Yesterday I wrote a blog in response to an article in the Daily Mail, which for those not familiar with it is a horribly confused UK newspaper circulating more than 2 million copies daily mainly to fairly small minded middle class types of conservative outlook (large and small C).
It’s a deeply confused paper. It publishes some quite nasty columnists — and regularly swipes at pillars of UK society and yet considers it a supporter of that society. It also hates government cuts and yet tax. It’s all for being polite — except to those of left wing persuasion. It hates all immigrants, unless they are rich. It hates working women unless they are pretty. I hope you get the idea.
The article I commented on was drivel — basically pure venom aimed at the mildly left of centre Guardian and the fact that the BBC does offer left wing opinion as well as right — as it is required to do by law (but which the Mail greatly resents).
The response was, as usual, fast and in about 50% of cases unpostable — because I will not reproduce the coarse comments these people who preach liberty through fear like to contribute.
Those that got on were pretty stupid: I could not find an argument in one. Tim Worstall posted three blogs on me in an afternoon — nice of him — but all utterly unintelligible playing solely to his thuggish following
This is the reality of the Right — challenge the Daily Mail and you get threatened — by the right wing thuggery
And many those who will make up the next intake of Tory MPs come from this type of far-right thinking
It’s very, very worrying for liberty — true liberty that is.
Which is why it’s worth speaking out now. Because life is going to be very horrible indeed for a great many people — poor, gay, single parents, women, parents of young children — if the Tories get into office and cut as the Institute of Fiscal Studies is urging them to do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“I could not find an argument in one.”
This does not surprise me.
“challenge the Daily Mail and you get threatened “
No write a post explaining that everyone who has a different opinion to you is either incapable of thought or believe that money is the “be all and end all”, then a lot of people will come to the conclusion that you are deluded.
There is of course no obligation to decide that the right is right, but if you can’t even be bothered to understand where your political opponents are coming from yet still make sweeping assertions about them, then what do you expect in response?
Ross
Read the Daily Mail article
Now note who is deluded
I responded to a stupid article. Perhaps I shouldn’t have done. Maybe I shouldn’t have dipped to your level
But none of you have noted how stupid the Mail was to print that article – based on deluded comment on what the left is
You’ve all just chosen to comment on my reasoned rebuttal of what it had to say – and my logical argument as to why the left do form the cultural elite – to which none of you have responded
You may not like my argument – but it is an argument. Saying I am deluded is not an argument. It is an unsupported statement of fact. Which does actually support my argument, of course
Richard
What’s weirdest about this – assuming that most, if not all, of the critical comments you received were from libertarians – is why the libertarian right would want to stand up for the Daily Mail. The Mail’s political stance has almost nothing to do with libertarianism – for example on drug legalisation and immigration it takes a deeply authoritarian line. So really, if libertarians had any ideological coherence, they would be lining up WITH you to indulge in a spot of Mail-bashing.
The fact that they’re not doing that suggests that you’re the target – by any means necessary – and the particular substance of what you’re posting is irrelevant to them. Or perhaps, certain elements of the “libertarian right” are actually authoritarian conservatives operating under very thin ideological camouflage? The plot thickens!
Howard
The answer might be here, from Tim Worstall:
As to why I go on about him he does, sadly, have some influence and exposing his near lunacy is a way of attempting to reduce that influence. As PG Wodehouse made clear with Roderick Spode the English way to deal with fanatics is to mock them.
http://timworstall.com/2009/07/25/ritchie-strikes-back/#more-8835
Read the comments as well fro indication of the company these people keep
I guess I should take it as a compliment that I am grouped with Polly Toynbee, Caroline Lucas and some select others, like Prem Sikka in attracting their abuse
I don’t.
Their abuse remains abuse and clear indication of their political agenda – freedom apparently based on th fear they hope their thuggery will induce
That’s extremism – and that’s why I engage with it
Richard