Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
Dear TMA,

I'm curious, do you ever stop and think about the wider implications of your political position?

This might be the point where you claim that your stated political beliefs are just an attempt to troll me for fun, but it's a bit tricky since they so closely resemble the beliefs you grew up with, and the beliefs you genuinely claimed to hold throughout your teens. If you expect to be taken seriously when claiming you're just trolling, you might want to work harder at establishing your actual position.

In any case, I got to thinking - what would things be like if you and I had been born, say, thirty years earlier? I'd wager good money that I'd be helping to organise pickets of companies that supported apartheid in South Africa. Meanwhile, you would be obnoxiously tweeting (or contemporary equivalent) about how I and my ilk are unwashed hippies, probably throwing in a "Mandela should be hanged as a communist terrorist" for trolling good measure.

A couple of decades earlier, and I wonder what you'd be saying about the civil rights movement as part of your right wing rambling.. Or a couple of decades more, and perhaps you'd be agreeing with the Daily Mail about how agreeable the "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" of fascism is.

Now obviously I know there's a part of you that's just after a reaction, but there's another part that's sitting there kind of agreeing with everything you say if not exactly how you say it. Just want you to think about what company that puts you in - throughout history, pretty much, it puts you on the side of the "bad guys".

Consider me trolled,


  • 1
(Deleted comment)
Some views need to be challenged in the open.

Apparently you haven't heard of email.

You know my true position you fucking bellend (and I mean that as a term of endearment). Yes, I'm right of centre, and generally on the side of common sense (Go ahead and read 'Daily Mail' into that if you like, but common sense is actually A Thing, and nothing to do with disgusting newspapers like the Mail).

Because I'm on the side of, you know, normal things that sensible, down to earth people believe in, the stuff you write on twitter, which is I can only assume a façade to further yourself in your new circles, just winds me up. It winds a lot of people up, and sooner or later you'll only end up with friends who have these extreme left ideals and you'll actually start believing it all, genuinely. Being in a bunch of people who have the same extreme mindset is bad on either side of the equation.

Due to this being a generally irritating front for me to put up with (I generally skip over your tweets to avoid being annoyed by them) I occasionally have to poke you with a stick. Do I think the 'protesters' at St Pauls should be there? No, they're breaking laws that are in place for a really good reason. Do I think they should be beaten with sticks until they leave? Well... it'd be a passing thought but I'm going to say probably not.

I like you, James, we've known each other for half our lives, but if you want to carry on being friends I'm either going to have to learn to ignore some of your more ridiculous leftists nonsense or you're going to have to tone it the fuck down to just 'left of centre' like a sensible person.

Is all of this about anything in particular?

This is how he and I "do foreplay", you should probably avert your eyes.. :o)

the stuff you write on twitter, which is I can only assume a façade to further yourself in your new circles

Nope. Genuinely believe it. Sorry. Perhaps based on this new information, you can understand why your constant right wing sniping is really irritating.

No, they're breaking laws that are in place for a really good reason

No, they're actually not. The law being used to evict them is the one concerning obstructing the public highway. You've been there - are they actually an obstruction? Are they in anyone's way? Is there no way around them? I think not. If you honestly think that's a good enough reason for TSG to rock up and crack people over the head, then you have your priorities right out of whack.

it'd be a passing thought but I'm going to say probably not

And yet, if it does happen, be honest, you'd be more likely to blame the protesters than the police, wouldn't you? With a whole "well they brought it on themselves" mentality.

Do you see how this actually functions as a decent parallel to the examples I gave above of people standing up for what they believe in, only to meet violent oppression by the state?

I'm either going to have to learn to ignore some of your more ridiculous leftists nonsense or you're going to have to tone it the fuck down to just 'left of centre' like a sensible person.

It's going to have to be the former, because the latter is a huge part of the problem. If anything, self-proclaimed "liberals" wind me up even more than you do :o)

You know that I think that there's a not entirely insignificant minority of the police who signed up to legalise their inner thug and desire for exerting power over mere mortals, so you'd be wrong on my thoughts there. It's definitely not a cut and dry "The police are always starting the violence" as I'm sure you'd like to believe, either.

I'm going to do my best to ignore your more 'out there' stuff on Twitter, and here's a deal for you: If you promise to think a bit harder about some of the more unworkable 'pie in the sky' type leftist talk before jumping on its three-wheeled bandwagon, I'll not send the Combat 18 version of myself in your direction ;)

The real world is a tough balance to strike, and I don't think either of us have it right.

Edited at 2012-02-25 02:17 pm (UTC)

Possibly so, but you'd still be telling me that the protesters all asked for it, so it's a bit academic :o)

In any case, ignoring the stuff I put on Twitter isn't really the ideal approach - I don't write stuff so that everybody can agree with me, you know what I'm like, that's just boring. It's one of the (many) reasons I'm thinking of ditching Twitter, because ultimately agreeing is such an easier response than disagreeing that it skews debate.

What I'd rather get from you are actual reasons why things I'm suggesting (such as paying people for work they do, for example) are "out there" and "unworkable". And ultimately that takes more than 140 characters, especially if you want to do it properly.

So my alternative deal is that I'll put my loony ideas here, and you have to actually try to challenge them rather than just being a reactionary shit. How's that? :o)

Incidentally, Naomi apologises on my behalf, and says she agrees with you. Enjoy that while it lasts ;o)

Deal. Also statements like such as paying people for work they do, for example make it seem like you figure I think the government are brimming with fantastic ideas. They are not.

No guarantees I won't just respond with "You're wrong, because... your mum." since I'm actually not really a fan of political debate. Mostly because both sides on any given politically divisive subject are ultimately not quite right, realise they are wrong but refuse to accept the other side might have a bit of a point out of pride.

(Deleted comment)
If I ditched Twitter, it would be with a possible view to writing stuff here more. If that helps...

(Deleted comment)
I believe that's your problem to fix, rather than mine.

Also, I can possibly help you with that.. :o)

(Deleted comment)
Your view has been noted in your file, and will be taken into consideration during the post-revolution work assignments :o)

(Deleted comment)
It's better than the alternative (agreeing with TMA!)

Also, nobody agrees with me out of fear any more, so I'm cool with it :o)

Manufactured drama to raise your brand profile in a market you lost. I'm onto you.

Using my own sockpuppet to "hang a lantern" on "what I did there" in order to protect against reputational harm from engaging in such confrontational behaviour by passing it off as a marketing strategy. I'm onto me.

If I were your sockpuppet, I'd probably use a conditional sentence to imply that I'm an autonomous being without appearing to protest too much.

  • 1