That’s a real shame that it appears that Furball has indeed left these parts - describing his Sotonians’ persona as now deceased.
Personally, I will really miss his contributions. He’s quite a brilliant man.
But perhaps it’s for the best that he vents that sort of language and prosecutes that sort of debate in another place?
I’d love to hear what other Sotonians think…
Yup, you’ve definitely stifled that debate. Shame.
Are we all supposed to run away if we don’t like the way a conversation is going?
My feelings exactly, GB. There’s an age-old saying - if you can’t take it then don’t dish it out. Seems to me that Furball was quite happy to lavish bile on those who support Corbyn (and, indeed, on those he merely depicted as Corbyn supporters because it suited him to do so), but didn’t like it when shit flew in his direction.
For what it’s worth, I felt that pap’s comparison to the EDL was over the top, but no more so thatn Furball’s language regarding Corbyn. If he has indeed gone for good then I’d agree with Bletch that it’s a shame, as it was clear that he can add a great deal to any debate.
Wow, that’s unwarranted, especially here.
Without delving too much into the specifics, what we’ve witnessed is a dude desert an entire site because of disagreements on one thread. While my EDL example was indeed provocative, and could have taken a more abstract road to explaining how people tend to widen or narrow arguments when they’re losing them, the extremity of the point wasn’t out of place, thanks to the fierce anti-Corbyn rhetoric we’d seen before.
We all write things here that can be taken the wrong way. Most of the time, it’s resolved by a sharp inquiry and a quick response, like when TheCholulaKid was querying if I was being a sarcastic bastard on the Battlefront thread. I routinely have right wingers tell me I am outright talking bollocks on here. I’m quite happy to live with the idea that they do indeed think I talk bollocks. Why the fuck not? Exactly the same thought goes through all of our heads when reading posts sometimes; fair play to them for calling their difference of opinion in such a colourful way. Their posts are still there, replied to, of course
I was never arsed about anyone joining this site, as in, “ooh - we can’t have this poster here”, to the extent where I expect even Batman would be grudgingly assigned a cave by our butlers. I am getting a little weary of the Furball exits, largely because of the way they’re done. I don’t hear anything about them via PM. There’s no attempt at sorting things out. Just a public announcement, with the general implication that I’m a perpetual shitcunt that just can’t be reasoned with.
Examples. The first time he left, his reasoning, that I was going to allow this place to be a hub of racism, was ridiculous. I also think he went out of his way to take irreconcilable offence on the EDL comparison, which throughout, was clearly never about the racist angle.
I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a forum that on the surface appears to encourage political debate, to then take such umbrage with such tame language. His crime was to not be nice enough. Or to be too negative. I’ve never seen the like.
I came over to Sotonians in the first place because I thought Pap was treated unfairly by Saintsweb. He was being a bit of a windup, and probably ‘not very nice’ but I couldn’t see anything fundamentally wrong with what he was saying. I thought the banning was bloody unfair! And yet, here, I’ve seen exactly the same thing in action - you’ve not banned him (Sotonians is too nice to ban people) but as a group, you’ve stifled the debate and made it pointless (while ending with a not so nice comparison).
I don’t know Furball, and certainly can’t speak on his behalf, but I did agree with his take on Corbyn, and his critiques of the Corbyn debate on here. Sometimes it was a bit of a windup, other times it was quite amusing. But it was always thought through and always interesting - just what a good political debate needs.
Sotonians is a fantastic forum, really good vibe, lots of talented and clever folks. But the way this has panned out has been a big shame, and makes the idea of debating politics on here totally pointless to me.
I don’t want to piss anyone off by saying this, but I feel very strongly about it, so I’m speaking my mind. At least you know where I stand. Have a think, then you’re welcome to take it or leave it.
As far as I can see, nobody has been banned and nothing has been stifled. Just one poster stropping off.
FWIW I could care less about Corbyn and how others view him.
It’s all kicked off
Actually, Lou, I thought Furball was more than just dismissive of people he didn’t agree with, he was downright rude on occasion. The majority of his posts show there is far more to him than outright hostility so it’s disappointing if he has left. I don’t think Pap has been a paragon of virtue on this thread either though. It’s a shame that neither of them could let their macho bollocks oneupmanship posturing go.
I think the idea of debating politics still has merit on here if people can leave the labelling/name calling at the door. It’s embarassing (especially from adults who should know better)
I would far sooner someone stay and speak their mind than snipe from afar.
I don’t think that there was anything wrong with people questioning the legitimacy of a debating tactic, particularly when the person is as smart as Furball, and particularly when the line of debate chosen was so base. The entirely reasonable line of enquiry probably didn’t help. He wasn’t insulted, wasn’t bullied, just asked why he was taking this particular line of debate. A far more tolerant jury than you’d get in other places; unpopular opinions don’t even get a trial elsewhere.
Forget the personalities for a bit and just consider this in the abstract. If someone has a political opinion about anything without substantiation, especially if it denigrates an individual or individuals, they can expect to be challenged. It happens all the time here and elsewhere, whether it’s taking someone to task on an idiotic British First image, or explaining that yes, most of the Syrian refugees are actually right next door to Syria. Challenging claims is part and parcel of debate, and I for one would prefer to debate on a forum where such claims can be challenged.
Originally posted by @TheCholulaKid
Actually, Lou, I thought Furball was more than just dismissive of people he didn’t agree with, he was downright rude on occasion. The majority of his posts show there is far more to him than outright hostility so it’s disappointing if he has left. I don’t think Pap has been a paragon of virtue on this thread either though. It’s a shame that neither of them could let their macho bollocks oneupmanship posturing go.
I think the idea of debating politics still has merit on here if people can leave the labelling/name calling at the door. It’s embarassing (especially from adults who should know better)
Cholula, I don’t agree with you, but I have massive respect for your considered view on things.
Originally posted by @pap
I would far sooner someone stay and speak their mind than snipe from afar.
I don’t think that there was anything wrong with people questioning the legitimacy of a debating tactic, particularly when the person is as smart as Furball, and particularly when the line of debate chosen was so base. The entirely reasonable line of enquiry probably didn’t help. He wasn’t insulted, wasn’t bullied, just asked why he was taking this particular line of debate. A far more tolerant jury than you’d get in other places; unpopular opinions don’t even get a trial elsewhere.
Forget the personalities for a bit and just consider this in the abstract. If someone was a political opinion about anything without substantiation, especially if it was to denigrate an individual or individuals, they can expect to be challenged. It happens all the time here and elsewhere, whether it’s taking someone to task on an idiotic British First image, or explaining that yes, most of the Syrian refugees are actually right next door to Syria. Challenging claims is part and parcel of debate, and I for one would prefer to debate on a forum where such claims can be challenged.
Papster, I don’t agree with you, but big respect in every other aspect for managing this forum the way you do. No small feat.
Originally posted by @TheCholulaKid
It’s a shame that neither of them could let their macho bollocks oneupmanship posturing go.
This is the main point, IMO. Pap and Furbal seemed determined to have a rivalry and battle it out for alpha male status - which is ridiculous because they’re both my bitches and I’m the alpha male.
So the latest non-scandal involving Jeremy Corbyn and the Queen has hit the press – and this time it’s serious. He’s been ‘stripped’ of his Right Honourable title, apparently, having snubbed Queen, country, all right-thinking people and probably your granddad who didn’t fight in the war for this sort of thing. Never mind that he never held the title in the first place, or that Cameron himself didn’t turn up to a Privy Council meeting until three months after being chosen as the leader of the Conservative party. Roll up for another pop at the Labour leader who dares to be left-wing.
So insane have the attacks become that even the haters are getting tired of it. They’re coming out on social media to criticise the validity and purpose of claiming that Corbyn has mortally wounded our monarch and subsequently had an important title revoked. With debates raging about possible Syrian intervention and our membership of the European Union this week, right-wing media continue to focus all of their efforts into discrediting laughably minor developments in Corbyn’s life. But however bemusing the title-that-never-was story is simply is, it demonstrates just how desperate measures are becoming to bring him down.
The real story, of course, is a non-story. Corbyn took a short, pre-planned break whilst Parliament is in recess. During his break he was invited to attend his first Privy Council meeting, which he was unfortunately unable to attend. This led to the removal of ‘Right Honourable’ – a title which had appeared on official websites ahead of his name, when he hadn’t actually been offered it yet – which will be applied back when he is able to attend the second meeting, something he has implied he will do. Of course you can’t really be stripped of something you never had, but that hasn’t stopped a lot of people claiming that that’s what happened.
Originally posted by @pap
Just a public announcement, with the general implication that I’m a perpetual shitcunt that just can’t be reasoned with.
As implications go, I think this is an unreasonable assumption to make about you pap. I would definately take out the word “cunt”. That would be fair.
A good barometer of the Labour leadership today with the vote on the “surplus rule” given the volte face earlier this week. Will be interesting to see how many defections / abstentions there are from the PLP.
Indeed. Whatever one thinks of Osborne’s little scheme (and it seems that many economists think it’s a load of old bollocks), and of Labour’s opposition to it, the process by which Labour have arrived at their current position can hardly be seen as a triumph of policy making or decisiveness.
Can’t really disagree with that, but neither am I surprised. Doing a new job is difficult enough. Doing a new job when people don’t want you in it must be even harder.
I watched McDonnell give his explanation. I think he explains his decision well enough, especially as he’d referred to it as a trap beforehand.
Full PMQs from today. I know I’m partial, but I think Corbyn does very well today. The contrast in styles is helping him.
