-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
JonathanEx
Member
Hashtag LAD, Hahahah what Moggbantz, he's so quirky with his dated views that's why we love him, I'm gonna meme the shit out of this to show this is why us yoof will love him and he'll Activ8 a better future LAD!!!!!
Prick. Well I'm sure his attempts to be the new lovable idiot Boris will work well.
Would you applaud someone calling for genocide?
Because, hey, "at least they're being honest"?
Fernando Fernandez
Member
Of course anyone looking at his voting records already knew this but is saying this so publicly Moggs way of saying "I don't want to be leader"
JonathanEx
Member
Yeah to be fair what did people think his views were?
Still nice to reaffirm my dislike for him
Still nice to reaffirm my dislike for him
He's so blinkered that I'm not sure he realises what he's just flushed down the toilet.
Spuck-uk
Banned
He's the only one they can name that stands out from the relentless dull grey mess of incredibly similar posh middle aged white men in the Tory party.
Of course, the reason he stands out is because he's an ultra posh twatty throwback with victorian era ideas on women and homosexuality. Even in comparison to Boris, he's a real piece of shit.
in a word, yes!
especially if it came not long after we'd had a party leader who felt unable to be honest about the very same topic, telling the public one thing while holding a very different view internally.
No, Mogg was able to be open and honest with the electorate about a topic and is willing to be judged as such.
In turn, I will listen to his answer and judge that I'd be hard pressed to ever find a situation that I would want him in any power with that opinion.
Democracy, it's a beautiful thing when people are honest...
At least he's honest about his opinions, even if I profusely disagree with them on every level. Unlike Tim Farron.
Funnily enough he mentioned Farron, seemed to relate to his whinging about being persecuted for being Christian.
Steverulez
Member
Would be more refreshing if a Tory MP had beliefs that weren't about restricting rights and negatively impacting the lives of other people for a change.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
JC is getting quite good at this PMQs business by all accounts.
Dirtyshubb
Member
This is not a party issue. He 100% puts these positions down his religion (though the Venn diagram against the Tories would be interesting). A strict catholic in any party will have to deal with exactly the same issues.
CyclopsRock
Member
You can simultaneously applaud someone's honesty whilst also disliking their actual views.
For what it's worth, presumably his views on abortion are shared by literally everyone who believes that life begins at conception. I don't, but if you do, it's hard to see how you could then go on to support abortion. He also seems to be "doing a Farron" in the sense that he isn't claiming to want the current laws changed.
I know everybody had the preconception of him prior to the election as someone who couldn't tie his shoelaces without shitting himself but I've always thought he was a match for May. There are no 5-0s but he's good at grinding out the results. It was with Cameron that he was out of his depth.
Good on him for being a homophobe?
Not if the persons views are fucked up you can't.
Meh. The two biggest stories this week were the Brexit negotiations and the Home office immigration leak. He's unable to bring the PM to account on either because of his own wishy-washiness on each of them.
May being inept doesn't make Corbyn particularly great. He tends to stay on pretty safe territory which is nice but unmemorable. If you've heard him bang on about zhc once you've heard him do it a million times.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Consistent 1-0 wins are still wins. He's shown he can do it on a cold night in Stoke.
Now now, you're better than that.
So you'd rather politicians lied about their fucked up opinions and antiquated beliefs when questioned, even though that may influence their decision making process in parliament?
I would rather they didn't have fucked up views. I am not going to applaud or say well done to a bigot being a bigot. Next I will have to say well done to a dude calling me nigger to my face.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure you can. We all claim we don't want the identikit, focus-group-tested, repeating-the-same-line, "I'm glad you asked me that Nick because what I think's really important here is that the opposition can't do ..." shit. The type of responses whose number 1 goal is to be as inoffensive to everyone as possible. But it doesn't exactly take a big brave boy to say things that everyone likes, does it? "I really like the NHS and think schools should be good." Gee, you really took a risk with that one.
Basically I suppose what I'm saying is that the more "fucked up" their views are, the more credit they should get for saying it in spite of that, because it's not that fucking hard to say popular things, is it? And "I want them to speak their mind - as long as I agree with it" doesn't really have the same ring. That's why you need to separate what they're saying from the fact they've said it, and appraise the two things separately.
Edit: Read my last line, and you'll see why I don't think anyone here thinks you should be congratulating people for calling you a nigger. You're being a bit silly here.
Get Wenger on the line.
Bigotry is bigotry in my book. I am guessing you are a straight white dude right? Me being a black dude who use to be bi has a way different view then you.
CyclopsRock
Member
And if they're being a bigot, you can still call them a bigot.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I heard a quote by Noam Chomsky discussed on the radio the other day where he said something along the lines of "Support for freedom of speech is specifically support for speech you disagree with. Even Stalin supported freedom of speech for those who agreed with him". When it comes to Rees-Mogg, all I see is a Roman Catholic who is being honest. It's not really of much consequence, since he's well in the minority with respect to abortion and gay marriage. I can't really see rights with respect to those being rolled back at this point. The cat's out of the bag, so to speak.
Eh, fair enough
Yeah I get that, but "at least he was honest" just feels like such a low bar for praise, it's especially eyebrow-raising as a response to bigotry.
To me it always sounds like there's an implication that everyone who isn't an outright racist/homophobe/whatever is just lying about their opinions, as if everyone is either a bigot or a closeted bigot. Similar to "he tells it like it is".
I can see the comparison to Farron though, so fair enough.
Ah, those wonderful 'Christian values' which include homophobia and anti-abortion.
No one is saying he should be in prison or something though, his right to say these things isn't up for debate. But it's totally fine to question whether having those views means he should be a representative in parliament, or whether people should be giving him a platform to say those things, and certainly whether someone openly having awful views should be commended for airing them even if they're awful
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence of saying awful things.
No?
I'm certainly not going to be giving Tommy Robinson or someone any credit just because hes proud about being a total fucking arsehole
CyclopsRock
Member
Ok, but given this whole discussion started with Mogg going on TV and talking about abortion, we don't actually need to generate fictitious examples; He'd have seen what happened to Farron, where he was dogged about one question for an entire election campaign. He went on TV, got asked the questions and said "Yup, I'm a Catholic and like basically all Catholics, I think abortion's wrong and so's gay marriage, but I also know that's a minority opinion and so the laws won't change." It would have made his life a lot easier if he'd just dodged the question or lied, but you don't think he should be commended for being honest?
Again you are basically saying he should be commended for speaking of his disgusting beliefs in public. That shouldn't be commended at all. Disgusting believes whether hidden or spoke in public are still disgusting believes. I don't get the whole but at least he is honest crap.
CyclopsRock
Member
We're clearly just at odds here, because I don't know how I can better explain my position; None of your responses have actually explain why you think that the content of what one says and the honesty with which they speak are linked. The admiration comes from the element of self-sacrifice displayed. If we forget about Mogg for a moment (I know I said we don't need fictitious examples above, but maybe we do), do you contest the assertion that people should be commended for saying something that they know is unpopular and will probably cause them trouble but that they nonetheless believe to be right? I mean this is right out of the Neville-Longbottom-winning-10-points-for-Gryffindor-at-the-end-of-Philosphers-Stone-thus-winning-the-House-Cup playbook. Or when a husband refuses to take his wife's side in an argument when he knows she's wrong, even if it means he'll be sleeping on the sofa as a result? Or a politician going on Good Morning Britain and saying they think the Royal Family are parasites and that the fawning over another Royal Baby is pathetic, knowing it's more likely to cost them votes than benefit them? If you think the decision to speak their mind in any of these examples of worthy of praise, then please try and explain where the distinction is between that and a politician saying "As a Catholic my view is that abortion is murder". The fact you disagree with the opinion doesn't change the arithmetic of deciding to be true to the audience even though it'll hurt them.
I mean, being honest about it is certainly better than thinking those things and pretending you don't, sure. But in the grand scheme of things I would still commend some bland person with ultimately good beliefs than someone who will openly talk about their shitty ones. I certainly don't think the caveat "well, at least he's honest" is really worth bothering saying when the thing he is being so honest about is so objectionable
I also really dont think Farron would have made his life easier if he had said something along the lines of "I personally think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but respect that this isn't the public opinion and will follow that". The public would absolutely not have accepted that from the leader of the Lib Dems
CyclopsRock
Member
That pretty much is what he said after being pushed, and you're right, a lot of people didn't accept that. But the problem there wasn't really that he was (eventually) honest, it was that ultimately his beliefs were incompatible with that of his party, in the same way a Tory leader who said they wanted to nationalise the telecoms business would be. And I'd agree that, holistically, I'd commend the person with bland but "correct" (where correct = "the same as mine", natch) views over a brave racist. Fortunately we are able to be nuanced enough to basically say "I disagree with him, but I admire that he came out and said it."
It's pretty clear what I am getting at. As soon as persons view effects another person then I don't give a shit if they are outspoken or not. "I don't agree with gay marriage" is homophobic and harms and treats the gay community as being not worthy of being married. To say abortion is wrong is treating woman as 2nd class and shouldn't have a choice what to do with their bodies. The examples you give are not even close to the same and I don't get how you can't see the difference. People can speak their mind, but if their view harms or undermines others they should not be commended for doing so.
Why would you admire a racist spewing racist shit?
CyclopsRock
Member
You should be. It's far easier for a person that isn't effected to commend bigoted people being open about being a bigot.
Idk, I think there are just some views that are that so wrong/backwards that I can't even respect someone for openly airing them despite the public backlash they get - this is especially true for an MP who lives in a safe seat that they have next to no chance of losing. Then they're basically being a twat knowing they can get away with it
Like, I can respect people for sticking to principles on (say) economics or something even if I strongly disagree with them, but when its stuff like this homophobic nonsense by Mogg, or some of the sexist shite that Philip Davies comes out with, then I just think "yep, you're still an utter twat"
JonathanEx
Member
Is part of this reaction due to the emotive nature of the term 'respect'/etc? Like, I think it's a good thing that we know what his views are quite clearly - so people can judge him and his character - but I'd struggle to describe my feelings for him doing that are respect.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think my preferences are probably:
1. Person who supports LGBT rights, etc. and is honest
2. Person who supports LGBT rights, etc. and is dishonest
3. Person who opposes LGBT rights, etc. and is honest
4. Person who opposes LGBT rights, etc. and is dishonest
At least for 3., you can do something about them, instead of them making office then covertly doing lots of homophobic stuff. I think 3.s are much more likely to get further ahead in their careers despite having the same opinions as 4.s. So I suppose I respect at least one aspect of Rees-Mogg's character, which is his willingness to be honest about at least one of his opinions even to his own personal loss.
This doesn't mean I have to respect Rees-Mogg as an entire character, though; Quite the reverse, I despise the man, he's a bigot and a homophobe.
I think that's probably my take on it?
1. Person who supports LGBT rights, etc. and is honest
2. Person who supports LGBT rights, etc. and is dishonest
3. Person who opposes LGBT rights, etc. and is honest
4. Person who opposes LGBT rights, etc. and is dishonest
At least for 3., you can do something about them, instead of them making office then covertly doing lots of homophobic stuff. I think 3.s are much more likely to get further ahead in their careers despite having the same opinions as 4.s. So I suppose I respect at least one aspect of Rees-Mogg's character, which is his willingness to be honest about at least one of his opinions even to his own personal loss.
This doesn't mean I have to respect Rees-Mogg as an entire character, though; Quite the reverse, I despise the man, he's a bigot and a homophobe.
I think that's probably my take on it?
JonathanEx
Member
There's a bit of chat about the Ireland thing over in the Brexit OT - but you're quite right, it's very interesting.
This shit from Daily Politics is patronising
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/905756622856667142
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/905756622856667142
QuicheFontaine
Member
It's a just-for-fun quiz, lighten up
Bruvas have more of a vocabulary then that shit. Even Stormzy calls it out. I am not getting pissed at it btw.
Unlike Farron however he's consistently voted against gay rights and abortion rights in Parliament. So it seems pretty clearly different to me.
An MP also has a lot more responsibilities than just voting if they're in a losing position, they're also required to support their constituents, and it's hard to see how Rees-Mogg could possibly do that on local issues which involve gay people or abortion here.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm sure they do, but the format of the quiz is that there's four options. They're not saying that esteemed wordsmith Stormzy only has a four word vocabulary.
- Status