Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Politics is about the utopian. It works best when there is a dream of something better than what exists now. Otherwise it's just tinkering with a broken machine. And if I didn't think it is a viable way to approach things, I wouldn't believe it.



    Reactionary politics is negative; reaction can contain no positives and this is the problem. If our generation is capable only of reaction then we will end up with a more conservative and nervous society jumping at every boo that occurs. Positive, utopian politics takes things in its stride and doesn't fall into nerves. Sure it can appear impatient and grumpy but that's something else. Gradual change isn't really good enough. We're at a crossroads and we really do have to take the road less travelled.



    Of course, but that's because liberal ideas have become the bedrock of our society. And I make this point to the socialists on here all the time, being from the Left means being something different from a liberal. All people whether lib dems or tories are liberal in some fashion - be it economic or social. Socialists are not and that is why young people these days can't really deal with those opinions.
    Thanks, you're rather engaging to talk to tbh Adorno. More engaging than reading Adorno anyway :p:. I like the Frost reference btw, even if it was accidental.

    You say gradual change isn't good enough, I'm not sure I understand how it can happen any other way - unless you propose some sort of paradigm shifting revolution? Surely gradual change is better than no change - especially it the end product was moe stable....

    I don't think it's that I can't deal with these opinions, it's that I have never particularly needed to - except in a shallow fashion anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Thanks, you're rather engaging to talk to tbh Adorno. More engaging than reading Adorno anyway :p:. I like the Frost reference btw, even if it was accidental.
    Wasn't accidental :p: I've never actually bothered with the Frankfurt School if I'm honest.

    You say gradual change isn't good enough, I'm not sure I understand how it can happen any other way - unless you propose some sort of paradigm shifting revolution? Surely gradual change is better than no change - especially it the end product was moe stable....
    Paradigmatic shift is preferable I think. There was gradual change toward social democratic society in the 1920s and 1930s in parts of Britain but it was the paradigmatic shift provided by the coming of the Labour Government in 1945 that provided for the full blown social-democratic state that we had in Britain until the 1980s. So it is possible even when changes appears relatively gradual. We faced paradigmatic shift in the 1980s and early 1990s too don't forget! Gradual "change" is basically a reaction and I'm afraid I don't fancy being limited by the language of the Right.

    I don't think it's that I can't deal with these opinions, it's that I have never particularly needed to - except in a shallow fashion anyway.
    I didn't mean to personalise it in that way, I mean in general. Young people seem to believe that the Liberal Democrats represents radicalism but they are just as compromised by the liberal perspectives that have limited the West in the last generation and have provided for so much of the conflict that we now face. Engaging with genuine radical though is how our generation proves itself to be of much more worth than the baby boomers or our parents.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Wasn't accidental :p: I've never actually bothered with the Frankfurt School if I'm honest.



    Paradigmatic shift is preferable I think. There was gradual change toward social democratic society in the 1920s and 1930s in parts of Britain but it was the paradigmatic shift provided by the coming of the Labour Government in 1945 that provided for the full blown social-democratic state that we had in Britain until the 1980s. So it is possible even when changes appears relatively gradual. We faced paradigmatic shift in the 1980s and early 1990s too don't forget! Gradual "change" is basically a reaction and I'm afraid I don't fancy being limited by the language of the Right.



    I didn't mean to personalise it in that way, I mean in general. Young people seem to believe that the Liberal Democrats represents radicalism but they are just as compromised by the liberal perspectives that have limited the West in the last generation and have provided for so much of the conflict that we now face. Engaging with genuine radical though is how our generation proves itself to be of much more worth than the baby boomers or our parents.
    Nice use of the reference then :yep:, oh I always assumed differently because of the name?

    True, I think really gradual change is always there prior to the shift - which may well be inevitable tbh if large-scale change is to happen, hmmm I have clearly not thought all this through enough.

    It's fine, you are probabaly right by and large. You're better placed than I to posit such a thing anyway... Out of interest, realistically, do you see your views coming to fruition? Many people fight for things they may not think they are likely to achieve - I just wonder if you see it happening in your life time for example? To clarify I'm not asking if you think it is possible/viable [you cleared that up :p:], just interested in your personal opinion pertaining to the liklihood.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    What would the party hope to do to address the issue of homlessness in the UK, and what are your views on gentrification?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    What would the party hope to do to address the issue of homlessness in the UK, and what are your views on gentrification?
    Speaking personally, though I guess people might share these views in the party, homelessness needs to be tackled head on. I would end the right to buy and provide funding to councils to construct new homes. This would be part of a much bigger strategy of rebuilding the housing stock of the UK particularly in areas where they simply cannot be "greened" (as it were).

    Gentrification is as bad as ghettoisation and have similar causes really.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Speaking personally, though I guess people might share these views in the party, homelessness needs to be tackled head on. I would end the right to buy and provide funding to councils to construct new homes. This would be part of a much bigger strategy of rebuilding the housing stock of the UK particularly in areas where they simply cannot be "greened" (as it were).

    Gentrification is as bad as ghettoisation and have similar causes really.
    Thanks for the reply, what would the access points be for homeless people into this system though?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Thanks for the reply, what would the access points be for homeless people into this system though?
    Well council housing is just a part of it. Homelessness as with other forms of poverty requires a range of measures economic, social, and cultural to ameliorate it. Provision of a council house provides some economic stability and ensures that people are off the streets and therefore not subject to the elements. This alone doesn't provide a person with food, warmth, clothing, and so forth.

    You identify the big problem: a homeless person is not guaranteed to ask for help. I think government support for charities and agencies that are specialists in this field is preferable to setting up a government agency at the beginning though it may be preferable to nationalise them if that turns out for the best. So it's those sorts of ports of call that would be helped as they, in turn, would provide the most effective entry route into the government-run schemes. An effective partnership is best.

    A really good book on this, if you can get it, is "Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis" by Jack Layton. Layton is the leader of the Canadian NDP so take that if you will.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well council housing is just a part of it. Homelessness as with other forms of poverty requires a range of measures economic, social, and cultural to ameliorate it. Provision of a council house provides some economic stability and ensures that people are off the streets and therefore not subject to the elements. This alone doesn't provide a person with food, warmth, clothing, and so forth.

    You identify the big problem: a homeless person is not guaranteed to ask for help. I think government support for charities and agencies that are specialists in this field is preferable to setting up a government agency at the beginning though it may be preferable to nationalise them if that turns out for the best. So it's those sorts of ports of call that would be helped as they, in turn, would provide the most effective entry route into the government-run schemes. An effective partnership is best.

    A really good book on this, if you can get it, is "Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis" by Jack Layton. Layton is the leader of the Canadian NDP so take that if you will.
    Interesting, I agree on your point about charities and such. Homelessness is far far more wider-reaching than people realise.

    Is the book generaliseable to the UK? Just out of interest - as I may give it a read.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Is the book generaliseable to the UK? Just out of interest - as I may give it a read.
    It's about homelessness in Toronto but he talks about the lack of social housing, the collapsing of the "social safety net", and so forth. But in a sense homelessness is a problem generalisable to most nations forming the G8 or G20 really.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It's about homelessness in Toronto but he talks about the lack of social housing, the collapsing of the "social safety net", and so forth. But in a sense homelessness is a problem generalisable to most nations forming the G8 or G20 really.
    I agree, I was just wondering about wherer it was a broader more theoretical work or a more parochial look at Canadas system specifically. Either way I imagine it will be interesting :yep:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question:

    Why was I kicked out of the Labour party?

    Somebody quoted me in the Labour Party Chat forum (I won't mention who). They said I was being 'disrespectful'. I typed a courteous reply but it couldn't be sent because I no longer had access to the forum. For the record, I reject every allegation on reasonable grounds which you should have had the courtesy to hear out before booting me out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I have a question:

    Why was I kicked out of the Labour party?

    Somebody quoted me in the Labour Party Chat forum (I won't mention who). They said I was being 'disrespectful'. I typed a courteous reply but it couldn't be sent because I no longer had access to the forum. For the record, I reject every allegation on reasonable grounds which you should have had the courtesy to hear out before booting me out.
    It was an accident. :o: I've been going through the lists and there were a couple of people around you that haven't posted since sometime last year and so I got rid of them but I might be have been a bit trigger happy. Too many childhood hours spent playing Goldeneye.

    Can fix it though ...

    Sorry!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Cheers mate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Cheers mate
    Just apply again.

    Although if you continue to be discourteous and refuse to quote when talking to me, I may just leave it for Cardozo to do and he's not around for a good while.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Massive overreaction, if you don't mind me saying. Given that we were discussing something in the same thread and my post, commenting on some of your post above it, was directly below the post you posted, I didn't think it needed quotes - and you were surely going to look in that thread because (a) we were having a conversation, both replying and responding to each other, and (b) the HoC forum is quite small. I now know that you like every post responding to you (regardless of whether it's just below the post you made or otherwise) to quote you and will do it in future; but it hardly suggests that I'm being 'disrespectful' or otherwise 'discourteous', which is why I unreservedly said "no" to your question over whether it's disrespectful. My actions weren't intended to be read as disrespectful; I think you're just being slightly paranoid. I replied to your point (courteously) in detail in the Labour forum, but that post is now lost due to your error. I have no evidence to suggest that this coincidence of you being unhappy with me and me being booted out of the party was anything other than an error, and since we all make mistakes, I shan't comment any further on that point.

    However, I don't really think I want to be in a party whose entrants requirements are "don't offend the admission officers" under their rather ridiculous criteria of 'offensiveness' or 'discourteousness'. I think you're being uncharacteristically petty by abusing your power as an admissions officer and using that sort of threat. I do, of course, respect your right to make those admission requirements. But, like I say, to me, using that small unintended incident (i.e. not using quotes to upset you) as a criteria on which to judge whether I'm a suitable Labour member just seems slightly inappropriate.

    Anyway - massive overreaction, as I say

    edit: In fact, when have I ever even refused to quote you when talking to you? When have you ever asked me, prior to that incident, to quote you all the time if I'm responding directly underneath you?

    edit2: Ironic that I forgot to quote you here - but is it really necessary to quote you when I'm responding directly underneath your comment. See how foolish it is to get worked up about this; it's certainly not a sign of me being disrespectful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    However, I don't really think I want to be in a party whose entrants requirements are "don't offend the admission officers" under their rather ridiculous criteria of 'offensiveness' or 'discourteousness'. I think you're being uncharacteristically petty by abusing your power as an admissions officer and using that sort of threat. I do, of course, respect your right to make those admission requirements. But, like I say, to me, using that small unintended incident (i.e. not using quotes to upset you) as a criteria on which to judge whether I'm a suitable Labour member just seems slightly inappropriate.
    All I mean is that there are two of us. By all means apply but it's simply something I can leave to Cardozo since he is also a group leader. That I'm not inclined to action you join request doesn't mean that I'm against your being in the party, I'm simply not mithered to do anything.

    I simply feel that if you are talking to people it is polite to reply to them directly. You do this with other users quite happily.

    In the interests of good will, if you apply I shall accept you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    edit: In fact, when have I ever even refused to quote you when talking to you? When have you ever asked me, prior to that incident, to quote you all the time if I'm responding directly underneath you?.
    I'm not gonna go through either your or his posts, but i'm pretty sure i've seen this argument before?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    All I mean is that there are two of us. By all means apply but it's simply something I can leave to Cardozo since he is also a group leader. That I'm not inclined to action you join request doesn't mean that I'm against your being in the party, I'm simply not mithered to do anything.

    I simply feel that if you are talking to people it is polite to reply to them directly. You do this with other users quite happily.

    In the interests of good will, if you apply I shall accept you.
    True! But I also also sometimes don't do it, which is the relevant point here. And they're quite happy with it, and I'm happy with people not always quoting me when they're responding directly beneath me, or use my user-name in their post, or whatever. Heck, on the very same thread I responded to Gremlins' comment above mine without quoting him by countering his assertion that Latin didn't teach good logic. I certainly don't associated 'impoliteness' with not quoting the person you're responding to when you're just commenting on their post when it's directly above the post you're going to post. Fine, you do, I know that now; but now you know that it was wrong to assume that I was being discourteous. I did it in the Tory thread to Tucker. It's not discourteous, and thus I think this has been massively overblown.

    I tend to quote when I'm in a fast-moving thread, or if my post isn't directly below their post, or if there's a complex argument so quotes need to be taken point-by-point in order to deal with the user's argument, or if there's a small and relevant bit to quote. Or sometimes it's just random.

    If you were so bothered, you should have said something in the past week when I commented on something you said here without quoting you. There are plenty examples - don't make this out as if I'm only 'not quoting' you as some sort of purposeful 'disrespect' agenda. As it happens, I have a lot of respect for you and other posters here, but I'm not going to gladly accept accusations that I'm being discourteous or acting in any way improperly.

    (Original post by paperclip)
    I'm not gonna go through either your or his posts, but i'm pretty sure i've seen this argument before?
    My memory isn't infallible, but I don't remember seeing this argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    x
    People, most of all me, are irrational beings and what does not bother them one week can bother them another week. I simply think that with posts as long as the ones you are liable to make, quoting people in is polite. It's rare that I don't quote people when directly addressing them even when that post is directly beneath. It's just courtesy. I've not suggested that you're doing it deliberately, simply that it's annoying. You've made the false assumption there not me!

    In reference to my not saying anything, lets just say this afternoon was a tipping point. And that post is a bad example given that it wasn't really related to the thread itself. Although, you'll note, I quoted you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    x
    Okay, I apologise for any offence caused - that's really all I can say without continuing a long discussion. Suffice it to say that I don't think I've made the problematic false assumption in this case; I mean, is it really necessary for people to have correctly assumed whether quoting will or will not be deemed upsetting in order to be discourteous?

    I may have bought a chocolate cake as a gift for my sister, assuming that she was not allergic to chocolate cake. It makes no sense to say that my false assumption makes me or the act of purchasing a cake 'discourteous' when my sister vomits on the chocolate cake due to her allergy. And that is solely my point with regards to not quoting you. I didn't think it was necessary (as I explained). I thought it was trivial, and thus that this whole affair is a massive overreaction. I apologise for any offence (as I did in the post I was trying to post in the Labour forum), but don't think I should be criticised for being discourteous, and so a lot of the stuff being implied is really unwarranted.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.