To think this is a new low even for Farage?

[LouiseBrooks]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/20/nigel-farage-accuses-jo-cox-widower-brendan-cox-of-supporting-extremism

"Farage said: “Well, of course, he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.”

I really hope that Hope not Hate sue him.

[WrongTrouser]

birdy To go back to your postcyesterday

WT: My gut feeling is that a lot of the "haves" are actually very, very confused at the moment and are really struggling to understand what's going on, why people voted for Brexit against the advice of almost anyone with any power (I am not ignoring Farage, Johnson etc but in general terms most politicians and institutions supported remain), and why Americans elected Trump

birdy: I don't think that's true at all. We do understand what you have done. We're not confused. We just think its 'bad'. We think it was/is the most stupid choice

You can't speak for all remain voters. Remain are no more an amorphous hive mind than leave.

I wouldn't say it was a rejection of the left. I don't understand this characterization of a struggle between left and right, (especially coming from posters who previously argued that Brexit appealed to people from both left and right?!?!)

I d

It was populism. Simple solutions/sound bites to the massively complex issue of globalism.

Most remainers or anti-Trump people believe your choices are going to make the world far more unstable for all us and will lead to far more financial hard-ship for all of us.

And yet, ironically, we're still expected to come up with 'the plan'.

For most people, opting to take the alternative supported by the monstrous IS, the dictator Putin, the racist Le Pen and the great big racist toddler Trump would give them pause for thought. Not everyone though, clearly.

[WrongTrouser]

Please ignore my last post of 11.57. I was in the middle of writing it and posted in error.

[WrongTrouser]

I'll try again.

birdyTo go back to your post yesterday

WT: My gut feeling is that a lot of the "haves" are actually very, very confused at the moment and are really struggling to understand what's going on, why people voted for Brexit against the advice of almost anyone with any power (I am not ignoring Farage, Johnson etc but in general terms most politicians and institutions supported remain), and why Americans elected Trump

birdy: I don't think that's true at all. We do understand what you have done. We're not confused. We just think its 'bad'. We think it was/is the most stupid choice

You can't speak for all remain voters. Remain are no more an amorphous hive mind than leave.

birdy: I wouldn't say it was a rejection of the left. I don't understand this characterization of a struggle between left and right, (especially coming from posters who previously argued that Brexit appealed to people from both left and right?!?!)

Possibly crossed wires here. I have never said Brexit is a left/right issue. The discussion about the global rightwards drift (if there is one) was an aside in response to Bills point about the dangers for the left of going down the no platforming route.

I feel very strongly it isn't a left right issue, and in fact I think that is another of the stereotypical type explanations which is simplistic and unhelpful. The second study I linked to above shows almost no difference in remain/leave vote between people who identify as left, don't know or right wing (which is almost no-one in that study, interesting, I think this is what J Pie means about the left winning the cultural war, but I'm not sure. Clearly we have a conservative gov so many people are right wing).

And actually this is one of the things I have had the most trouble getting my head round (I haven't managed), how it has become the percieved wisdom that staying in an international trading block/heading towards a superstate fits in with traditional left wing values. I think when you listen to the way many on the "left" have responded to Brecit, it suggests that actually traditional left wing values have slipped off their radar. But as I say, very confused about this and welcome any thoughts.

It was populism. Simple solutions/sound bites to the massively complex issue of globalism

I disagree.

Most remainers or anti-Trump people believe your choices are going to make the world far more unstable for all us and will lead to far more financial hard-ship for all of us

And most leave voters think that staying in the EU will have this effect, in the long term.

For most people, opting to take the alternative supported by the monstrous IS, the dictator Putin, the racist Le Pen and the great big racist toddler Trump would give them pause for thought. Not everyone though, clearly

You see this is the type or argument which leads to the accusation of trying to shut down debate. I have views on the whether the UK should be part of the EU. I should be able to discuss these and make my political choices on this matter (eg vote) without having to keep defending myself against attempts to link me with Trump, Le Pen and IS

It is not an argument, it is a slur. Also I think it's worth noting that it really isn't working anymore.

[birdybirdywoofwoof]

It's not a slur though it's a fact!

Most economists, scientists, academics and business people supported remain. Farage, putin, trump, many elites, daily mail, Le pen and Isis supported brexit.

Why can't we mention this?

How can you say we need to argue more, but at the same time when people argue, you say what they are saying is a 'slur' , sneery, or uncalled for, etc?

The rest I shall answer after last minute shopping

[DarthPlagueis]

"I should be able to discuss these and make my political choices on this matter (eg vote) without having to keep defending myself against attempts to link me with Trump, Le Pen and IS"

But these were the international politicians that supported a leave vote, who also use very similar language regarding immigration and border control as the leave campaign did. Drawing comparisons with their points and the points of the leave campaign is totally legitimate.

You can discuss your views ( I don't see anyone stopping you) but I think that the whole thing about "shutting down debate" is a block defence used by those who want carte blanche to say what they like but not to have to defend their point.

Take Brendad Cox for example, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Farrage blaming Merkel for the actions of an extremist is a logical fallacy, and that if he wishes to do so he must accept that it can be applied the other way to him. Yet Cox is accused of "shouting down the debate" because he offers and opposite ( and uncomfortably true for some) point that is completely legitimate to make. The storm of abuse that then comes his way is all about him shouting down the debate, which he didn't do, but changes the nature of the argument and the way people think about it.

The Jonathan Pie bit which is often raised is utterly incorrect, in a country where one in 5 front page headlines of the two highest selling newspapers were negative regarding immigration in the 6 months leading up to the election, and many more stories were but not on the front page. In a country where Nick Ferrari et al on LBC and many other outlets discuss immigration, where the old and untrue "facts" about immigrants and benefits, crime, job taking etc are repeated ad nauseam. Nigel Farrage has made 11 appearances on Question Time since 2010, I see no "shouting down of the debate" here.

In effect the shouting down the debate excuse is given by those who wish to say what they like and face no challenge on it. It is the term post truth is so accurate, we are actually no longer allowed to critique opinion, or to counter it, so people are allowed to make wild accusations, like Farrage's.

This is why this quote:

"It was populism. Simple solutions/sound bites to the massively complex issue of globalism "

Is utterly accurate.

[Tanith]

In effect the shouting down the debate excuse is given by those who wish to say what they like and face no challenge on it

It's a diversion tactic, similar to the bias accusations tactic that worked so well for the Conservative party in the 80s.

1. It diverts attention from the point being debated.
   
2. It accuses the opponent of unfair practice, forcing them into a defensive role.
   
3. It takes up time that could be used in debate and discourages listeners/readers who want to hear both sides of the debate, not a petty squabble and defence.
   

Often the Conservatives would run an interview out of time, having successfully controlled 2/3s of the discussion.

[WrongTrouser]

It is not an argument, it is a slur

Okay, okay, okay

I concede it was not an attempt to shut down debate and not a slur.

[WrongTrouser]

Interesting Economist article about Hope not Hate's claims about Twitter trolls and the murder of Jo Cox.

www.economist.com/news/britain/21711931-trolls-twitter-seem-be-less-numerous-feared-supposed-outpouring-online-hatred

[PausingFlatly]

Bit behind the curve with that one, WrongTrouser. HopeNotHate's own website has had this correction almost since the report's release:

"Early media reports incorrectly stated that our report claimed there were 50,000 tweets celebrating Jo Cox’s death or praising her killer. We would like to clarify that our report did not make such a claim, which was linked to one media story based on an early and erroneous draft of a press release (which was corrected and updated shortly thereafter). All media outlets were sent the correct press release upon the report’s launch."

The Economist article, meanwhile, makes claims like: "They found the Hope Not Hate report had other claims that seemed overdone. For example, it said a 'key theme' on Twitter was the description of Mr Mair as a 'hero'. In fact, many tweets containing the word “hero” were referring either to Ms Cox herself or to a pensioner who was injured while intervening to save her."

If you read the actual HNH report, it says: "A key theme that emerged on Twitter was the depiction of Thomas Mair as a 'hero' for murdering Cox. Individuals had tagged pictures in their tweets praising Mair for killing Jo Cox, using the hashtag #HeroMair."

So, not about the pensioner, then. (Though I don't doubt there were ALSO tweets about him.)

[PausingFlatly]

And there's a fair amount more of the same. Eg the HNH report states clearly:
"As such, we examined cyber hate crime on Twitter focusing on:
Cyber hate speech as a result of the murder of Jo Cox
Cyber hate speech as a result of the Brexit vote in the EU referendum in the UK

The Economist doesn't like it covering both issues together. Er, OK, matter of preference for the E. But the HNH report makes clear that's what it's doing, and it isn't wrong to do so.

Obviously everyone can read the HNH report for themselves and make up their own minds whether it's saying anything useful.

[WrongTrouser]

Obviously everyone can read the HNH report for themselves and make up their own minds whether it's saying anything useful

Pausing I agree and likewise the Economist article.