Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
leftys and muslims are evil special starting ... now
he's such a racist cunt, I can't stand him etc
Can we end this self-righteous thread now?
Littlejohn is a bit of an annoying, small minded, unfunny and uninteresting bigott.
seriously. lets stop being anti-anti-anti-anti(ad infinitum) political correctness.
but I just hate these back-slapping threads where everyone comes on and posting various quotes and acting all disgusted. I'm not against sensible debate over a public figure, It's the smugness and self-righteousness I can't stand.
It's just that the tone of these threads I find annoying, more than the content. I don't expect people on here to suddenly vote Conservative, and it makes little difference to me if they don't, but it's not about that.
It's more that there's so little interesting, intelligent, or insightful discourse. One person will say 'Littlejohn's a cunt', followed by 'I agree', followed by 'yeah, he's a racist prick' etc. There's just no point to it At least give reasons for why you think this.
why bother starting threads about him? Why bother posting on a thread about him. Also, I don't think it has been debated to death, throwing insults and one line buzz phrases does not equal a debate. Well, it does for many on the left.
you've seen sense!
'Waffen SS Officer'
none of his usual ranting
He's like a dog with a muzzle on.
'elements of the left'
'so called egalitarian'
pfft. You tell it like it is, richard! You're just speaking what we're all thinking! A paki's a paki no matter how many guardian readers say otherwise.
not strictly true
I *get* the point that a lot of the 'liberal left' isn't really open to debate on the issues which you raise.
However, it is a point which you raise time and time and time and time and time again.
In fact, expressing that point seems to be one of your only motivations for posting on this board.
And detailed political discourse doesn't generally take place on here unless ho_fo and JacobJones are involved.
There is a consensus. We get it.
but only ever in response to people making the same types of thread again and again and again and again. Just as you all seem to get bored of me making the same point over and over, do you not get bored of people making the same types of thread over and over?
You don't, because it gives you all chance to slate racists, homophobes etc etc and feel good about yourselves when you do it. It makes you feel publically accepted.
I have a lot of time for JacobJones however.
You just find 10,000 different ways to say the same thing.
If you came out and fought the way he did, I'd have a lot more respect for you.
I very rarely, if ever, start politics based threads. I usually just respond. My 10,000 different ways of saying the same thing, is in response to people starting 10,000 threads that all say the same thing. Which is the point I was trying to make earlier, it's ALL getting a bit boring and repetitive: the threads are always the same and so are the responses (mine included of course)
Don't just attack people for blindly subscribing to a consensus view - that's easy and doesn't challenge the people you're attacking. They're convinced enough of their own views to resist that sort of attack, and you get into a cycle where people just state their views at one another repetitively, as you've acknowledged.
If you can tilt an argument away from people calling each other names and provide a reasoned alternative view (difficult on the internet where people tend to mention Hitler a lot), do. And if people are still boorish and argumentative it's probably time to give up. JacobJones comes in for a lot of stick, after all. But you knew that and I am patronising your arse off.
In pursuing their agenda, a lot of people who associate themselves with the liberal left are in turn associating themselves with intolerant groups of Anti-Semites, and allowing themselves to become influenced by views that are Anti-Semitic, without necessarily questioning those views.
This creates a paradox: how can someone with left-leaning 'liberal' views associate themselves with people who are illiberal to score political points? Does this show their 'liberal' views up, and reveal them to be as bigoted as the people they criticise?
When considered debate shuts down and feelings run high, as they do on the MIddle-East issue, bigotry creeps in on both sides no matter where you fit on the left/right wheel. But getting Littlejohn to present this - a man who writes manipulative, emotive prose intended to provoke angry reactions rather than studied responses - screams hypocrisy.
I reckon the lesson we should learn here is not that these people/Littlejohn/whoever are 'cunts': We should just learn to question our political beliefs and motives rigourously at every stage. It only takes one piece of inflammatory rhetoric, and reason can go out of the window.
I salute you.
That was all I was looking for: a well-reasoned, non shouty, non smug, non swearing post.
However, surely a man who, it is argued, writes manipulative prose intended to provoke angry reactions rather than studied responses, is the best person to discuss other people doing exactly the same the thing (albeit from the other side of the political spectrum). I guess he kind of knows where they're coming from in a weird way!
because people are too often listen to their hearts rather than their heads on here. My posts are to often subject to swearing, abuse and 'comedy' sarcasm, so I find there to be little point. There's too much of a gang mentality as well.
In saying that, there are certain posters I like, even if I don't agree with them. You're definitely one of them _vikram, as is JacobJones and, as of just now, Deadcats. Not that it counts for anything though.
if he knows how to do that sort of thing, he can smell other people doing it from a mile off: an interesting way of looking at it.
If I were him I'd be moved to give up his column, or go and write more reasonable stuff for the Times or something.
I'm guessing he writes what he believes in, we have freedom of speech in this country. Just as in the same way, the Muslims he often rails against have the right to their (often silly) views. The only other option is censorship, which I don't think anybody wants.
Deadcats suggested that he should tone down his writing and write 'more reasonable stuff', which I think would be a form of censorship.
In the case of an (apparent) racist, toning down would be a form of censorship (even if it was a self-inflicted change), as he would be saying what people want to hear, rather than what he actually believes. If he doesn't tolerate others views, he shouldn't have to say he does.
I get your point. But courtesy kind of goes against the belief of any extremist (though I wouldn't call Littlejohn an extremist).
Courtesy is what normal people have (whatever that means). People like us!
is that if he has the intelligence to see that other people are being incited to hate Jews, he has the intelligence to know that his own writing incites people to hate Muslims and immigrants. If this incitement is what he wants to happen, then he is a hypocrite. If it is not - if he doesn't believe in inciting hatred - he should logically tone down his writing.
Because my belief is not that Littlejohn has strong views, but that he over-eggs what are probably more moderate views for his audience, because Rupert Murdoch tells him to. THAT'S the bad thing - but it's only my belief.
I wouldn't wish to censor anyone. Free speech is an absolute right, a right that was neglected under the Blair government, and which we may see disappear.
his face was giant on my TV screen. and i only have a 14" one. and a small TV. HUR HUR.
i watched 24 instead. they should do a series of that where Bauer spends 23 episodes hunting Littlejohn down, before shooting him in the face. Or something. THEMS GOOD WATCHIN'!
his brain is clearly in some kind of televisual moment of genius.