Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

two sheds

Least noticed poster 2007
Similar to a conversation I had recently with someone I'd just met. She asked me what I was politically and so I said 'socialist would be the nearest I think' and she said 'but I wouldn't want a society like Russia was'.

I didn't really get any further than 'Errrrrm'.
 

redsquirrel

This Machine Kills Progressives
Just out of curiosity, can you link me to your definition of 'liberal'
Ta:thumbs:
how about this
There is a common theme though - when used as an insult they both mean the lack of rigour and of weak and sentimental beliefs' of the liberal. When used in political analysis it may be used differently by the left who see liberalism as the very opposite of weak and sentimental, they see it as historical mass murder ideology while the right see it as the destroyer of tradition and stability. All three of these positions are entirely correct.
 

two sheds

Least noticed poster 2007
Yeh that's more of a rant than a definition, though. :D Replace “liberal” with “socialist” and “the left” with “the right” or “the centre” and it would read as a perfectly respectable rant about socialists (and most particularly point two) on a right-wing forum.
 
Last edited:

two sheds

Least noticed poster 2007
I couldn't put it better. The sulky landlord is trying to get his digs in.
Nope you'll have to explain that one.

Is two sheds trying to act all knowing about Marxism-Leninism now?
Nope you'll have to explain that one, too. Apart from a few pages the only Marx I'm really familiar with is Groucho. I'm more of an environmentalist and I'd see politics as included within that - we need to spread what resources we have as fairly as possible between people. Socialism or what I understand of it seems the best way to do that.

I misremembered by the way, I actually said “left wing” rather than “socialist” but her reaction would have been the same. The reason I couldn't really respond is that something like “ah yes but Soviet communism was actually just State Capitalism” seems mealy mouthed – the Russians were quite adamant they were socialists, how does someone from the outside know?

The Oxford definition of liberal is the one I've always assumed, and possibly nearer to the American as opposed to the British one : “Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:”.

There are obviously limits – I don't accept fascist ideas, but I'll respect them in the sense that I'll listen to what the person's saying and try to engage in rational debate. If they don't engage in rational debate then I won't accept *or* respect them.

So, how would that make me racist?
 

seventh bullet

red mullet
Nope you'll have to explain that one.



Nope you'll have to explain that one, too. Apart from a few pages the only Marx I'm really familiar with is Groucho. I'm more of an environmentalist and I'd see politics as included within that - we need to spread what resources we have as fairly as possible between people. Socialism or what I understand of it seems the best way to do that.

I misremembered by the way, I actually said “left wing” rather than “socialist” but her reaction would have been the same. The reason I couldn't really respond is that something like “ah yes but Soviet communism was actually just State Capitalism” seems mealy mouthed – the Russians were quite adamant they were socialists, how does someone from the outside know?

The Oxford definition of liberal is the one I've always assumed, and possibly nearer to the American as opposed to the British one : “Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:”.

There are obviously limits – I don't accept fascist ideas, but I'll respect them in the sense that I'll listen to what the person's saying and try to engage in rational debate. If they don't engage in rational debate then I won't accept *or* respect them.

So, how would that make me racist?
What if you believe that the Communists in the Soviet Union developed capitalism but also believe that they believed that they had established socialism? Mind you, we're going to have to go into a more detailed discussion. Do you think you are up to it? Or do you just want in a sideways fashion to call people Stalinists? And I know a lot about that particular conception of socialism, and beyond the USSR...

Where have I said that you are a racist?
 

two sheds

Least noticed poster 2007
What if you believe that the Communists in the Soviet Union developed capitalism but also believe that they believed that they had established socialism? Mind you, we're going to have to go into a more detailed discussion. Do you think you are up to it? Or do you just want in a sideways fashion to call people Stalinists? And I know a lot about that particular conception of socialism, and beyond the USSR...
I'm not particularly interested in what happened in Russia in the early 1900s and beyond. I don't think many other people are, either. In some ways I see political theory as disappearing up its own arse unless you can translate it into terms people will understand now. As soon as someone starts off into the "proletariat" and the like, most other peoples' eyes start glazing over. Unless you can show me how that relates to where we are now and how we can improve society it all just seems like point scoring.

As I said, I'm more an environmentalist. I see myself as a socialist in that I'd like to see a fair distribution of resources, not as any sort of historian.

And no, I've no intention of defining socialism as Stalin - I'd have thought you'd have realized that since it was specifically the problem I remarked on.

Where have I said that you are a racist?
The quote you responded to was:
Racism, elitist snobbery - Boris excels at that.
You responded:

So do liberals.
I genuinely didn't understand how what I understand to be 'liberal' would make me a racist. In the same way I don't see 'Stalinist mass murder' when someone says 'socialist' I don't see how you can see 'racist' in the term 'liberal'. It seems to be the exact opposite of the definition, and just used as a lazy insult.

Before you can have a rational discussion you have to define terms. I've said why I don't think butchers' definition is an adequate one and I've proposed the dictionary definition as the one I understand. Why is that not a good starting point?
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
You really do not miss any opportunity to expose yourself as an idiot, do you? Read up 'Kings Scholar', which you should have done in the first place. Johnson's parents could not have sent him to Eton, they couldn't afford to do so. He got one of 14 scholarships available each year.
Eton scholarships - and there isn't only the King's Scholarship, there are many - are a selection mechanism. You can do the entry stuff, but if you don't interview well - if they don't believe that you'll fit in - you will be bounced.
 

seventh bullet

red mullet
You were making some silly point about Stalinism (or what you understand it be) then. With a pretend conversation about socialism and the Soviet Union to get to that. Why can't Stalin be a Communist? I don't see that as a problem personally. He was. And the creation of a socialist society won't involve violence? Has there never been violence and killing in the name of and belief in liberal democracy for example? You are seriously saying that liberals can not be racist?
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
You were making some silly point about Stalinism (or what you understand it be) then. With a pretend conversation about socialism and the Soviet Union to get to that. Why can't Stalin be a Communist? I don't see that as a problem personally. He was. And the creation of a socialist society won't involve violence? Has there never been violence and killing in the name of and belief in liberal democracy for example? You are seriously saying that liberals can not be racist?
in the name of jesus - hallelujah!
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
You don't have to live in the city he's assisted in fucking up.
Yup. Ken's Congestion Charge really did "get London moving" again. Boris's craven kowtowing to the wealthy meant that the extension never went ahead. What do we have now? Traffic flow through the C of L and neighbours that's worse than it was 15 years ago.
Livingstone put in place a TfL fund to expand accessibility in the Tube network. Boris stamped on it, and spunked the money on vanity projects. As a result, the Tube network is barely more accessible for disabled and/or elderly people, and people with kids in buggies, than it was when he came to power, and the additional accessibility is all to do with new rather than existing stations.
Then we have Boris's "calling in" of so many planning decisions for controversial buildings - socially rather than architecturally-controversial - and allowing the vast majority of them in the face of solid local antipathy and of statute.
We also have his early refusals to enforce section 106 payments by developers.

Fuck him, and fuck anyone stupid, deluded or demented enough to support the self-agrandising, morally-incontinent fuckwad.
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
You are a cunt.

Now we have the gratuitous insults out of the way, explain why, if he was so dreadful, he was elected twice, and would quite probably have been elected for a third time? It would seem that your insight on Boris is far superior to the over a mill;ion people who voted for him.

Edited to add:

You really are a clown. I will not support the Conservative party again, as I've said on a number of occasions. You obviously have rather a low level of literary comprehension I think.
Livingstone won 2 mayoral elections without the media behind him. In fact, with the Evening Standard actively campaigning against him.
Johnson scraped through the "Ken vs Boris" show of his first election with the Evening Standard actively campaigning for him.

What does that tell you about who Boris is, and what he's in power for?
 

two sheds

Least noticed poster 2007
What if you believe that the Communists in the Soviet Union developed capitalism but also believe that they believed that they had established socialism?
And no, that wouldn't work for me as a response. The next question is likely to be "ah yes and which of those two led to 20 million people dying?"
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
And no, that wouldn't work for me as a response. The next question is likely to be "ah yes and which of those two led to 20 million people dying?"
Your respondent would be being fatuous, unless they had some knowledge of what that "20 million people dying" actually meant.
 

seventh bullet

red mullet
And no, that wouldn't work for me as a response. The next question is likely to be "ah yes and which of those two led to 20 million people dying?"
That is my position though. It's hardly novel or controversial. I could answer the above too. Doing so doesn't mean I would defend it. It's not the only possibility.
 

dialectician

The Main Enemy is at home.
You were making some silly point about Stalinism (or what you understand it be) then. With a pretend conversation about socialism and the Soviet Union to get to that. Why can't Stalin be a Communist? I don't see that as a problem personally. He was. And the creation of a socialist society won't involve violence? Has there never been violence and killing in the name of and belief in liberal democracy for example? You are seriously saying that liberals can not be racist?
Stalinists also believed that they were moving to a society that would have a much greater level of democracy than liberal democracies, in comparison to certain anti-stalinists on the ultra-left. How very liberal and tolerant *spits disdainfully.*

Democratic ambitions are totally compatible with mass murder.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
Stalinists also believed that they were moving to a society that would have a much greater level of democracy than liberal democracies, in comparison to certain anti-stalinists on the ultra-left. How very liberal and tolerant *spits disdainfully.*
so the anti-stalinists on the ultra-left were in this case right. interesting.
 

dialectician

The Main Enemy is at home.
so the anti-stalinists on the ultra-left were in this case right. interesting.
Well, if you remove market liberalism from your definition of being a liberal, then you can only define it with reference to democracy.

And the communists in the USSR believed that they had and would continue to surpass liberalism. Believing that one is democratic doesn't make one tolerant or a peace-loving hippie, ha.
 
Top