Ask the TSR Government Watch

This discussion is closed.
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by Green_Pink)
No, but one of your colleagues in the opposition has. This isn't just about an individual. Much of what I've seen against a couple of Government MPs in particular is really unpleasant and personal and just shouldn't be happening in what's meant to be a civilised and adult debating chamber. Satire and humour are great, repeated attacks against individuals you've taken a disliking to are not.
The member you are defending often found it difficult to debate in a civilized manner.
0
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by tehFrance)
Satire, freedom of expression, humour... Have you heard of it? :holmes:

P.S. I didn't state he was an embarrassment, although you clearly think so or you wouldn't have said it
The embarrassment comment wasn't referring to a comment you made against JLP, as you very well know. It's one of those comments I have seen made against members in this House, and my post was referring to the behaviour of the House in general.

One can use satire and humour to debate the content of bills and motions and other members' viewpoints. Having a dig at someone who has already shown that they are uncomfortable just begs the question of why... why do it? :confused:

We won't get along with everyone in the House. We may disapprove of their viewpoints. This happens. That does not excuse us getting personal.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by Kittiara)
The embarrassment comment wasn't referring to a comment you made against JLP, as you very well know. It's one of those comments I have seen made against members in this House, and my post was referring to the behaviour of the House in general.

One can use satire and humour to debate the content of bills and motions and other members' viewpoints. Having a dig at someone who has already shown that they are uncomfortable just begs the question of why... why do it? :confused:

We won't get along with everyone in the House. We may disapprove of their viewpoints. This happens. That does not excuse us getting personal.
A member of yours referred to one of aphs bills as an embarrassment to his party.

EDIT: Not your leader.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by nebelbon)
Your own leader referred to one of aphs bills as an embarrassment to his party.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Link? And did he refer to Aph as an embarrassment to our party? The point I have been trying to make here is that there is a big difference between referring to the content of a bill and referring to a person.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by Kittiara)
Link? And did he refer to Aph as an embarrassment to our party? The point I have been trying to make here is that there is a big difference between referring to the content of a bill and referring to a person.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1&postcount=13

EDIT: Not your leader.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
That's quite clearly in reference to the content of the bill.
0
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by InnerTemple)
That's quite clearly in reference to the content of the bill.
Aye, Superunknown is our Leader and Blue Meltwater is our Deputy Leader. Chlorophile is one of our MPs. And, indeed, I read that comment as referring to the content of the bill, not to Aph, unlike some people (not from the Green Party) who have referred to him personally as an embarrassment over the last weeks. Which is not for them to say - our party does not consider any of our MPs to be an embarrassment - and is a case of attacking the person, not debating their output.

Now, I do not agree with Chlorophile's comment either, as the bill in question is a private bill and therefore not related to the Green Party, and I do think the wording of his comment is a bit harsh, but there's still that difference, and that difference is important.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by nebelbon)
The member you are defending often found it difficult to debate in a civilized manner.
So try and help them then, set a better example of the conduct you evidently want to see from others. Not everyone here is gonna like each other, we all have very different points of view which is kinda the point. That's no excuse for attacking like a pack of dogs every time someone you don't like gives their opinion.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by Green_Pink)
So try and help them then, set a better example of the conduct you evidently want to see from others. Not everyone here is gonna like each other, we all have very different points of view which is kinda the point. That's no excuse for attacking like a pack of dogs every time someone you don't like gives their opinion.
He would never listen to me in a thousands years and the things he says are incredibly offensive and nasty; yet you don't ever reprimand his actions.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by nebelbon)
He would never listen to me in a thousands years and the things he says are incredibly offensive and nasty; yet you don't ever reprimand his actions.
If a post is that offensive, you can report it. I'm sure you could even have a word with SU if there's a genuine problem, but the way some members are being treated right now even when their posts are completely innocent is driving them away and frankly that isn't on.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by Green_Pink)
If a post is that offensive, you can report it. I'm sure you could even have a word with SU if there's a genuine problem, but the way some members are being treated right now even when their posts are completely innocent is driving them away and frankly that isn't on.
I did, but the mods take far too long to sort anything out.

I wouldn't directly talk to a mod because i don't really want anyone getting banned from here; regardless of who they are.

I doubt that completely innocent posts are being replied to. Your view of innocent is different from mine etc.
0
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by nebelbon)
I did, but the mods take far too long to sort anything out.

I wouldn't directly talk to a mod because i don't really want anyone getting banned from here; regardless of who they are.

I doubt that completely innocent posts are being replied to. Your view of innocent is different from mine etc.
I would say that bills and motions are innocent or at least neutral in their nature - they are topics offered up for discussion - but that hasn't stopped some people from getting personal in their attacks. Just because a bill or motion is somewhat unusual and falls outside of the Overton Window doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed in a civil manner.

The Overton Window is upside-down anyway. We should welcome a wide range of ideas. Big ideas drive change. Sure, they usually have to be adjusted to fit into the realm of possibility, but you never know where they might lead. Even bad ideas can be helpful, because they might inspire other new ideas that could turn out to be great. And even if that doesn't happen, the discussion can lead to interesting insights.

We should never attempt to shut down debate and especially not through personal attacks. If we chase away those members who raise topics that are somewhat outside of the norm, we risk the MHoC turning stale.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#53
I'm staying out of this dispute.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
While I'm not going to say that I agree with some of the comments I do understand some of the reactions based on the proverb 'treat others as you wish to be treated yourself'. In his previously guise as SciFi he basically said that Tories were products of your bowel and was very abrasive and closed minded to those who did not agree with his views, his perception amongst the right is overwhelmingly negative for these reasons.

I'd like to think he's just coming across badly online but its no surprise that the less restrained members are acting in a similar fashion to how he's treated them.

..
As for Aph, his ideas may be extreme but to his credit he's never preachy and comes across in a way that's not abrasive.
0
Superunknown17
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
I can't really say anything than what Kit has already as she's summed things up pretty perfectly. Keep it civil, there's absolutely no need to get personal, especially in regards to someone's mental health. If you've got a problem with one of my members, take it up with me or Faland or whoever. We' re here to debate, not to sling insults at each other.
1
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by Rakas21)
As for Aph, his ideas may be extreme but to his credit he's never preachy and comes across in a way that's not abrasive.
This is true, extreme left wing ideas that are generally backed up, occasionally they aren't but in general he does a good job. :thumbsup:
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by tehFrance)
This is true, extreme left wing ideas that are generally backed up, occasionally they aren't but in general he does a good job. :thumbsup:
Thank you:hugs:
1
missfats
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by tehFrance)
This is true, extreme left wing ideas that are generally backed up, occasionally they aren't but in general he does a good job. :thumbsup:
Best joke.

Please do not feed his ego.
Communists these days

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30298382

Does the Government intend to dine at Claridges or any other place that is inconsiderate to women who choose to breastfeed their baby?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by barnetlad)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30298382

Does the Government intend to dine at Claridges or any other place that is inconsiderate to women who choose to breastfeed their baby?
I don't intend on going there anyway
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (561)
37.65%
No - but I will (116)
7.79%
No - I don't want to (106)
7.11%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (707)
47.45%

Watched Threads

View All