to provide news and discussion for a certain loose aggregation of radical political perspectives. That discussion means people *should* disagree with each other, as well as provide ideas and facts that support a given position. As many of us, myself included, have shown uncountable times here, we're quite prepared to disagree and be disagreed with as long as it's done intelligently and respectfully. Everybody believes in ideas that don't stand up and it is the job of political friends to test one another's ideas and so disabuse ourselves of the stuff that doesn't make sense. I did not at any point criticise Geoffrey for having a different viewpoint, so your charge is an inflammatory insult. My first reply to Geoffrey took him to task for what I understood his position to be. He told me I'd partially misunderstood him, which I accepted and apologised for in a friendly manner. I ended with a (hopefully) humorous football analogy as to why official complaints against the police are almost always a waste of time. (In a nutshell, the police investigate themselves most of the time, and the IPCC is too closely aligned with the police for the rare occasion when it does the work itself). He replied saying that people who see the police behave unacceptably or unlawfully should make a complaint. This is not a refutation of what I'd said but a reiteration of a point I'd just rebutted, as if I hadn't responded at all. So I gave a more detailed explanation of my position with more supporting evidence. I don't see anywhere up to that point where I had been at all insulting or trying to shut down debate. He replied with a sarcastic remark that he had understood my point, which means his reiteration had been trolling, so I said so. I did criticise him for his contradictory position of posting as someone who hasn't understood what has been said yet claiming to have understood it, and for deflecting the blame for the trolling on to those who pick him up on it. I stand by that.
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 12:24
|
||
Thanks Drew. I don't have a problem with different viewpoints, even if they are completely opposed to mine. It's the personal insults and nastiness that often happens here that is a shame.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 12:26
|
||
|
keith a wrote: drewbhoy wrote: but don't give him a slagging for having a different viewpoint. That's it in a nutshell for me, Drew. But it works both ways. And some people here talk to him like he's shit. Absolutely Keith. We don't always agree, but we get on fine. That's the way the world is, or should be. I'm losing interest in posting here at all anymore.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 13:03
|
||
|
head-first wrote: If this is what a thread about peaceful protest looks like, let's never discuss violence and confrontation! :o) Tell me about it.... (weary smile)
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 13:09
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: keith a wrote: drewbhoy wrote: but don't give him a slagging for having a different viewpoint. That's it in a nutshell for me, Drew. But it works both ways. And some people here talk to him like he's shit. Absolutely Keith. We don't always agree, but we get on fine. That's the way the world is, or should be. I'm losing interest in posting here at all anymore. I seldom post here and from his opening response I got the feeling that that Grufty was lying in wait for me for trespassing on his property!
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Feb 13, 2011, 13:31
Feb 13, 2011, 13:27
|
||
|
I've been coming to HH for just over a year now, and don't know a lot of the personal politics/history etc, and I don't blog anywhere else at all. I know that it's easy to misunderstand someone, and vice versa, and it should hopefully be equally easy to amicably sort out, but what I can't fathom on any of the sites here is trolling ( obviously I'm not referring to you, or Grufty etc, I'm just generalising here). What does someone get from going somewhere and enjoying starting a ruck or winding people up ? For example, I could never be bothered/ arsed to hang around the Spectator, talking about political issues from a left wing perspective, purely to wind them up and get personally insulting. What on earth would be the bloody point ? I'd seriously wonder about myself. It beats me, that's for sure.
|
|||
head-first 214 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 13:38
|
||
By the way, this is well off-topic, but your avatar is a really great album!
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Feb 13, 2011, 13:42
Feb 13, 2011, 13:42
|
||
|
Alice Coltrane is just magnificent, isn't she ? I was playing it earlier and I've got Pharoah Sanders' 'Karma' on the go at the moment. :-)
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 13:42
|
||
|
Thank you for taking the time to reply. But...there seems to be a view here that he resorts to sarcasm and the opposites don't. I don't think any of us are blameless in this respect - I've certainly posted comments that I would later have watered down. Conversely, I rather wish I'd been more on the nose the other night. But to get back to the issue in question - I'm rather at a loss at why everything in that article is taken at face value as if he's the new messiah. If an ex-Commissioner wrote an article in The Guardian would you really not question anything he had to say? And that blinkered attitude here rather pisses me off. I questioned whether the authors background was suitable for the post in question, but the reply I got completely ignored that aspect by Grufty before things resorted to a catfight. I also said "I don't think he can have it both ways when he says "these statistics disclose a complaints system that fails to identify or punish the minority who abuse their office, and it serves the decent majority ill."", etc. Again this part was ignored in the catfight! I also felt that the author of that article contradicted himself. His remark that the public can't call on the IPCC but that "Police officers are regular visitors to the IPCC, and staff make frequent visits to police professional standards (complaints handling) departments to discuss cases" makes the whole thing sound rather sinister IMO, whereas the reality of it is that this would be the officers leading the investigation not the rank and file, or those subject of the complaint. Later he says "I handled the West Midlands, which has the second largest police force in the country, yet the IPCC has no office in the region, employs virtually no one from there and, since I left, has no commissioner resident in the region" which surely reinforces what I'm saying. I guess what I'm saying is that the article is one persons view and it sounds like he has an agenda.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 13, 2011, 13:55
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: For example, I could never be bothered/ arsed to hang around the Spectator, talking about political issues from a left wing perspective, purely to wind them up and get personally insulting. What on earth would be the bloody point ? I'd seriously wonder about myself. And yet it's the nature of a serious proportion of message boards and comments the world over. It's clear that certain subjects on the Guardian site have co-ordinated comment attacks from those whose view opposes the general one that the articles and readership have. It's easier to write criticism and insults than to write credible praise or do the work to engage and consider an argument. I know of a band whose music is really beautiful and essentially non-political, yet they've actually had to suspend message board use on several occasions because it gets too heated. I don't like it here when people resort to barbed sarcasm and insults (even though I've done it myself), and for the most part we can appeal to people's better nature here. Explaining that chest-beating and point scoring doesn't actually make anyone agree with you - quite the opposite - makes someone choose which one they'd rather have and 99 time out of a hundred folks here do re-engage. No matter what their opinion pretty much everyone who's ever posted here has reasons for their position and is smart enough to express them intelligently, and wants that position to be considered. I do think we should pick one another up in a friendly and respectful way on inflammatory things as they start - this thread, which is by no means the worst ever, shows what happens when we don't.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
