Criticisms of John Pilger?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Is terminology such as this still frequent in british papers? Does it act as salient aspects of debate?
For me such terminology, eg liberal left, neo-liberal, right wing, and so on, says a lot more about the person using these words/phrases than those who they are referring to.
It also seems to me a lazy way of debating, for by using them the outcome to the user's mind is that having pigeon-holed them they have now closed debate with them.
Conspiraloon is another of these such words.
I'd conclude by saying that those with open minds about how this world works avoid such lazy terminology.
Pilger does, does he not? Whereas when i used to pick up the guardian (in particular) or the indie, or come across any of the other papers, such labelling off of people was done on a mass scale. It characterised debate in britain, and is no doubt partly responsible for our acceptance, as a nation, of killers and blatant liars for those we elect to high office.
I have a pretty low opinion of british papers, and the likes of pilger or fisk will always shine through. They get out there to see what's going on in the world, and attempt to help the readers see what they see.
For me such terminology, eg liberal left, neo-liberal, right wing, and so on, says a lot more about the person using these words/phrases than those who they are referring to.
It also seems to me a lazy way of debating, for by using them the outcome to the user's mind is that having pigeon-holed them they have now closed debate with them.
Conspiraloon is another of these such words.
I'd conclude by saying that those with open minds about how this world works avoid such lazy terminology.
Pilger does, does he not? Whereas when i used to pick up the guardian (in particular) or the indie, or come across any of the other papers, such labelling off of people was done on a mass scale. It characterised debate in britain, and is no doubt partly responsible for our acceptance, as a nation, of killers and blatant liars for those we elect to high office.
I have a pretty low opinion of british papers, and the likes of pilger or fisk will always shine through. They get out there to see what's going on in the world, and attempt to help the readers see what they see.
nick1181 said:
I would say they are the people who claim to be against the establishemnt, say they want a redistribution of wealth and power but oppose it in reality..
The kind of people who would hate to have referendums on capital punishment,immigration etc..
The kind of people who look down on the views and aspirations of ordinary people...
The way they operate in left groups....The SWP...The SLP etc etc is shockingly undemocratic....The way they operate in workplaces....Consultation etc is shite....The way they operate in unions is shite....
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
Hmmm, sounds like paranoia to me; those who don't share your 'vision' are automatically labelled the "liberal left".
You've not articulated a great deal here and all you've done is flag up your own prejudices.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Pigeon said:
Special bulletin: Bears use forested areas for lavatorial purposes.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nick1181 said:
Mr Baldwin himself is a self-styled "authoritarian socialist" but protests that in his case "authoritarian" has nothing to do "top down" governance.
Which kind of makes one wonder why he chose to style himself as an "authoritarian".
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
tbaldwin said:
That's my only response because it is the correct and relevant response to your "You liberal left" nonsense.
ViolentPanda said:
Yeah, thats a fair enough point. So i will try to answer it.
Authoritarian because i believe that Socialism is about bringing real change about.
Respecting the opinions and views of the majority. And implementing the decisions of the majority.
To me Libertarianism is something opposed to Socialism..And to call yourself a Libertarian Socialist seems utter nonsense.
Its like saying i want everything to be nice....But last time i made an omellette.......
You cant avoid difficult decisons for ever. And i think that Socialists have to be honest about that..How far can you go with concensus etc, really we all know its a load of liberal wank.
tbaldwin said:
You were doing kindof fine-ish until the last paragraph - and then all the old alarm bells go off again, namely :
- "difficult descisions"
- "having to be honest"
- "liberal wank"
which are all invocations of frames that are deliberate misrepresentations.
What specific "difficult descisions" are you talking about?
How spefically are the opinions that are different from yours dishonest?
What spefically is it about a liberal approach that invites the adjective "wank"?
If I were you I'd drop the right-wing-American-propaganda take on the word "liberal". You're giving yourself a linguistic connection to people who are demonstrably corrupt and incompetant and who have surfed into power on a raft of lies... chief amoung them being this fake idea that "ordinary people" are being repressed by a liberal elite.
We don't need this shit in Europe. Give it up.
nick1181 said:
1 Difficult decisions.....Doing stuff that means people lose out either financially or in their civil liberties.
2 Being Honest.....Like you cant please all the people all of the time....Like being soft on crime doesnt work......
3 Liberal wank.....Spineless all things to all people politics...
Im not taking on an American right wing propaganda on Liberalism....Maybe you think that they have some monopoly on criticising Liberalism i dont.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
All well and good, and even laudable, but none of that has anything to do with being "authoritarian".tbaldwin said:
Just as a reminder (I've posted this before).
Authoritarian: setting authority above liberty.
It seems like you're confusing liberty (freedom from constraint) with libertarian (a believer in free will, someone who believes in the maximum amount of freedom of thought) and then stating that you're an "authoritarian" in reaction to that.
Which blithely disregards the established political meaning of the word "authoritarian", which is more about enforcing authority over liberty.
Who wants to avoid difficult decisions? Only the people sitting in parliament as far as i can see.
Consensus: agreement of various parts, agreement of opinion.
Something that's been part of our constitutional government all the time it's been worth a damn.
If you want a true majoritarian politics and a true majoritarian form of government then you'd be better off pretending to be a lib-dem rather than a socialist, because they're the only parliamentary party whose programme takes proportional representation (the nearest idea we have to majoritarian politics, even though consensus is still involved) seriously.
therwise you're talking about having to erase the current systems entirely, and there are far too many vested interests who won't allow that to happen.
ViolentPanda said:
The Lib dems went quiet about PR when they realised it might actually be better for them to hold the balance of power under the present first past the post system.
They are hardly my idea of a progressive or democratic party.
I want to see referdums on issues like the minimum wage,a maximum wage,the monarchy,the judiciary,national service,immigration and capital punishment. The Lib dems would never want any of that to happen.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Your ideas are hardly progressive or democratic. They're what you call "authoritarian".tbaldwin said:
I'd like to see referendums on most of those too.
As for national service, fine if you mean community service, bonkers if you mean military service.
But then people who chunter on about compulsory military service generally haven't got a clue what it involves.
ViolentPanda said:
1 As ive said im for the Democratic wishes of the majority being implemented.
I would say that i believe in Democratic Socialism as the most progressive system and that the majority have the right to implement their wishes...Which makes me an Authoritarian surely?
2 Good!
3 I agree.
4 Not sure about that,but sneaking suspicion you could be right.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Nope, it makes you a majoritarian socialist.tbaldwin said:
I'm convinced yoiu call yourself an "authoritarian" only because you think it makes you sound 'ard, you big pansy.
It's only "good" if it isn't party hacks setting the questions the referendum is enquiring about. if they get their paws on it it'll just be spun questions and spun answers.
I like the idea of a fully compulsory (no dodgers, whatever their exalted social status) period of statutory community service fitted to the physical and mental abilities of the participant. I reckon it'd do far better than "civics" classes in getting people to understand what makes a community and/or a nation tick.
I'm absolutely sure. Small and entirely volunteer military = highly skilled multiple-role operatives. Large conscription-dependent military = mostly mediocre cannon fodder that get deployed in front of any elite troops to draw fire.
tbaldwin said:
Those are just vague restatements of what you originally said. Do you have specific examples?
tbaldwin said:
They've co-opted the meaning of a particular word - ie: using liberal as a generic term of derision, meaning "weak" - and you are adopting their co-option. Basically they've managed to create this generic label for anyone who disagrees with them... and they trot it out whenever their own arguments are too weak to see daylight.
Regardless of the weakness of your arguments, you're adopting (a malignant tendancy among UK authoratarians) their language. You're using the word in it's right-wing US propaganda context, rather than it's European one.
Congratulations, mr baldwin!
Your own thread has been very successfully derailed ... with a lot of collaboration from yourself ...
Was an intertesting thread about Pilger, earlier ....
Your own thread has been very successfully derailed ... with a lot of collaboration from yourself ...
Was an intertesting thread about Pilger, earlier ....
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
William of Walworth said:
How many others can you say that about?
tbaldwin said:
Why can't you come up with any specific examples? Doesn't that worry you?
All you can do is come up with this vague ad-hominum attack against an imaginary enemy (the liberal left) - a group of people who you can't actually name any members of and who's defining feature seems to be that they disagree with you.
I wouldn't be so unkind to say that actually, this makes you look "pretty weak and dishonest"... rather that you've been duped. You've been duped into focusing on the wrong questions - and you've been duped into believing that there's this demographic that's somehow repressing "ordinary people", as you put it.
But just to give you a chance to wriggle out of it...
Who speficically has said things you don't like, and what did they say, about
- Anti Social Crime?
- The Welfare State?
- Public/Voluntary sector parasites?
- Islamic Fundamentalism?
- Darfur?
- Immigration?
- Iraq?
Actually - looking at your list, I'd say you were a closet tory - the very thing you profess to despise.
Fruitloop said:
Well, no. Exactly. The reason I take exception is that in the US, the term "Liberal" is used by the extreme right wing to avoid addressing the concerns of normal human beings. It's a democracy-undermining device and it stinks.
We really don't need our language corrupted in the same way.
nick1181 said:
Oooh dear you want to see me wriggle...
Name names....Be more specific.......Give examples......Crikey this really is difficult.......
Lots of people hold views on these subjects which reflect their ignorance and unwillingness to really think issues through...
If you think the Liberal Left has been saying the right things on these issues,fair enough.....
But if you actually look at what people have said on Islamic fundamentalism,i think it shows hypocrisy,racism,sexism and dishonesty.
On Immigration,it shows racism and a lack of internationalism.
On anti social crime...It shows contempt for people
On the welfare state/vol/public sector it shows contempt and corruption..
On Iraq and Darfur it shows racism and hypocrisy..
I dont know about names there are probably about 4 0r 5 million self righteous lefties in the UK....Tony Benn,SWP,Harold Pinter,Ken Loach etc etc etc....How many names do you want??? Is this some kind of test?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Oh dear, out of the mouths of babes and all that.
Not that you're a "babe", balders, more of a raddled old slapper.
Not that you're a "babe", balders, more of a raddled old slapper.
Similar threads
