To loathe lefties with a passion?(363 Posts)
Came across this and loved it. Punctures left wing twats right between the eyes!
"The point is that the "hierarchy of victims " is not an accident nor unique to this case. It is the whole basis on which lefties' views and loyalties in any issue are shaped - i.e. not by its rights and wrongs, but by who the protagonists are.
Any group you can think of can be slotted somewhere into the heirarchy of those whom the left either likes - ethnic minorities, Muslims, communists, strikers, the disabled, women, gays, public sector workers, dole claimants, and criminals, for example - or loathes: Americans, Tories, farmers, taxpayers, men generally, bankers and owners of private wealth.
These hatreds instruct the left on any issue. If demonstrating NUM miners are forcibly dispersed by the police, they side with the miners. If the Countryside Alliance are dispersed by the police, however, they side with the police, because they like miners and hate farmers.
If a Tory government withdraws money from pensioners it's the epitome of evil. If an NHS worker leaves the elderly to starve to death in their own excrement, the left couldn't care less. The left isn't pro-elderly unless this means being anti-someone else. If the someone else is the NHS producer, then the left isn't pro-elderly any more. The side they pick is the producer, who matters more than the consumer.
Where it all goes tits up is when two different client groups are at each others' throats. So the leftist sympathises with the criminal in general - unless the crime is domestic violence. Then they sympathise with the woman. Unless, again, the man is a Muslim cleric, in which case the lefty has to look away. Reggae singers going on about shooting gays in the head: this does not compute. Gangs of Muslims threatening gays: does not compute. Black governments victimising their own citizens? Pretend it isn't happening.
The left doesn't really give a toss about miners. What matters is who else is involved. White British police? - side with the miners. Black Communist-controlled police? - side with the police, they're above reproach - or at any rate, above miners [reference to ANC police and black miners at Marikana].
As we've noted before, Lefties reduce every issue to a disgusting form of Top Trumps. They are, quite simply, morally incompetent."
Is it unreasonable to agree that lefties are morally incompetent?
Karlos, it is true that the state health system is not perfect, but that is why we need to keep up the pressure to report where it fails and to hold people to account so that it improves.
Some people are fortunate and can afford to choose whether to have state or privately provided health, but the majority have no choice. We have to improve state health care.
But there are lots of savings to be made in the Big State in other areas.
People do those things with state-provided safety nets too, slug - ask the relatives of the 1200 prematurely dead in Stafford.
It's not enough to say "pay for the big state and it will provide" - sometimes the way the big state operates militates against effective provision for people in need. As those of us with kids with SN find out to our cost.
Just read that link Desiderata and had a good laugh as after only 8 posts Godwins Law was invoked. Idiots
The problem with not providing state-provided safety nets is people starve to death or die of preventable diseases.
Is it James Delingpole?
Do I win?
The trouble with state-provided safety nets is that while they may be universal in their coverage, they are often not very good. As the parent of a child with a disability I have strained every sinew to avoid entrusting him to state education providers (MS and SN) and I shudder at the thought that he may one day be dependent on state care. State provision in these sectors is all too often merely a job-creation scheme for people who want an easy life. The best quality input DS has had has been privately purchased or accessed via non-state sources (MN SN board, for example, provides far better info about ASD than any health visitor I have ever met).
Where this leaves the size of the state debate I do not know. I just know I don't trust the state to look after DS. So I laugh bitterly when I hear the more fortunate laud state health and education provision and the people who provide it.
Like dogs, you offer them a reward
We don't have a luxury cushion though do we?
But it does not work that way. People need incentives to work hard.
I want everyone to have access to enough food. I want everyone to have access to adequate health care. Optional additional health care or slightly faster access I have no problem with people being able to buy. Ditto eating organic or going out to restaurants.
If people work hard and do well, they SHOULD have more IMO. However there should be a safety net for those who fall on hard times, but a safety net not a top luxury safety cushion.
What would you rather, watch others enjoy freedom to purchase health or experience freedom from unmet health needs?
Its a Q? of freedom for Versus freedom to
I would like freedom from starvation rather than the freedom to spend my greater wealth stuffing my face.
But nor do extremes of redistribution. They tend to lead to USSR style states with all powerful governments and corrupt politicians.
As I said, pure ideology rarely works in politics.
ah, so libertarian values and free markets lead to such huge inequality that some couldn't walk on the pavement or have health care.......The freedom to starve or saw your own leg off. Free markets do not equate to free people.
I don't think "pure" anything works well in politics. I don't think many people would like the idea of people starving while others live the life of our plutocracy, or that there would be no medical care at all if you could not afford it.
On the other hand, I think most people are amazed at some of the things that are currently thought of as reasonable for spending government (i.e our) money on, or some of the lack of controls over how it is spent.
Thinking about it, the libertarian safety net would be supplied by private charity, wouldn't it? So fairly...ephemeral.
Surely 'pure' libertarianism would disagree with there being a safety net at all?
Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I think you are taking this thread a little seriously. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but discussing nuanced politics can be quite dull, and also hard to do in pithy posts rather than long essays.
I am right wing but don't buy all the agenda. I do think, fundamentally, it is about how big you want the state to be and what you think that they should be responsible for. It is also about where you want to place the safety net, rather than whether it should exist at all etc. And, finally, there is the libertarian agenda (which I strongly subscribe to) that the state should stay out of individual's affairs unless there is a desperate need to intervene.
I took this thread, though, as a chance to poke some fun at left wingers (light heartedly) which counteracts 95% of Mumsnet, where the right are continually derided as stupid and heartless. I know that there are as many different shades of left wingers as of right wingers and, realistically, you cannot stereotype either of them.
I remember plenty of ordinary Tory voters who were unhappy with the Thatcher and Major years because so much of the privatisation was ill thought out and not really working. Just because you have a general political stance doesn't mean you have to admire any politician who belongs to the same party.
I am a Christian. I could rattle off a whole list of priests and church leaders whom I do not admire at all, some of whom I consider absolutely disastrous for the church.
As I remember it the upper class stooges in the conservatives hated Thatcher because her allegiance wasn't to maintaining their class power but further eroding it with her love affair with the free market.
Have reported corporate vampire upthread.
Does it scale, well yes it does. Before the creation of the anarchic state and patriarchal power relations (2000+ BC) we did indeed live in small groups. But things have changed. We live in a global economy, the whole of human development through the various stages of production and social organisation has been necessary as is the pain we are going through now.
All of them? Oh dear..... <wanders off to hide in cupboard>
As I remember it, plenty of traditional Conservatives felt about Margaret Thatcher the same way as plenty of traditional Labour supporters felt about Blair: they hated her guts and thought she was betraying the central ideals of Conservatism.
Because humans evolved to live in smallish groups. This is not possible in our world today on any large scale.
Oh look, new Mumsnetters! Hello!
Oh look, bigoted and narrow-minded Mumsnetters who like to make sweeping generalisations mainly for the fun of it and to wind up others in the process - what fun!
<marks down names to avoid, sends email to MNHQ about adding a 'block poster' option>
larrygrylls Wed 27-Feb-13 09:29:48
"The truth that lefties hate is that New Labour adored bankers and bank bonuses."
Of course we hate it; not the truth but the fact. Plenty of us lefties hated it so much we were shouting it from the roof tops during the New Labour years. Hated it in the sense of "we see that this is true and it is a hateful thing" rather then "we'd hate for anyone to know about it".
As others have said, New Labour were trying to run a welfare state with a Neo-Liberal agenda.
PessaryPam Wed 27-Feb-13 10:07:52
"When pressed apparently these weren't real Lefties. WTF, Blair was the elected leader of your party! The Left, always rewriting the past to suit. "
So there were no Tories who hated Thatcher? No Tories who dislike Cameron?
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.