Political language. What helps, what doesnt ??

[Deleted member 28]

If? I thought you had :-)

Can't recall, might have done.

 

[steve292]

You are kidding!

Oh wait, aren't you the marital art's bloke?

Best watch what I say, and no it's not a typo.

FWIW i'm quite good at the marital arts. I thought this was going to be the forum where we could all speak our minds? Or is it just the select few who consider theirselves to be straight talking salt of the earth types who are allowed to insult everyone else?

 

[fozy tornip]

straight talking salt of the earth types..

While we're on the subject, have sociolinguists adequately interrogated the relationship between, on the one hand, self-identifying as a straight talking, plain speaking, tell it like it is, shooting from the hip, take no prisoners sort and, on the other, having nothing interesting to say? Ever.

Is it causal or merely correlative, do we know?

 

[BoldonLad]

FWIW i'm quite good at the marital arts. I thought this was going to be the forum where we could all speak our minds? Or is it just the select few who consider theirselves to be straight talking salt of the earth types who are allowed to insult everyone else?

We need Mrs Steve292' s opinion on that one

 

[spen666]

From reading language used by many on here towards others, it seems that any political language, no matter how personal or abusive you use is fine & justified & any language used yowards you by those of a different view is offensive and wrong.


We will never have more grown up debates until we all look at our own behaviour critically.

 

[theclaud]

From reading language used by many on here towards others, it seems that any political language, no matter how personal or abusive you use is fine & justified & any language used yowards you by those of a different view is offensive and wrong.


We will never have more grown up debates until we all look at our own behaviour critically.

Such as? It's difficult to respond to such vague accusations, because no one has any idea what you are objecting to. Better to make it clearer. Unless, of course, your purpose is not to make an authentic complaint about a real problem but just to construct a sense of victimhood.

 

[Unkraut]

Unless, of course, your purpose is not to make an authentic complaint about a real problem but just to construct a sense of victimhood.

Now that doesn't happen very often in political debate these days, does it!

 

[mudsticks]

Now that doesn't happen very often in political debate these days, does it!

We need to understand the difference between false and true narratives of oppression.

Unequal power imbalances do exist, we need to be aware of those, and accept that they need addressing.

 

[theclaud]

We need to understand the difference between false and true narratives of oppression.

Unequal power imbalances do exist, we need to be aware of those, and accept that they need addressing.

Unkers has some weird obsession with something he calls the 'Victim Blog Industry' (if I remember the phrase correctly). We are only ever offered vague and shadowy accounts of what on earth it is, but I suspect it is not unconnected with organisations with a substantial stake in discrediting actual victims of abuse.

 

[fozy tornip]

From reading language used by many on here towards others, it seems that any political language, no matter how personal or abusive you use is fine & justified & any language used yowards you by those of a different view is offensive and wrong.


We will never have more grown up debates until we all look at our own behaviour critically.

Before you all post your subscriptions to spen's online course in temperate forum etiquette, consider that "bile spurting prick", no less, was his measured response to someone who demurred mildly to the nationalistic, weaponised, toxic brew of mawkish sentimentality and aggressive prescriptiveness that is GB Remembrance.

"Gawd bless you Captain Tom! [sniffle] Where's your poppy you bile spurting prick!? [snarl]" You know the stuff.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Before you all post your subscriptions to spen's online course in temperate forum etiquette, consider that "bile spurting prick", no less, was his measured response to someone who demurred mildly to the nationalistic, weaponised, toxic brew of mawkish sentimentality and aggressive prescriptiveness that is GB Remembrance.

I suppose you can forgive a lawyer for ignorance of biology.

 

[stowie]

From reading language used by many on here towards others, it seems that any political language, no matter how personal or abusive you use is fine & justified & any language used yowards you by those of a different view is offensive and wrong.


We will never have more grown up debates until we all look at our own behaviour critically.

There are two things here, I think. One aspect are the posters on this site, where keeping things civil has the advantage that it keeps the conversation going. And it is one thing to be critical or even abrupt with the comments or opinions of a poster and being personally abusive and aggressive. I might be lucky (or very forgetful) but can only remember one instance of the latter directed at me and it was so utterly bizarre that I truly wondered if the poster was having some kind of breakdown. Maybe I have rose-tinted glasses, but considering this board is quite well used, essentially anonymous, not moderated and covering some controversial subjects it does seem more civilised than a lot of online places. Maybe the anonymity actually works to make it better - quite difficult to become personal when there is limited personal information that is shared.

The other aspect is posting about people not on the board. There I freely admit to being slightly more abusive (OK, sometimes a lot more), although I do try to limit it to someone's words and actions rather than appearance or characteristics they cannot control. The thing is, I feel there is a difference depending on to whom it is directed. If, for example, I post a rare(!) attack on Johnson's latest jape I consider it "punching up". He has all the power and agency. On the other hand, referring disparagingly to those with little power or agency feels very different.

Not sure if this makes sense, or is indeed even a correct way of approaching it.

 

[spen666]

Such as? It's difficult to respond to such vague accusations, because no one has any idea what you are objecting to. Better to make it clearer. Unless, of course, your purpose is not to make an authentic complaint about a real problem but just to construct a sense of victimhood.

Try reading your response.....then try reading the post I made

Before you all post your subscriptions to spen's online course in temperate forum etiquette, consider that "bile spurting prick", no less, was his measured response to someone who demurred mildly to the nationalistic, weaponised, toxic brew of mawkish sentimentality and aggressive prescriptiveness that is GB Remembrance.

"Gawd bless you Captain Tom! [sniffle] Where's your poppy you bile spurting prick!? [snarl]" You know the stuff.

I never said any such thing, but why not make up lies.

I'm sure it makes for sensible respectful debate

 

[spen666]

Not sure where the quote re The Claud & response appeared from.

Not sure what happened in last post

 

[mudsticks]

There are two things here, I think. One aspect are the posters on this site, where keeping things civil has the advantage that it keeps the conversation going. And it is one thing to be critical or even abrupt with the comments or opinions of a poster and being personally abusive and aggressive. I might be lucky (or very forgetful) but can only remember one instance of the latter directed at me and it was so utterly bizarre that I truly wondered if the poster was having some kind of breakdown. Maybe I have rose-tinted glasses, but considering this board is quite well used, essentially anonymous, not moderated and covering some controversial subjects it does seem more civilised than a lot of online places. Maybe the anonymity actually works to make it better - quite difficult to become personal when there is limited personal information that is shared.

The other aspect is posting about people not on the board. There I freely admit to being slightly more abusive (OK, sometimes a lot more), although I do try to limit it to someone's words and actions rather than appearance or characteristics they cannot control. The thing is, I feel there is a difference depending on to whom it is directed. If, for example, I post a rare(!) attack on Johnson's latest jape I consider it "punching up". He has all the power and agency. On the other hand, referring disparagingly to those with little power or agency feels very different.

Not sure if this makes sense, or is indeed even a correct way of approaching it.

Punching up = satire

Punching down = bullying

Between equals??

Well first define equals ..