I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago Breaking: No10 releases new letter from Cameron warning all ministers can't "in Parliament" criticise his EU renegotiation.
..... "the PM did a shit job in the renegotiation."
I think Sir Philip Dilley resigning is a great cause for concern. Who will provide the decisive leadership needed to chair 10 meetings a year of the Enviroment agency ?
This must have set back flood defences and other matters the best part of 5 years.
After all, anyone paid £100,000 a year must be of vital strategic importance.
I believe I could probably fit that role into my busy schedule....as long as it doesn't clash with my spring break...my summer break...my autumn break...and my Christmas get away...when do I start?
HA! I could do the job, probably better than the buffoon who has just resigned, without altering the schedule of meetings to accommodate my holidays, and I'd do it for £25k p.a. - plus fully expensed first class travel, especially for finding out how other countries deal with their environmental problems. So begone, Mr Urquhart, your attempts to feather your nest at taxpayers' expense have been exposed.
Feel the opposite about Osborne chances.He is one of the worst performers on TV I`ve seen of a so-called `major figure` .He comes across as an arrogant and sneering Oxbridge post graduate and has something of the air off the kind of toff in a period drama people do not like.There are also plenty of conservative critics of his record as a Chancellor and come the next recession his `buy to let` housing policy may crash his reputation.Value bets to me are searching for female candidate other than Teresa May.I`ve backed Liz Truss 100/1 and Amber Rudd 130/1.Of the men Rory Stewart 140/1 is a possible longshot
I have never thought Osborne has a chance at the next leadership election, much too much of a marmite candidate despite the huge patronage he does not seem shy of dishing out. He will I suspect find out that in politics gratitude is a word for "lively expectation for future favours". May is too old and will never be forgiven for originating the "nasty party" epithet and Boris is, well, too Boris.
Javid and Truss were my two favourites for the run-off but neither seem to be performing up to expectations in the early gallops. Plenty of time yet though and Truss does have that knowing half smile that reduces men of a certain age and type (i.e. at least 50% of the Conservative Party electorate to weak-kneed jelly). Someone else could still come up on the rails, but it is hard to see who, especially as I think the mood is swinging towards a lady for the next leader.
Not that one should choose a leader for their sex, but I think a female Prime Minister would (other things being equal) be well received in the country. It would bring in a change of tone. I also wonder if, in an odd way, it would lay the ghost of Thatcher a bit.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
I think Sir Philip Dilley resigning is a great cause for concern. Who will provide the decisive leadership needed to chair 10 meetings a year of the Enviroment agency ?
This must have set back flood defences and other matters the best part of 5 years.
After all, anyone paid £100,000 a year must be of vital strategic importance.
He has done his job which is to act as a human shield for the Secretary of State, following the splendid example of the HMRC boss. Ministerial accountability is for the birds.
Quite. He was a part-time non-executive Chairman. His job is to manage the Board and hold the executives responsible. It isn't to wander around in the floods in his wellies distracting people who are doing the work.
I thought his resignation letter was excellent. Shove your job. Good for him.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
''Mr. Max, the more censors tighten their grip, the more sites will slip through their fingers [to paraphrase Princess Leia]''.
Twitter shares are at an all time low, Mr Morris. If I was an investor and I thought the company was sensoring right wing mainstream journalists I'd be heading for the exit, too.
The company that is sensoring right wing mainstream journalists appears to be the Daily Telegraph:
The Daily Telegraph has installed devices to monitor whether journalists are at their desks, BuzzFeed News has learned.
The newspaper confirmed the move in email to staff after multiple employees said that they had come into work on Monday morning to find small plastic monitoring boxes attached to their desks.
"Shortly after BuzzFeed News contacted the newspaper for comment, an email was sent to all staff explaining that the sensors will be in place for four weeks and are an environmental measure designed to “make our floors in the building as energy efficient as possible” while reducing “the amount of power we consume for heating, lighting and cooling the building at times of low usage” as part of the Telegraph’s commitment to green energy measures. The data would be used to monitor broad areas within the office for energy usage, it said."
Cos we going green innit...Got to be a gag in there about smell of bull s##t and green house gasses...
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
The hardcore at the centre of it all is actually relatively small. The vast silent majority share their horror at the lunacy going on with the rest of us. But the vocal idiots at the centre are making so much noise that nothing else gets noticed.
Most of them will dump such thinking when they grow up and those that don't will only ever talk to people who agree with them.
I take it that whoever becomes the next Chairman of the Environment Agency, one of the absolute requirements is a crystal ball and that the undertaking of holidays is forbidden?
Perhaps because I'm not a fan of David Bowie, I do find the obsessive coverage of his death way over the top. All the luvvies seem to be out in force. It's on every news channel. LBC have just done a phone-in. You would think absolutely nothing else was happening in the world.
I think Sir Philip Dilley resigning is a great cause for concern. Who will provide the decisive leadership needed to chair 10 meetings a year of the Enviroment agency ?
This must have set back flood defences and other matters the best part of 5 years.
After all, anyone paid £100,000 a year must be of vital strategic importance.
If they had any sense they would simply announce that he will not be replaced.
I take it that whoever becomes the next Chairman of the Environment Agency, one of the absolute requirements is a crystal ball and that the undertaking of holidays is forbidden?
Perhaps because I'm not a fan of David Bowie, I do find the obsessive coverage of his death way over the top. All the luvvies seem to be out in force. It's on every news channel. LBC have just done a phone-in. You would think absolutely nothing else was happening in the world.
If you think the coverage of David Bowie going is OTT (and as it happens I agree), imagine when Paul Mccartney leaves us.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
Indeed. Though I sincerely hope we don't end up regarding a safe space to not be offended by things, rather than think about and confront difficult things, as the same as not punishing people for their sexuality.
I take it that whoever becomes the next Chairman of the Environment Agency, one of the absolute requirements is a crystal ball and that the undertaking of holidays is forbidden?
Perhaps because I'm not a fan of David Bowie, I do find the obsessive coverage of his death way over the top. All the luvvies seem to be out in force. It's on every news channel. LBC have just done a phone-in. You would think absolutely nothing else was happening in the world.
If you think the coverage of David Bowie going is OTT (and as it happens I agree), imagine when Paul Mccartney leaves us.
I heard some worthy on R5 today saying that in popular music there had been 3 greats: Sinatra, Elvis and Bowie. I mean, I am a fan but seriously? OTT and down the other side doesn't really cover it.
I think Sir Philip Dilley resigning is a great cause for concern. Who will provide the decisive leadership needed to chair 10 meetings a year of the Enviroment agency ?
This must have set back flood defences and other matters the best part of 5 years.
After all, anyone paid £100,000 a year must be of vital strategic importance.
He has done his job which is to act as a human shield for the Secretary of State, following the splendid example of the HMRC boss. Ministerial accountability is for the birds.
Quite. He was a part-time non-executive Chairman. His job is to manage the Board and hold the executives responsible. It isn't to wander around in the floods in his wellies distracting people who are doing the work.
I thought his resignation letter was excellent. Shove your job. Good for him.
Crikey, even more reason why they should appoint me. I have chaired more meetings than you can shake a stick at and I had more than twenty years of holding people responsible to the tune of "Smethers, you are useless git, begone" without ever getting my organisation sued for unlawful dismissal. I also know when to let people get on with it, whilst providing necessary support from above and giving credit to my subordinates for their successes and accepting blame for their occasional failures.
Perhaps I am over qualified for the job, but for £25k plus expenses I reckon I would be a bargain for HMG.
Feel the opposite about Osborne chances.He is one of the worst performers on TV I`ve seen of a so-called `major figure` .He comes across as an arrogant and sneering Oxbridge post graduate and has something of the air off the kind of toff in a period drama people do not like.There are also plenty of conservative critics of his record as a Chancellor and come the next recession his `buy to let` housing policy may crash his reputation.Value bets to me are searching for female candidate other than Teresa May.I`ve backed Liz Truss 100/1 and Amber Rudd 130/1.Of the men Rory Stewart 140/1 is a possible longshot
I have never thought Osborne has a chance at the next leadership election, much too much of a marmite candidate despite the huge patronage he does not seem shy of dishing out. He will I suspect find out that in politics gratitude is a word for "lively expectation for future favours". May is too old and will never be forgiven for originating the "nasty party" epithet and Boris is, well, too Boris.
Javid and Truss were my two favourites for the run-off but neither seem to be performing up to expectations in the early gallops. Plenty of time yet though and Truss does have that knowing half smile that reduces men of a certain age and type (i.e. at least 50% of the Conservative Party electorate to weak-kneed jelly). Someone else could still come up on the rails, but it is hard to see who, especially as I think the mood is swinging towards a lady for the next leader.
Osborne has pretty shamelessly been trying to buy the leadership with public money for infrastructure projects in his supporters constituencies and permenantly shutting out in the cold those who oppose him.
He is utterly cynical and entirely political in virtually everything he does. It's a recipe for a truly nihilist, self-serving and wholly cynical Conservative government.
Truly, I hope he crashes and burns. I will vote for anyone but him.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
Indeed. Though I sincerely hope we don't end up regarding a safe space to not be offended by things, rather than think about and confront difficult things, as the same as not punishing people for their sexuality.
This isn't about respect. It is about self-ghettoisation (if such a word can be forced into existence) - and that is not a healthy place to be.
Life is about dealing with the challenges that come up - you can't just run away and hide every time someone says something that doesn't fit within your blinkered worldview.
David Bowie timed his death well in that a generation of his fans are ensconced on the editorial boards of the nation's media outlets. Ten years earlier or later and we'd have had nowhere near as much blanket coverage, I suspect.
That said, I am a bit sad - in his prime he was something very special.
Mr. Simon, worse than self-ghettoisation, it's the idea that being offended gives the terminally over-sensitive the right to censor others or dictate what vocabulary's acceptable.
I think Sir Philip Dilley resigning is a great cause for concern. Who will provide the decisive leadership needed to chair 10 meetings a year of the Enviroment agency ?
This must have set back flood defences and other matters the best part of 5 years.
After all, anyone paid £100,000 a year must be of vital strategic importance.
He has done his job which is to act as a human shield for the Secretary of State, following the splendid example of the HMRC boss. Ministerial accountability is for the birds.
Quite. He was a part-time non-executive Chairman. His job is to manage the Board and hold the executives responsible. It isn't to wander around in the floods in his wellies distracting people who are doing the work.
I thought his resignation letter was excellent. Shove your job. Good for him.
Crikey, even more reason why they should appoint me. I have chaired more meetings than you can shake a stick at and I had more than twenty years of holding people responsible to the tune of "Smethers, you are useless git, begone" without ever getting my organisation sued for unlawful dismissal. I also know when to let people get on with it, whilst providing necessary support from above and giving credit to my subordinates for their successes and accepting blame for their occasional failures.
Perhaps I am over qualified for the job, but for £25k plus expenses I reckon I would be a bargain for HMG.
Feel the opposite about Osborne chances.He is one of the worst performers on TV I`ve seen of a so-called `major figure` .He comes across as an arrogant and sneering Oxbridge post graduate and has something of the air off the kind of toff in a period drama people do not like.There are also plenty of conservative critics of his record as a Chancellor and come the next recession his `buy to let` housing policy may crash his reputation.Value bets to me are searching for female candidate other than Teresa May.I`ve backed Liz Truss 100/1 and Amber Rudd 130/1.Of the men Rory Stewart 140/1 is a possible longshot
I have done something similar and am also long on Truss, Greening and Rudd. Very small stakes in Morgan.
As far as I can tell, Osborne believes in just two things: his career, and winning.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
Indeed. Though I sincerely hope we don't end up regarding a safe space to not be offended by things, rather than think about and confront difficult things, as the same as not punishing people for their sexuality.
This isn't about respect. It is about self-ghettoisation (if such a word can be forced into existence) - and that is not a healthy place to be.
Life is about dealing with the challenges that come up - you can't just run away and hide every time someone says something that doesn't fit within your blinkered worldview.
I agree - that's why I hope we don't come to regard the fight for equal treatment for homosexuals as the same as this.
Remember those council election seats a couple of years ago where the turnout was 10% and 90% voted Labour? That was Karl Turner's constituency in Hull. Used to be John Prescott's.
David Bowie timed his death well in that a generation of his fans are ensconced on the editorial boards of the nation's media outlets. Ten years earlier or later and we'd have had nowhere near as much blanket coverage, I suspect.
That said, I am a bit sad - in his prime he was something very special.
Bowie was always on my favourites list,and I have preloaded my miniature mp3 player with my Bowie favs for tomorrows run. Actually also loaded ELO latest "When I was a boy",etc What is more concerning is his age at death, I have just started getting my state pension, hope to get more than 4 years worth. Maybe I should stop running,then again if I stop now, the withdrawal symptoms might kill me. I will pay my respects whilst running on the fells,enjoy the music, and the outdoors.
I see the live-tweeting of the weekly PLP meetings is still going on in 2016:
@paulwaugh · 44s45 seconds ago One Lab MP calls Milne and McDonnell "spineless bastards" for not turning up to PLP after spending "last week slagging off Labour MPs"
@paulwaugh · 9s10 seconds ago But then on cue McDonnell arrives at PLP. Late but he's here
The hardcore at the centre of it all is actually relatively small. The vast silent majority share their horror at the lunacy going on with the rest of us. But the vocal idiots at the centre are making so much noise that nothing else gets noticed.
Most of them will dump such thinking when they grow up and those that don't will only ever talk to people who agree with them.
They won't run much at all.
Fair points, Mr. Simon, but the attitude of the University, at least as reported, is such that reasonable person might be justified in asking why is this being funded by taxpayers who never had and never will have half the opportunities that the protagonists enjoy.
If the vast majority of the University are horrified at the lunacy then why are their voices not heard and why is the lunacy allowed to continue? One could expect such nonsense from the Fenland College of Arts and Technology but not from an institution that is, supposedly, world class.
Perhaps Oxford's funding ought to be reduced to the level of a former technical school now masquerading as a university.
Mr. Dee, an active lifestyle ensured all Alexander's primary Successors* lived to old age.
*Excepting those who got killed in battle. And Cassander, who lived to his fifties. But Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus and Lysimachus all lived to over 70.
The hardcore at the centre of it all is actually relatively small. The vast silent majority share their horror at the lunacy going on with the rest of us. But the vocal idiots at the centre are making so much noise that nothing else gets noticed.
Most of them will dump such thinking when they grow up and those that don't will only ever talk to people who agree with them.
They won't run much at all.
Fair points, Mr. Simon, but the attitude of the University, at least as reported, is such that reasonable person might be justified in asking why is this being funded by taxpayers who never had and never will have half the opportunities that the protagonists enjoy.
If the vast majority of the University are horrified at the lunacy then why are their voices not heard and why is the lunacy allowed to continue? One could expect such nonsense from the Fenland College of Arts and Technology but not from an institution that is, supposedly, world class.
Perhaps Oxford's funding ought to be reduced to the level of a former technical school now masquerading as a university.
I would certainly be willing to campaign for Oriel to have its college status revoked if it gives in to the #Rhodesmustfall idiots.
It is bad enough that consent classes are now being forced on to freshers - but giving in to the current campaign would be appalling.
Those of us who value free speech, free thought need to fight back. It has always been thus. We need to keep making the argument, answering back, skewering ludicrous nonsense with scorn, contempt, arguments, laughter. We need to keep going and out argue and out speak and out shout those who would shut everyone up. We need to be unrelenting in our insistence on the right to think what we want and to say what we want. Because without fighting for that right we will lose it.
Let's make people like Christopher Hitchens and Orwell our heroes. If they can do it, so can we. We may as well bloody try. I for one am not going to let Enlightenment values go down without a fight. (Pompous as that undoubtedly sounds.)
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
Feel the opposite about Osborne chances.He is one of the worst performers on TV I`ve seen of a so-called `major figure` .He comes across as an arrogant and sneering Oxbridge post graduate and has something of the air off the kind of toff in a period drama people do not like.There are also plenty of conservative critics of his record as a Chancellor and come the next recession his `buy to let` housing policy may crash his reputation.Value bets to me are searching for female candidate other than Teresa May.I`ve backed Liz Truss 100/1 and Amber Rudd 130/1.Of the men Rory Stewart 140/1 is a possible longshot
I have never thought Osborne has a chance at the next leadership election, much too much of a marmite candidate despite the huge patronage he does not seem shy of dishing out. He will I suspect find out that in politics gratitude is a word for "lively expectation for future favours". May is too old and will never be forgiven for originating the "nasty party" epithet and Boris is, well, too Boris.
Javid and Truss were my two favourites for the run-off but neither seem to be performing up to expectations in the early gallops. Plenty of time yet though and Truss does have that knowing half smile that reduces men of a certain age and type (i.e. at least 50% of the Conservative Party electorate to weak-kneed jelly). Someone else could still come up on the rails, but it is hard to see who, especially as I think the mood is swinging towards a lady for the next leader.
Osborne has pretty shamelessly been trying to buy the leadership with public money for infrastructure projects in his supporters constituencies and permenantly shutting out in the cold those who oppose him.
He is utterly cynical and entirely political in virtually everything he does. It's a recipe for a truly nihilist, self-serving and wholly cynical Conservative government.
Truly, I hope he crashes and burns. I will vote for anyone but him.
Spot on, Mr. Royale. The similarities between Osborne and Brown are startling.
Mr. Dee, an active lifestyle ensured all Alexander's primary Successors* lived to old age.
*Excepting those who got killed in battle. And Cassander, who lived to his fifties. But Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus and Lysimachus all lived to over 70.
Yes it is surprising the range of life expectancy,war zones are obviously poor, but I have been climbing in Nepal, and the life expectancy there is shocking, the porters have a tremendous physical activity, but death in your 40s or 50s is common.Yes there are other factors.
I am making my final ever Nepal trip in April,do not want to push my luck,besides,Mrs Jayfdee will not be so kind letting me go, for ever.
I think Sir Philip Dilley resigning is a great cause for concern. Who will provide the decisive leadership needed to chair 10 meetings a year of the Enviroment agency ?
This must have set back flood defences and other matters the best part of 5 years.
After all, anyone paid £100,000 a year must be of vital strategic importance.
He has done his job which is to act as a human shield for the Secretary of State, following the splendid example of the HMRC boss. Ministerial accountability is for the birds.
Quite. He was a part-time non-executive Chairman. His job is to manage the Board and hold the executives responsible. It isn't to wander around in the floods in his wellies distracting people who are doing the work.
I thought his resignation letter was excellent. Shove your job. Good for him.
Crikey, even more reason why they should appoint me. I have chaired more meetings than you can shake a stick at and I had more than twenty years of holding people responsible to the tune of "Smethers, you are useless git, begone" without ever getting my organisation sued for unlawful dismissal. I also know when to let people get on with it, whilst providing necessary support from above and giving credit to my subordinates for their successes and accepting blame for their occasional failures.
Perhaps I am over qualified for the job, but for £25k plus expenses I reckon I would be a bargain for HMG.
As long as you never go on holiday.
Don't be daft. I would never be on holiday. I might be away on a fact finding trip, but nothing more.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
Were homosexuals demanding censorship of people they disagreed with?
Miss Cyclefree, that does sound interesting. Reminds me a bit of university and the view that possessing a set personality might not be quite right, as we all change constantly based on circumstance and environment.
For that matter, it reminds me that I don't get the idea of joining a secular or atheist society. One of the nice things about atheism is that I don't have a priest, book or church telling me what to think.
@PolhomeEditor: Lab MP: "Milne and McDonnell have spent the last week slagging off MPs in the media, but hadn't got the balls to even turn up at the PLP."
Indeed. Though I sincerely hope we don't end up regarding a safe space to not be offended by things, rather than think about and confront difficult things, as the same as not punishing people for their sexuality.
The safe-spacers are just the avant garde. They will be no more important in convincing people of the efficacy of their methods than Peter Tatchell, but most of the things they work for will come to fruition and be overwhelmingly agreed with by the next generation, partly thanks to their unpopular efforts
I'm afraid PB comments are the people to whom Mr Jones addressed "Oh, You Pretty Things!": "Look at your children See their faces in golden rays Don't kid yourself they belong to you They're the start of a coming race ... Make way for the Homo superior"
@PolhomeEditor: Lab MP: "Milne and McDonnell have spent the last week slagging off MPs in the media, but hadn't got the balls to even turn up at the PLP."
Was Bowie a member of the PLP ? Basically anyone can do anything they like today and no one will notice.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
Thanks, I'll look.
Amazing how often a horticultural metaphor (shallow roots) applies to mankind.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
Were homosexuals demanding censorship of people they disagreed with?
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
Miss Cyclefree, that does sound interesting. Reminds me a bit of university and the view that possessing a set personality might not be quite right, as we all change constantly based on circumstance and environment.
For that matter, it reminds me that I don't get the idea of joining a secular or atheist society. One of the nice things about atheism is that I don't have a priest, book or church telling me what to think.
I'm a sort of atheist Catholic in the sense that I have never listened much to any voice of authority purely because it described itself as "Authority". Much to the annoyance - and eventual (I hope) - pride of my parents, since they never paid any attention to any authority either.
We may change over a lifetime. I would hope so. But character is something rooted and strong; affected by experience, obviously, and changed to some degree - but there needs to be some strength, solidity and moral seriousness to it, otherwise it is meaningless.
"Character" is like the main tap root of a tree. It's what anchors it in the ground, keeps it upright and has enough flexibility in it to allow it to sway and bend without breaking and survive when harsh winds blow.
"Identity" is like the changing leaves and fruits as the tree moves from winter to spring and summer and autumn. The same solid tree but wonderfully diverse and looking different throughout the year and throughout its life.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
I always thought prepare your child for the path, not the path for your child was a good adage.
Alas, too often these days we do try to prepare the path for the child so we shouldn't be surprised they can't handle it and act childishly when it doesn't suit them.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
Brendan O'Neill who puts bread on his table by being permanently offended about things he doesn't like? The ironing I prefer the critique of "character" here (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-bowie-changed-the-way-we-think-about-the-self-1.2492444) and I think the critique is accurate, particularly that character is just a banal conservative trope that gets rolled out when they're offended by behaviour that doesn't conform to their patriarchal norms
Remember those council election seats a couple of years ago where the turnout was 10% and 90% voted Labour? That was Karl Turner's constituency in Hull. Used to be John Prescott's.
It is interesting to note, that under one interpretation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, a lawyer has a legal obligation to report a financial crime - even if the person is a client.
So we have a Shadow Attorney General stating his position that he will break the law on a party political basis. A law bought in by his own party.
I'm not sure, but couldn't he get in trouble with the Law Society for making statements like that?
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
I plan to enforce the Tod rule on this site. So, only BOO-ers may critique the BOO case. And only In-ers can comment on the case for Remain.
Feel the opposite about Osborne chances.He is one of the worst performers on TV I`ve seen of a so-called `major figure` .He comes across as an arrogant and sneering Oxbridge post graduate and has something of the air off the kind of toff in a period drama people do not like.There are also plenty of conservative critics of his record as a Chancellor and come the next recession his `buy to let` housing policy may crash his reputation.Value bets to me are searching for female candidate other than Teresa May.I`ve backed Liz Truss 100/1 and Amber Rudd 130/1.Of the men Rory Stewart 140/1 is a possible longshot
I have never thought Osborne has a chance at the next leadership election, much too much of a marmite candidate despite the huge patronage he does not seem shy of dishing out. He will I suspect find out that in politics gratitude is a word for "lively expectation for future favours". May is too old and will never be forgiven for originating the "nasty party" epithet and Boris is, well, too Boris.
Javid and Truss were my two favourites for the run-off but neither seem to be performing up to expectations in the early gallops. Plenty of time yet though and Truss does have that knowing half smile that reduces men of a certain age and type (i.e. at least 50% of the Conservative Party electorate to weak-kneed jelly). Someone else could still come up on the rails, but it is hard to see who, especially as I think the mood is swinging towards a lady for the next leader.
Osborne has pretty shamelessly been trying to buy the leadership with public money for infrastructure projects in his supporters constituencies and permenantly shutting out in the cold those who oppose him.
He is utterly cynical and entirely political in virtually everything he does. It's a recipe for a truly nihilist, self-serving and wholly cynical Conservative government.
Truly, I hope he crashes and burns. I will vote for anyone but him.
Spot on, Mr. Royale. The similarities between Osborne and Brown are startling.
Thanks. And those who support him should look where Brown's leadership got the Labour Party.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
Brendan O'Neill who puts bread on his table by being permanently offended about things he doesn't like? The ironing I prefer the critique of "character" here (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-bowie-changed-the-way-we-think-about-the-self-1.2492444) and I think the critique is accurate, particularly that character is just a banal conservative trope that gets rolled out when they're offended by behaviour that doesn't conform to their patriarchal norms
I've not read that article but will do so. Brendan O'Neill is a deliberate contrarian and often misfires as well as fire bullseyes. But his article is nonetheless interesting and worth a read. An article can be interesting even if you don't agree with every word.
Bowie made the headlines on every radio/tv report worldwide,so many people grew up with him, always dangerous to rubbish a world hero. Oh just realised I used the Hero word.
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
I plan to enforce the Tod rule on this site. So, only BOO-ers may critique the BOO case. And only In-ers can comment on the case for Remain.
You have been warned.
Does that mean that only Labour voters can comment about Corbyn and not Tories on PB from now on ?
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
I don't recall anyone I knew being outraged by that. They were outraged by Section 28.
@paulwaugh: Lab spksmn confirms McNicol + Eagle "made it clear how current policy works, with NationalPolicyForum + conference". Changes need conf vote
You can probably bet that not much work will be done at the Department of Health tomorrow as Jeremy Hunt has his civil servants poring over the deaths reported longing for the one he can try and pin on junior doctors. Meanwhile in hospitals treatment will just carry on.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
This is the whole debate about "safe spaces" in the US going on right now. Some on the left believe that certain groups should have safe spaces on US college campuses to "debate" ideas (furiously agree with each other) while some on the right think that the safe spaces are the first step to stifling freedom of expression and that people shouldn't be cosseted from discussion even if it is critical or even insulting. It isn't a right/left issue entirely though, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
Thirty years ago people were just as outraged about homosexuals demanding respect
Were homosexuals demanding censorship of people they disagreed with?
Through hate speech legislation, yes
It's not unlawful to be critical of homosexuality.
We would of course be better off without silly legislation like the Religious and Racial Hatred Act 2006.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
Well quite. Don't people gain skills from good schools and universities like formulating arguments, understanding the other side and being able to debate any more?
I remember some brilliant debates, the highlight being the annual "reverse sides" debate, where we chose a deliberately contentious subject but had the two sides argue against their usual beliefs - the Christian society v the feminist society on the subject of abortion was not only hugely educating and informative, but also funny in parts as people dealt with having to understand the beliefs of their usual opponents. This is what learning is supposed to be about.
How will these mollycoddled kids arguing for safe spaces survive five minutes in a real world job, or are they all going to end up as Corbyn's SpAds and Guardian columnists..?
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
Brendan O'Neill who puts bread on his table by being permanently offended about things he doesn't like? The ironing I prefer the critique of "character" here (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-bowie-changed-the-way-we-think-about-the-self-1.2492444) and I think the critique is accurate, particularly that character is just a banal conservative trope that gets rolled out when they're offended by behaviour that doesn't conform to their patriarchal norms
I've not read that article but will do so. Brendan O'Neill is a deliberate contrarian and often misfires as well as fire bullseyes. But his article is nonetheless interesting and worth a read. An article can be interesting even if you don't agree with every word.
I agree. I think he is both interesting and usually wrong, but interesting. On average, at least fifty per cent of us are going to be wrong on any divisive issue, so there is nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes.
I've just had a similar experience on Twitter with a Corbynista. I was very polite, pointed out some uncomfortable facts and was then called a fat, mummies boy.
I noted that I'm female, slim and my mother is long dead. He blocked me.
The level of debate is non existent. It's toddler world.
Mr. P, not just the entertainingly thick, but the dangerously stupid too. Such as people who think Muslims in the UK get the same treatment as the Jews did under Hitler.
, Obama came out against safe spaces and said they are bad for education and freedom.
I am surprised there is even a debate about this. A university which shies away from critical thinking is not a university but a dinner party.
"Space safes" are the "intellectual" equivalent of those plastic corners you put on tables to stop your toddler poking his eye out when he falls. They are not necessary for adults.
Anyone demanding a "safe space" reveals themselves to be a baby. Usually a baby shrieking and spitting out their dummy. But a baby nonetheless. They should be gently told that we - the grown ups - will pay attention to them when - and only when - they have grown up.
One side-effect of tuition fees is to have turned students into customers, and customers are empowered to demand relevant courses, better lecturers and, well, safer spaces. Probably only the first two were used by ministers advocating fees.
Paying fees does not give you the right to a 'safe space' - it just entitles you to a quality education. Nothing about the 'safe space' movement has anything other than a damaging effect on the concept of a quality education.
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Thing is, they will soon be the real world. In twenty-odd years they'll be running the country.
The hardcore at the centre of it all is actually relatively small. The vast silent majority share their horror at the lunacy going on with the rest of us. But the vocal idiots at the centre are making so much noise that nothing else gets noticed.
Most of them will dump such thinking when they grow up and those that don't will only ever talk to people who agree with them.
They won't run much at all.
I hope you're right. Else we may have a very unfree society in which to grow old.
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
I plan to enforce the Tod rule on this site. So, only BOO-ers may critique the BOO case. And only In-ers can comment on the case for Remain.
You have been warned.
Does that mean that only Labour voters can comment about Corbyn and not Tories on PB from now on ?
I was going to only allow members of Momentum can comment on Corbyn...
Bowie made the headlines on every radio/tv report worldwide,so many people grew up with him, always dangerous to rubbish a world hero. Oh just realised I used the Hero word.
''Mr. Max, the more censors tighten their grip, the more sites will slip through their fingers [to paraphrase Princess Leia]''.
Twitter shares are at an all time low, Mr Morris. If I was an investor and I thought the company was sensoring right wing mainstream journalists I'd be heading for the exit, too.
The company that is sensoring right wing mainstream journalists appears to be the Daily Telegraph:
The Daily Telegraph has installed devices to monitor whether journalists are at their desks, BuzzFeed News has learned.
The newspaper confirmed the move in email to staff after multiple employees said that they had come into work on Monday morning to find small plastic monitoring boxes attached to their desks.
"Shortly after BuzzFeed News contacted the newspaper for comment, an email was sent to all staff explaining that the sensors will be in place for four weeks and are an environmental measure designed to “make our floors in the building as energy efficient as possible” while reducing “the amount of power we consume for heating, lighting and cooling the building at times of low usage” as part of the Telegraph’s commitment to green energy measures. The data would be used to monitor broad areas within the office for energy usage, it said."
Cos we going green innit...Got to be a gag in there about smell of bull s##t and green house gasses...
So in other words the original story was cobblers. The dull irony of the media cocking up a story about the media seems lost on you
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
There is an interesting - if somewhat lengtyh - article on Spiked Online about Character which explains why the focus on choosing your own identity paradoxically leads to people being less secure in who they are and therefore ever more shrilly insistent on being protected from any challenge. The very brittleness and shallowness of "identity" as opposed to real "character" leads to all these demands. Something or someone with shallow roots will always need cossetting to avoid falling over.
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
Brendan O'Neill who puts bread on his table by being permanently offended about things he doesn't like? The ironing I prefer the critique of "character" here (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-bowie-changed-the-way-we-think-about-the-self-1.2492444) and I think the critique is accurate, particularly that character is just a banal conservative trope that gets rolled out when they're offended by behaviour that doesn't conform to their patriarchal norms
I've not read that article but will do so. Brendan O'Neill is a deliberate contrarian and often misfires as well as fire bullseyes. But his article is nonetheless interesting and worth a read. An article can be interesting even if you don't agree with every word.
I agree. I think he is both interesting and usually wrong, but interesting. On average, at least fifty per cent of us are going to be wrong on any divisive issue, so there is nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes.
You can probably bet that not much work will be done at the Department of Health tomorrow as Jeremy Hunt has his civil servants poring over the deaths reported longing for the one he can try and pin on junior doctors. Meanwhile in hospitals treatment will just carry on.
There will be deaths tomorrow,there always are, and someone, somewhere, will pin it on the strikes.
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
That's what he seemed to be saying. What he was actually saying was that non-Muslims shouldn't criticise Islam. Because - well because .... nothing. Because, au fond, he's scared. But I'm sure it was put at length and more elegantly than that.
In the end, this is what this is all about. Stage 1 - 7 and all the rest of it.
If Muslims had reacted to criticism over the last 40 years with a shrug of the shoulders and a "well we don't agree but you're entitled to your opinion" response we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
It's the very ferocity of response (by some) to even the mildest of criticism - or even the very idea of criticism at all - which has resulted in some others being determined to exercise their right to criticise and in whatever terms they choose precisely to make the point. Good manners will be resumed at the point at which one side understands that good manners involve listening without shouting back or trying to harm the person you're in a conversation with. Good manners are about giving as well as expecting or receiving.
You can probably bet that not much work will be done at the Department of Health tomorrow as Jeremy Hunt has his civil servants poring over the deaths reported longing for the one he can try and pin on junior doctors. Meanwhile in hospitals treatment will just carry on.
There will be deaths tomorrow,there always are, and someone, somewhere, will pin it on the strikes.
Let us accept that the doctors work is essential. It therefore follows that the operations and consultations which have been delayed, will lead to more pain, more discomfort, more worry and more deaths.
FPT: thanks @RodCrosby for the Art Tatum track. Lifted my spirits for the afternoon.
Yes, Art Tatum is absolutely wonderful. Also Rod mentioned Ben Webster - another goodie.
They actually recorded together once. Art was not always comfortable in a group setting:- either the others couldn't keep up, or tried to compete with him, pointlessly.
Ben knew better, and let his languid phrases simply float over Art's dazzling embroidery, creating something very special, one of the top 100 jazz albums of all time. Impossible to believe that just six weeks later Art was dead, aged only 47... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsZZkOgtMyI
@paulwaugh: Lab spksmn confirms McNicol + Eagle "made it clear how current policy works, with NationalPolicyForum + conference". Changes need conf vote
So thats sorted then. Pity no union block vote to kick the loony ideas into touch. Jeremy Corbyn is heading for his Clause V Moment ?
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
I plan to enforce the Tod rule on this site. So, only BOO-ers may critique the BOO case. And only In-ers can comment on the case for Remain.
You have been warned.
Does that mean that only Labour voters can comment about Corbyn and not Tories on PB from now on ?
I was going to only allow members of Momentum can comment on Corbyn...
What is also clear is that the Government have not prepared the ground to undertake this fight with the junior doctors. IMHO they should just announce that the 7 day move is delayed for a year and appoint an independent review into what would be the benefits from the changes. Then they can announce in about 6 months time how many deaths and how much pain and discomfort to patients will be saved every year. This is a battle over a change which requires cold hard facts at the start.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
It could happen, by virtue of UKIP being above the voting threshold for seats even if Labour increases it's share of the vote.
Comments
They will all get a shock if they try to get a job in the real world...
Helen Winter faces being struck off after admitting taking the party drug MDMA at a nightclub with two clients of the charity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12093263/Drugs-charges-against-Kids-Company-psychologist-all-proven.html
Dan sees more trouble ahead.
I thought his resignation letter was excellent. Shove your job. Good for him.
Cos we going green innit...Got to be a gag in there about smell of bull s##t and green house gasses...
Most of them will dump such thinking when they grow up and those that don't will only ever talk to people who agree with them.
They won't run much at all.
Perhaps because I'm not a fan of David Bowie, I do find the obsessive coverage of his death way over the top. All the luvvies seem to be out in force. It's on every news channel. LBC have just done a phone-in. You would think absolutely nothing else was happening in the world.
It seems high-paying non-jobs are still a part of the public sector the government's 'austerity' policies cannot reach.
Perhaps I am over qualified for the job, but for £25k plus expenses I reckon I would be a bargain for HMG.
He is utterly cynical and entirely political in virtually everything he does. It's a recipe for a truly nihilist, self-serving and wholly cynical Conservative government.
Truly, I hope he crashes and burns. I will vote for anyone but him.
Life is about dealing with the challenges that come up - you can't just run away and hide every time someone says something that doesn't fit within your blinkered worldview.
That said, I am a bit sad - in his prime he was something very special.
Mr. L, one quite agrees.
As far as I can tell, Osborne believes in just two things: his career, and winning.
Our country deserves far better.
What is more concerning is his age at death, I have just started getting my state pension, hope to get more than 4 years worth.
Maybe I should stop running,then again if I stop now, the withdrawal symptoms might kill me. I will pay my respects whilst running on the fells,enjoy the music, and the outdoors.
@paulwaugh · 44s45 seconds ago
One Lab MP calls Milne and McDonnell "spineless bastards" for not turning up to PLP after spending "last week slagging off Labour MPs"
@paulwaugh · 9s10 seconds ago
But then on cue McDonnell arrives at PLP. Late but he's here
Labour MP brands John McDonnell and Seumas Milne "spineless bastards" for missing PLP tonight. McDonnell turned up 40 mins late.
If the vast majority of the University are horrified at the lunacy then why are their voices not heard and why is the lunacy allowed to continue? One could expect such nonsense from the Fenland College of Arts and Technology but not from an institution that is, supposedly, world class.
Perhaps Oxford's funding ought to be reduced to the level of a former technical school now masquerading as a university.
*Excepting those who got killed in battle. And Cassander, who lived to his fifties. But Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus and Lysimachus all lived to over 70.
It is bad enough that consent classes are now being forced on to freshers - but giving in to the current campaign would be appalling.
Those of us who value free speech, free thought need to fight back. It has always been thus. We need to keep making the argument, answering back, skewering ludicrous nonsense with scorn, contempt, arguments, laughter. We need to keep going and out argue and out speak and out shout those who would shut everyone up. We need to be unrelenting in our insistence on the right to think what we want and to say what we want. Because without fighting for that right we will lose it.
Let's make people like Christopher Hitchens and Orwell our heroes. If they can do it, so can we. We may as well bloody try. I for one am not going to let Enlightenment values go down without a fight. (Pompous as that undoubtedly sounds.)
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
Unless you learn to deal with situations that either challenge you out make you uncomfortable how can can you develop the emotional skills to cope with life?
Of course, the way to prevent this kind of nonsense is to ignore the wibbling bed-wetters.
I am making my final ever Nepal trip in April,do not want to push my luck,besides,Mrs Jayfdee will not be so kind letting me go, for ever.
How many more to go?
Worth digging out. It was written recently and by Brendan O'Neill, if I recall correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37dklS3I7jM
In other news, there are resignations from opposition and government today, so that no one will notice.
Jason Mancs
Gold. Twitter currently moving from stage 7 to criticism of those engaging in stage 7 https://t.co/VYbmbwbFSZ
For that matter, it reminds me that I don't get the idea of joining a secular or atheist society. One of the nice things about atheism is that I don't have a priest, book or church telling me what to think.
I'm afraid PB comments are the people to whom Mr Jones addressed "Oh, You Pretty Things!":
"Look at your children
See their faces in golden rays
Don't kid yourself they belong to you
They're the start of a coming race
...
Make way for the Homo superior"
Basically anyone can do anything they like today and no one will notice.
@JohnRentoul: For Ed Miliband, One Nation was a soundbite. For moderates it should be the rallying cry to take on Corbyn https://t.co/l2WadRLnqO
Amazing how often a horticultural metaphor (shallow roots) applies to mankind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF7iSGTvzW0
Like this
I do hope everyone is retweeting the fck out of this. https://t.co/1t8VJKOUeo
Camilla Long
Listening to Earth Song. Weeping
We may change over a lifetime. I would hope so. But character is something rooted and strong; affected by experience, obviously, and changed to some degree - but there needs to be some strength, solidity and moral seriousness to it, otherwise it is meaningless.
"Character" is like the main tap root of a tree. It's what anchors it in the ground, keeps it upright and has enough flexibility in it to allow it to sway and bend without breaking and survive when harsh winds blow.
"Identity" is like the changing leaves and fruits as the tree moves from winter to spring and summer and autumn. The same solid tree but wonderfully diverse and looking different throughout the year and throughout its life.
Alas, too often these days we do try to prepare the path for the child so we shouldn't be surprised they can't handle it and act childishly when it doesn't suit them.
I prefer the critique of "character" here (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-bowie-changed-the-way-we-think-about-the-self-1.2492444) and I think the critique is accurate, particularly that character is just a banal conservative trope that gets rolled out when they're offended by behaviour that doesn't conform to their patriarchal norms
So we have a Shadow Attorney General stating his position that he will break the law on a party political basis. A law bought in by his own party.
I'm not sure, but couldn't he get in trouble with the Law Society for making statements like that?
You have been warned.
Errmm, that is twitter, what you've expected it to be, intellectual ?
We would of course be better off without silly legislation like the Religious and Racial Hatred Act 2006.
I remember some brilliant debates, the highlight being the annual "reverse sides" debate, where we chose a deliberately contentious subject but had the two sides argue against their usual beliefs - the Christian society v the feminist society on the subject of abortion was not only hugely educating and informative, but also funny in parts as people dealt with having to understand the beliefs of their usual opponents. This is what learning is supposed to be about.
How will these mollycoddled kids arguing for safe spaces survive five minutes in a real world job, or are they all going to end up as Corbyn's SpAds and Guardian columnists..?
Given she's quite an infamous cow about her interviewees, I'm surprised she's been so silly.
Any with sarcasm can't be divided from the genuine.
In the end, this is what this is all about. Stage 1 - 7 and all the rest of it.
If Muslims had reacted to criticism over the last 40 years with a shrug of the shoulders and a "well we don't agree but you're entitled to your opinion" response we wouldn't be having this debate at all.
It's the very ferocity of response (by some) to even the mildest of criticism - or even the very idea of criticism at all - which has resulted in some others being determined to exercise their right to criticise and in whatever terms they choose precisely to make the point. Good manners will be resumed at the point at which one side understands that good manners involve listening without shouting back or trying to harm the person you're in a conversation with. Good manners are about giving as well as expecting or receiving.
Trump 32%
Cruz 14%
Kasich 14%
Rubio 12%
Christie 8%
Fiorina 5%
Paul 4%
Bush 4%
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/290da493-3987-4ce9-8421-ab5b42f97a41.pdf
ARG New Hampshire GOP Poll
Trump 25%
Rubio 14%
Kasich 14%
Christie 10%
Cruz 9%
Bush 8%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2016/primary/rep/nhrep.html
Trump 31%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 15%
Carson 7%
Christie 4%
Bush 3%
Huckabee 3%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2313
Ben knew better, and let his languid phrases simply float over Art's dazzling embroidery, creating something very special, one of the top 100 jazz albums of all time.
Impossible to believe that just six weeks later Art was dead, aged only 47...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsZZkOgtMyI
Iowa Quinipack
Trump 31 +3
Cruz 29 +2
Rubio 15 +1
Carson 7 -3
Christie 4 +1
Bush 3 -2
Huckabee 3 +2
Paul 2 -2
Kasich 2 +1
Fiorina 1 -2
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2313
Monmouth N.H.
Trump 32 +6
Cruz 14 +5
Kasich 14 +3
Rubio 12 -2
Christie 8 +3
Fiorina 5 0
Bush 4 -3
Paul 4 +1
Carson 3 -13
Huckabee 1 0
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/290da493-3987-4ce9-8421-ab5b42f97a41.pdf
ARG N.H
Trump: 25 +4
Kasich 14 +1
Rubio 14 -1
Christie 10 -2
Cruz 9 -1
Bush 8 +1
Paul 4 (nc)
Fiorina 3 -2
Carson 2 -4
ARG Iowa
Trump 29
Cruz 25
Rubio 10
Carson 6
Christie 6
Paul 4
Bush 3
Kasich 3
Huckabee 2
Santorum 2
Fiorina 1
IBD/TIPP National
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/011116-789089-hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vanishes-among-democrats.htm
Trump 34 +7
Cruz 18 +5
Rubio 9 -5
Carson 8 -7
Christie 4 +2
Bush 4 +1
Paul 3 +1
Fiorina 2 -1
Kasich 2 0
Huckabee 1 -1
Common denominator of all but one of today's polls:
The betting frontrunner, Marco Rubio, is going down.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
IBD/TIPP national
Clinton 43 -8
Sanders 39 +6
O'Malley 2 +1
Iowa ARG
Sanders 47
Clinton 44
N.H. ARG
Sanders 47 +4
Clinton 44 -2
Iowa NBC/WSJ (last one from September included Biden)
Clinton 48 +15
Sanders 45 +17
O'Malley 5 +3
N.H. NBC/WSJ (last one from September included Biden)
Sanders 50 +8
Clinton 46 +18
O'Malley 1 -1
Trump 34%
Cruz 18%
Rubio 9%
Carson 8%
Christie 4%
Bush 4%
Democratic National
Clinton 43%
Sanders 39%
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/011116-789089-hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vanishes-among-democrats.htm