Another Angry Voice on ‘How To Criticise the Tory Party’
Like the Angry Yorkshireman and the Beast, I also find the use of violent language and obscenity to describe a political opponent – let’s say I find it UNWORTHY. It’s beneath us, really. So I’d like to associate Vox Political with the opinions expressed here.
… With one caveat: My experience of debate with supporters of the Tory Party and the political right suggests that they have absolutely no reason to take the moral high ground. A right-winger on Facebook, having been out-argued in a debate, seems just as likely to resort to obscenity as anyone else, in my experience, and any protestations to the contrary by softer-voiced but more media-friendly exponents of their cause are not supported by the evidence.
I agree, resorting to profanity and base language destroys any credibility the writers comments may have. Much better to tell a hard hitting truth with some humour and belittle the clowns. For my part, I would love a few minutes alone with IDS and Cameron, boy, would they get some home truths. Fascist wealthy well fed pink faced clowns.
Seen on a T-shirt
“profanity is the crutch of inarticulate mother****ers”
Yes, I edited you, Jed. Everyone’ll know what it means, anyway.
edited? – this is censorship.
I can argue with the best of them, articulate, provocative, stimulating, challenging providing all necessary quotes and links and I can also be pretty base if I want to – doesn’t demean my or my argument. This smacks of editorial control/ censorship/ elitism
All those things, probably. But I do – and always have – reserve the right to keep this place as free of verbal profanity as I see fit. It is impossible to persuade a reader with an argument if they are put off by the way that argument is made.
I’ve been having this argument on and off for 50 years and it is never fruitful.
Maybe, just maybe, the excesses of language represent things like anger, resentment, powerlessness and separation from any means of control over one’s life. You have to look beyond the immediate in most cases. Equally there are those obnoxious beings that post maliciously – compare this to order-order?
Of course, it’s your blog and you control it – and there’s been some real good debate here recently – people need to feel comfortable and I think you provide that but to start removing/ deleting letters etc when we are all adults (?) seems churlish – we all know the words – it’s patronising as well as the above.
Most people on here are alarmed at the way the coalition government is controlling everything for their own purposes – and we hate it – you are in danger of appearing to want to control in a similar fashion i.e. we can all come here and talk but only in the manner you want – how limiting is that? I’ve recently had a similar argument with a football blog – they only wanted ‘quality’ post and would not even accept one-liners without a swear word in sight!!!!!! I dont post on or read their blog anymore.
I’m really sorry Mike, I didn’t want this argument because I am able to contribute here in the many ways I can communicate – it would be sad to lose that. It will be interesting to see what others think. Cheers
I’d rather delete a few letters than entire comments.
The question for a site-runner is always going to be: “Do I let some people’s idea of free expression get in the way of other people’s enjoyment (or indeed experience of any kind) of the site?” When the aim is to get information out to as many people as possible, in the least offensive manner possible, there’s only going to be one answer.
It seems bizarre that anyone would want to criticise me for allowing people to present any point of view they want (as long as it’s relevant) with the caveat that they do so in a manner that is acceptable to the widest possible readership, when we have mass-media outlets in this country that won’t accept any correspondence, made in any way whatsoever, that does not agree with their editorial point of view.
And some people do set out to offend other readers by their use of the vernacular.