horsefly

And that's exactly your problem. You're here to "stir up the pot" (that is your own description), and admit you can't be bothered to read through the posts you are still arrogant enough to comment upon.

So just throw out some abuse rather than demonstrate the falsity of the arguments. By all means point out which of those points I have made demonstrate hubris, vanity, and arrogance. Brilliant way to demonstrate you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. Hilarious!

I don't get this Shef. Wagner has a proven record of achieving promotion with a team that few considered as possessing anywhere near the quality to put in such a challenge. Not only that, he kept that squad in the PL the following season without a massive influx of expensive new talent. Not only that, he achieved that promotion by getting the team to play exciting high quality football, working in clear unity of purpose with an astute and progressive young director of football (what was his name now?). There is a wealth of talent at the club that really should be doing much better at this level of football. Frankly the fans have been playing the role of disrupter for quite some time now, but the boos and criticism has hardly had a positive effect. I think what we need at the club right now is an imaginative coach who can give this talented bunch an opportunity to express their skill with a clear sense of direction and unity of purpose. Wagner did that at Huddersfield, and did it in partnership with Webber. Given that all managerial appointments by their nature are a gamble, this one strikes me as a gamble that at least has a very clear evidence based rationale supporting it.

Yeah! What he should have done is appoint someone who he doesn't agree with at all. That would really help the club move forward FFS!

It seems that yet again you couldn't be bothered to read my post but still feel able to comment on what you haven't read. I said absolutely NOTHING of the sort. Indeed I have said time again that there remains very much to do to ensure that the progressive principles guiding our institutions, working lives, and legal system, are put into actual effective practice. The debate about whether the progressive agenda of equality is right has long been won, because those articulating it did so with a clarity and vision that was overwhelmingly persuasive. The issues that remain for debate concern how equality and social justice can be achieved at every level of society, not whether it should be. The FACT that the progressive agenda for equality of treatment irrespective of Race, gender, sexuality, or class, is now enshrined in law, in working practice, and in our institutions IS precisely proof that those ideas have succeeded. I'm afraid you don't get some easy way out of admitting your arguments have failed by simply refusing to acknowledge blatant reality. Perhaps you should do yourself and everybody else a favour by not responding to posts that you admit you can't be bothered to read in their entirety. No one forces you to post a response so at least have the decency to either read the post fully, or say nothing at all.

Can't remember seeing the need for truck driver disaster relief written on the side of a Brexit bus. Perhaps it was stuck in a queue somewhere.

So, as collapse seriously threatens all key aspects of normal life in the country, it's good to see that our PM has his finger on the pulse: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/rishi-sunaks-maths-to-18-proposals-get-shredded-341419/ I suppose if we all get better at maths we will be more able to calculate more accurately just how much debt we are in and are unable to pay back. Bravo Rishi! But perhaps it would have been more useful for you to offer your new £400,000 personal pool complex as a warm bank for your impoverished constituents.

Yep! The Republican's bought four years in power with Trump at an enormous cost to the identity of the party. Along with many others I said a long time ago that they would regret being seduced by the votes of the MAGA morons. Now they are irretrievably divided and stuck with deplorables like Bobert, Gaetz and MTG.

Not remotely complacent. You are confusing party political issues and events with arguments that are not bound by party political lines. The FACTS are that progressive views about equality for women, races, sexuality, classes etc have overwhelmingly won in precisely the areas that matter most to how the country is run. Do you think for one minute the Tories would dream of trying to reverse legislation on equality for women, or racial, or sexual equality? That's the extent to which the progressive agenda has won the debate. Does that mean there isn't still more to do to ensure that these ideas are perfected in practice, of course not. There will always be those with a far right-wing agenda who will do their best to undermine progressive ideas by provoking hate and division where they can (hence their tactic of trying to exploit the resentment of those who are victims of social injustice). What do you actually mean by "I'm not sure it's really particularly relevant at an individual level rather than institutional level, which is after all what this discussions (was) about."? Firstly, without winning the argument in the minds of individuals in the first place there would have been no winning the arguments at an institutional level (unless you have some bizarre belief that institutions are not made up of actual individual people). Secondly, you surely can't be claiming that an argument is only successful if every single individual is persuaded to agree. If so there has never been a single successful argument in the history of any aspect of human existence. The FACT remains that these progressive ideas are enshrined in our everyday lives in the most significant ways they can possibly be, so much so that you can find yourself deprived of your liberty if you breach them. Re your claim: "'if progressive/left ideas were so persuasively communicated why has every single UK referendum and election since the dawn of twitter/facebook/Instagram been won by right wing parties or reactionary elements?". What on earth is supposed to be the relevance of this vague and inaccurate comment? Firstly, you mix up party politics with the actual progressive agenda that has been under discussion. The Tories have won successive general elections since 2010, but do feel free to point out to me where in their manifestos they campaigned for reversal of legislation regarding the equality agenda of progressive thinking. Also feel free to point out any legislation that the Tories have actually passed since 2010 reversing such legislation. If anything they have strengthened such legislation. Just because the agenda of those seeking to attack progressive thinking comes from a far right-wing perspective, it doesn't follow at all that all people on the right support that attack. Indeed, a very obvious consensus has been built across all the main parties in parliament when it comes to issues regarding the fundamental rights supported by the progressive agenda (equality for women, race, sexuality etc). Secondly, I presume the referendum you are referring to must be Brexit (as it is the only one). Do explain how that has anything to do with this debate. People voted for Brexit for all sorts of reasons, and from across all party political perspectives. In my view people foolishly fell for the Brexit supporters' lie that restricting immigration would boost the economy, but that lie was a purely economic claim. It did not make any mention of repealing race equality legislation, indeed Brexiteers were at pains to deny any possible racist motive for their arguments. So much has the progressive agenda become established that it would have been suicidal for the Brexit cause to have questioned its key aspects, and indeed there was nothing in the Brexit propaganda that referred to anything about reversing changes in any of the progressive agenda. Re your comment: "why is it that everytime I look at any social media site or forum i see a massive fight breakout rather than a consensus being built?'. On what planet would you expect it to be any different? On what planet would even desire it to be different? If you're looking for something close to that you need to move to a country run as a dictatorship which bans any social media that conflicts with the party line. It's one thing to hope for a social media environment that encourages genuine inclusive and tolerant debate, it's something else entirely to think that its aim should be to seek some kind of meek consensus. Social media sites are not proto governments, they are fundamentally environments in which free thought should be given maximal opportunity for ideas to be explored insofar as it is consistent with the rights of others likewise to participate. Robust disagreement is the very life blood of free speech. Moving to the level of government is a very different thing, then we can expect those introducing legislation to seek for consensus in governing the country for an entire population. And indeed that is precisely what we have found in the recent political history of the UK in which we have found cross-party consensus over the fundamental progressive agenda recognising the equal rights of all UK citizens irrespective of race, sex, gender, class, and sexuality. Give it a go I say! Try to respond honestly rather than resort to your usual (self described) desire "just to stir the pot". Try being... serious...it might work.

Hilarious: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/don-jr-mocked-by-adam-kinzinger-for-selling-bibles-on-social-media/ar-AA15VZ8g?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c74585808d234ba0b46bad400cdb825c

Apparently it comes with a warning: "The picture and description on the box may not resemble the actual content"

For the sake of argument let's just assume you're right about Maugham, and right that there will obviously be other examples of people who don't always communicate the progressive message effectively. None of that implies that the message isn't communicated effectively by the movement as a whole. Indeed, as I mentioned above, it is hard to explain just why progressive equality policies have managed to become institutionalised in all our major organisations, workplaces, and legal system, if the progressive agenda has been so poorly communicated in the way you suggest. How do you explain these facts?

Oh dear! You're not ashamed to prove your ignorance when it comes to the law are you! Firstly, Salmond was found "not guilty" in 12 cases, and "not proven" in one. Secondly, none of those verdicts carry any implication whatsoever that the women who made the accusations lied in their testimonies. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of conviction rates for alleged sexual assaults would be well aware that they are appallingly low because of the difficulty of proving that a crime has been committed, when the evidence typically involves one person's word against another.( Even Salmond's own QC, Mr Jackson, said his client had not always behaved well and could have been "a better man on occasions") Do you have evidence that any of these women have been charged with perjury? No you don't, because so far none has, but that doesn't stop you being so disgusting as to describe these women as "lying harridans". That says everything about your sewer of a mind. You're so full of wails about injustice when it involves Murray and his mates, but when it comes to women who have been found guilty of nothing you gleefully call them lying harridans. It is precisely these sorts of vile accusations that stops women reporting sexual crimes. It matters not a jot to you that you are prepared to say completely unjustified vile things about them, not when their accusations concern a mate of your idol Murray. You should be ashamed to say such things, but of course you won't be.

Appropriately in English English "Trump" still means "fart"

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/maga-guy-who-calls-democrats-paedophiles-turns-out-to-be-a-paedophile/ar-AA15SZbH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4ee89a4fb1854e1f844cd657ec1af9e4

Every man meets his Waterloo at some point.

Perhaps I should have been clearer that I consider the likes of Tate to be very much a part of the "right-wing anti-progressive narrative" that I have been seeking to describe. By "right-wing media" I don't just include the newspapers but all forms of media expression in which those thoughts are reproduced. However, it would be difficult to deny that certain aspects of that right-wing agenda have very much been lead by the traditional right-wing press in this country. Attacks on "woke culture", and the BBC for example.

Yep! have had it on and O'Brien was pretty much saying the same as I have tried to get across on here about the false narratives being spread by those seeking to exploit feelings of social injustice for divisive political ends.

Not much more to add than what has already been said in YF's excellent answer. If you grasp what YF is saying then BB's point about communication is fundamentally mistaken. It's not that the messages are being badly explained by the progressive left, it's that their messages are being distorted and outgunned by a massively more powerful right-wing dominated press with an anti-progressive agenda. Interestingly, there is not a major organisation in the country that has failed to understand the progressive message about changes that need to be made in their organisations to address issues like racial equality, sexual equality, bullying, sexism, class equality etc, etc. Some of us might think that some of those organisations have much work to do in actual practice, but what is irrefutable is that the principles of equality progressives have supported are embodied in the objectives and HR guidance of all major bodies. Indeed, a large number of those progressive ideas have been so well and persuasively explained that they are now enshrined in equality and human rights legislation. These facts alone demonstrate that it is nonsense to say the progressive left has not communicated or explained its position clearly enough. None of that alters the fact that there is a powerful right-wing lobby represented by a dominant right-wing media that will do all it can to lie about and distort the progressive narrative. The main target for such unscrupulous manipulators are those at the margins of society who remain in an under privileged position and are rightly resentful at being victims of social injustice. Thus, for example, they tell under privileged white working class boys that when "lefty do-gooders" campaign for racial equality what they are really campaigning for is to give unfair advantages to children from the ethnic minorities at their expense. The progressives can do little more than counter this with rational argument, and that is precisely what they do. However, those espousing the right-wing narrative know full well that emotional manipulation is often far more persuasive than reason, and that tapping into feelings of resentment is one of the most persuasive emotions of all. It was an art perfected by the likes of Goebbels, and any number of "successful" propagandists who seek to rule through spreading division and hate. You were right KC when you said earlier that the most fundamental issue that needs resolving is to improve the lot of the underprivileged in material terms. And of course that is precisely what the progressive equality agenda seeks to achieve by giving every child access to same opportunities to fulfil their potential. But the same cannot be said of the right-wing agenda which actually requires the permanent existence of an under privileged class to perpetuate a phony war among its different constituents. I think it was Gunny who said earlier on the thread that it relies on getting them to kick down at those sharing their plight rather than upwards at those in power who are responsible for the social injustice they continue to endure.

I'm sure Raptor will say "soz" when he's next on here.

Spot on YF! As an additional anecdote: When my mother worked in the fields, it was almost exclusively women that worked alongside her picking potatoes, although it was usually a man doing the less physically demanding job of driving the tractor that pulled their trailer. I think people like Fen prefer to ignore what happened on the home front during the 1914-18 war, and the subsequent history.

As you say, facts matter, and the FACT is he was found guilty of contempt of court and rightly sent to prison. Just be honest with yourself, you are obsessed with sad old Craig. I'm not sure whether he groomed you, or bought you from your family like he did his stripper second wife (her description btw), either way I'm sure there is help available when you recognise you need it. Perfect description of my views. I simply love fascists, and adore the use of torture. Everyone can tell that from all the posts I've made on this site. And do keep up with the slagging off of the NUJ. Of course it is purely coincidental that your hatred of the NUJ has only suddenly erupted on this site at precisely the same time they turned down Murray's application on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to be a member. Oh dear!

You lied about the Me Too movement but are too pusillanimous to admit your shame. There was indeed a letter signed by 100 French women critical of the Me Too movement, you should try reading it ( https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/10/europe/catherine-deneuve-france-letter-metoo-intl/index.html). They like you believe "Men’s freedom to pester” is “indispensable to sexual freedom”. But then you might want to read the furious response to that letter in which women made exactly the same response that I have made to your lie that Me Too supporters conflate clumsy chat up lines with serious sexual assault (https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/droits-des-femmes/tribune-les-porcs-et-leurs-allie-e-s-ont-raison-de-sinquieter-caroline-de-haas-et-des-militantes-feministes-repondent-a-la-tribune-publiee-dans-le-monde_2553497.html). They accused the signatories of deliberately mixing “seduction, based on respect and pleasure, with violence.” “Sexual violence is not ‘intensified flirting,’” they wrote. “One means treating the other as your equal, respecting their desires, whatever they may be. The other is treating them as an object at your disposal, paying no attention to their own desires, or their consent.” So alas for you there is no support you can gain from that letter signed by 100 French women, because just like you, they also lied that Women supporting Me Too were incapable of distinguishing between a chat up line and sexual assault.

Oh dear! What a pathetic attempt to try and deflect from the horrific implications of what you said. Who the hell do you think make up and speak for the "Me Too" movement? It was called "Me too" precisely because it involved women bravely coming forward to speak of the sexual assaults they have suffered. So, find me a single "member" of the Me Too movement that you claim "descended into" conflating the experience of "clumsy chat up lines" with their experience of rape and serious sexual assault. Provide evidence for once in your life. Of course you can't because your claim is a perfect example of the sort of toxic masculinity that fabricates lies about women in order to blame them for the putative "emasculation of men". There is no "Me Too" organisation that speaks on behalf of women, it is constituted purely by women who have been victims of assault and who tag their individual accounts with the Me Too hashtag or label. This you would know if you could be bothered to do the slightest research instead of lying about the movement to serve your political ends. Either you are simply ignorant of the implications of what you said or you happy to support the agenda of people like Tate. Either way, you ought to show some decency and admit your comment is shameful.

Which is precisely why honest people will endeavour to understand what is meant by the terms being used. The sad thing is that far from seeking such an understanding some prefer to exploit ignorance for the purpose of perverting meaning to serve malign ends. It really isn't difficult to understand that "toxic masculinity" is used by progressive people as a way to distinguish between misogynistic forms of male behaviour from those "non-toxic" expressions that recognise the equal rights of women. It's meaning is perfectly clear enough and isn't simply open to any interpretation someone decides they want to put on it. Language and meaning is a social practice governed by social rules of application, otherwise no word or expression would have any genuine meaning. Clearly there are cases of vagueness and complexity etc that require clarification, but the present case is not one of them; there is no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between describing some forms of masculinity as expressing a toxic form of masculinity and claiming that all masculinity is toxic. Anyone conflating those two is clearly in error or more likely engaged in purposeful manipulation.