Rayvin

While there is some good debate in here, it is ultimately an echo chamber. It's notable that very few discussions on here ever go down nuanced paths - the majority either agrees with you, or you're satan. Sometimes some of us are on the wrong side of that, other times we're not All that youthful angst that makes it like this, IMO

I'm just explaining to you a factor in a decision I made, there's nothing further to it than that. I'm happy to just leave this if you are.

Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty chill about this - and I have genuinely no bad blood with anyone on any of this. I anticipate it will resolve and then we go on as normal.

If the first bit is true, and I can read it that way, then I apologise. I hope you can see from the apology that I was genuinely under a particular impression of what you had said when I responded. On the latter bit - I didn't say you were terrible, I just avoided dialogue for a bit because I didn't like how that exchange ended. A personal choice - I have anxiety and make decisions to avoid getting myself worked up at times.

It's interesting, because I recall in our first debate, you accused me of putting words in your mouth when I called out something you had plainly written. You and I, for whatever unfortunate reason, do not seem able to engage well. I've tried to deal with that by not replying to you (for a time), or by standing back from things - and we have been having a perfectly reasonable discussion in the other thread. But you've just come over to this one and called me out in the middle of a separate discussion I was having, asked me what I do for a living and then more or less implied that I just sit and complain rather than doing any productive about anything I believe in. I don't know really what it is you want from me but I would like to assure you and Renton both that I'm writing more with grim exasperation than anything on the edge of anger. You can judge me if you want, I simply wanted to hold up to you that I was aware of it. I don't understand your last line btw - I haven't rebutted every challenge with 'people are idiots'. In fact in this thread, I'm sitting here protesting that people aren't idiots and can handle the truth (if delivered correctly and over a sustained period). That said though, people are idiots.

You're the one who said you felt bad about making a personal attack. And what is it you hoped to do with the information about my profession if not use it in consideration of who I am and the impact any of it has on what I say? I'm not even really challenging you on that tbh, we all make judgements of each other - do what you want.

If something to be hopeful about becomes evident, I will be hopeful.

You have a view of me that I don't recognise but you've had it for quite some time so I'm just going to accept that it is what it is. For what it's worth, I'm not talking about not voting. I just probably won't vote Labour. Like you, I base my voting on manifestos. I'll vote Green, maybe LD. Whatever aligns better. If you see me as cowed, I can live with that. I see anyone who accepts this pathetic trudge into oblivion as cowed. I agree on actual uprising being a mechanism to force change by the way, but that's very unlikely in the UK. If you think I just sit and complain, on the basis of precisely zero personal information about me, that's up to you. For me, you are just a human being with a view. That's it. That's the sum total of everything you represent to me, no more or less than any other. So don't worry about a 'personal attack' because honestly, you don't have anywhere near enough information about me to make one. I'm not apathetic by the way, or I wouldn't be here standing up for what I believe in in the midst of all this noise. I have the views I have because I care. <detail about my work, edited out after clearing up misunderstanding> Does this better equip you to judge me?

What I'm sat here wondering is how in the jaded, misanthropic nightmare of my perception of reality, I'm the one who is standing here with any hope. Did not see that coming.

When does the truth come back if we do that? Listen to what you're saying man ffs. Someone, somewhere, somehow needs to actually stand up for what we consider to be values in our society. I know it's scary, but it is the only way anything is ever actually going to get better. As opposed to 'getting bad more slowly' which seems to be what you're content with.

Actually, to take another go at that - I'm not saying Labour aren't much better because they won't bring it back. This isn't about whether Labour are "good" or not. They're clearly party made up of far more compassionate and thoughtful people than the Tories. This is about the fact that in continuously conceding arguments, they are giving up far, far too much ground. This is incredibly dangerous, and means we are losing things that we will not get back. And we won't get them back because no one will make the case for them out of fear. Can you not see how that only leads in one direction. More slowly, but still the same way. I reject the idea that it has to be this way.

I disagree with the premise that Labour can't win using truth. They're running scared, but they don't have to be.

That might be your point. I'd rather we were shouting loudly about our principles and seeking to reclaim lost ground, not accepting an ever lower drop through the floor. Your position permits for Labour to come in periodically and stop the rot for a few years while being terrified of reversing anything that might lose them votes, and then for the Tories to get back in and destroy even more. That is staggered decline. We need to win and build, and to do that we need to actually stand up for what we believe in, at some fucking point. I'm really kind of amazed at how cowed we've become.

I want to be clear that I respect your view and have no particular reason to believe mine is correct other than it makes sense to me until I otherwise become convinced of something else. I also don't remember our last discussion going south but I end up in so many battles on here at times that it can be hard to keep on top of specifics. I enjoy history, my first degree had a significant component of it tailored to Chinese history in particular, but I've not had the opportunity to dabble further. One day I hope to do a PhD tracking human development and trying to identify key moments of progress of pivot points in history. Not because I think no one has done this or because I can add anything, but just for myself. I would say that yes, history is always someone's view through their own lens - but that doesn't mean that there isn't an actual absolute truth of an event behind it. Yes, we are limited by their interpretation and biases, but the thing still happened for whatever reason it actually did happen. There is a truth. We have a moral obligation to get as close to it as we can, for all the difficulty we may have in doing that. I use the labels as broad strokes terms to encapsulate a range of similar viewpoints, not to chastise or demonise. I am happy enough to be told that someone is predominantly left wing but with some right wing leanings, I can handle that in my worldview. As I said, I'm more concerned with consistency and logical frameworks in that regard - the labels/frameworks are a useful tool for ensuring one has a consistent worldview. We agree on corporations versus regulated capitalism. Capitalism probably could be made to work. Excuse for apathy and inaction - Maybe. But the world is going to hell in a hardcart and no amount of protest is changing that as far as I can see. Climate change resistance took greater support from COVID than it ever seems to have done from protest. We (humanity) are losing on every front in an information war with the old and powerful and, frankly, ourselves. I dislike Putin more because of his role in creating this level of informational catastrophe than I do for his invasion of Ukraine. He is not alone here though, just one of the more effective agents for it. Finally - I agree about the utopian vision. It's why I'm pro-EU. Pro-Federal EU even. Hell, I'd even have welcomed in Russia. Internationalism is the only way forward in my worldview.

Hope so!

We won't get the ECHR back, Labour won't push for it for the same reasons they won't push for Brexit. If the Tories bin it here, it's gone. Nothing you can do about it, no point saying anything now that in a few days time, once it goes through, you'll have to shut up about or risk offending the voters Labour needs to win. I hope I'm wrong.

I think the bar we have to stoop under keeps getting lower and lower.

Same question as for Tom - if he does it, will Labour bring it back?

I believe this too - but I agree with you on this mainly in that at some point someone needs to stand up and make case for what we actually believe in. We do need to win that argument at some stage. I think what others here seem to advocate for is a world where we win power and deliver what we believe in by stealth and idk, maybe that's the right play. But we did that with Blair and for all the progress made under new Labour, things are now worse than I've ever seen them. I think we could perhaps have done with cementing and defending our argument better instead of immediately abandoning it and running in fear of the right wing press. Who will relentlessly hound and attack Labour with or without Labour even doing anything. As we can see.

To be fair, it is quite clear that for all the safety winks in the world, that is a prevailing view on here It amuses me sometimes to watch people make these comments that clearly apply to other posters (I do this too tbf, in fact this may be an example of it) without actually naming them specifically. I'm fine though, I knew what was going to happen here when I went into this discussion I think it comes down to the sense of scale really - what concerns you more, the Tories or the trend. For me, I think it's the latter.

We accepted it.

Are Labour going to be reversing this on their manifesto, do you think?

You've missed my point and I honestly just don't have the energy to open this up to arguing with another person. No disrespect, but what you've just argued is not a pushback on what I said. Why won't we deal in hypotheticals, because it makes the broad sweeping statements about how everyone should vote Labour even if its only a slight improvement actually look a bit stupid? I introduced hypotheticals in an attempt to capture an issue that you feel as strongly about as I do with Brexit. So that you could potentially understand why your solution to me is not a good one. This does not appear to have worked but as far as I can see mate, your position is one of constant dynamic change. The bar gets lowered, you go down with it, still hoping that if you can just get under it once we'll be able to push up again. Meanwhile, the only current truth with this is... the bar is getting lower. The bar has dropped lower than I'm willing to go without compromising more or less everything I believe in. Who are you, I mean any of you really, to tell me that this is a stupid position? You're exactly the same as me about different issues. Your specific configuration of issues that you would stop supporting Labour over hasn't come up yet. How nice that must be. It exists though, and because it exists, I really can't see anything other than blind hypocrisy in this conversation.

It doesn't matter whether the differences are slight, that's not your position. Your position is that pragmatism trumps everything. You literally posted that. We can have that discussion, but that's not the one we're having. I'm being told by everyone here that I have to vote for them no matter what as long as they are slightly better.

Hypothetical - the Tories decide to fully privatise the NHS. Goes into their next manifesto. Labour take up the same position. Do we still vote for them because they're also offering free school meals? Or do we dig our heels in because otherwise we are consenting to losing the NHS? It happens either way, but if we vote Labour there is no pressure applied to defend it, so politicians believe that they can avoid returning to the issue - it's too divisive, not a vote winner. Alternative: The Tories start deporting people to Rwanda as part of some fucked up policy on handling immigration. Polls well though. Labour put that in too. Still offering free school meals though. Before anyone comes jumping down my throat, I am aware that Labour have not done these things, but I am asking you honestly if your pragmatism would still have you voting Labour if they did. Because if not, you're right where I am fucking am just on different issues. And even if you do hold true to your pragmatism in this scenario - which I am left to assume takes us right the way through to full on fascism as long as it comes with free school meals, then you must surely be able to see at the very least how this is a bit of a difficult fucking pill to swallow for anyone who really, deeply cares about an issue that Labour have fucking abandoned. -mic drop-