h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can't for the life of me see what you're all about. We both know that immigration makes for bigger eco-impacts: we both know that any govt doesn't make it a criterion of any decision whatsoever. So why make it an issue? I can't get you; you come over as some kinda racist neo-Nazi on occasion and normal on others. So how much are you making chat (ie stirring shit up) and how much is what you really think?

And PS I'm going to sleep in about 5 mins so take your time.

Sorry, missed this.

I enjoy provoking a reaction. I've found that *I* learn more about the issues when people are pushed into justifying their viewpoint rather than the mutual masturbation that ensues when everybody's in agreement. I'm not here for anyone's benefit but my own. Sometimes I come across a point of view in RL that I don't have an answer to. Posting it on here sometimes gets me the answers.

<>

Which is what infuriates a great many people. It's part of what is driving the general disillusionment with politicians and the political process. A lot of people are frightened by what they see as a dizzyingly fast change in society. All the old certainties have been swept away. The govt makes the case for immigration on economic grounds and there may or may not be merit in that argument, but what people on the fringes see (the people who are most likely to access govt services like Drs, housing, welfare etc) is an increased competition for resources. Speaking as someone from a firmly Scottish working class background, I think I can say that these people are genuinely not racist by nature. The experience of the Poles, Italians and Slavs who settled in Scotland after the War would bear testament to that. But calling people stupid or racist for voicing their fears and concerns about the effects of immigration just further marginalises those people who are already the victims of social inequality.

I've said it before, but I've a lot of time for people like Iain Duncan Smith who are genuinely working towards reducing inequality and are willing to set aside ideologies and party affiliations to accomplish this. Inequality isn't an ideological banner and I agree with your links in that thread that it has negative impacts on everyone. But the challenges involved in raising just one family out of poverty are so great that to be simultaneously pouring in more people (immigrants) in need of help must feel to those working in this field that they're bailing out a sinking ship with a holed bucket.

The welfare state was calculated on the basis of basically full employment and the average worker only needing it for x weeks in his lifetime. Without doubt, the period from the inception of the Welfare state until the late 60s/early 70s saw the greatest reduction in inequality and the greatest increases in social mobility. But by the mid 70s, full employment had disappeared and the average worker needed the welfare state 5x weeks in his lifetime - and this figure was accelerating. One of the fundamental things driving anti-immigration feeling is people can see with their own eyes this increased burden on resources. The very mechanism that reduced inequality is collapsing under the weight of immigration.

Immigration isn't a peripheral issue when discussing inequality in the UK today, it's very much at the heart of the matter.

Sorry for the windy post. I very much value your perspective otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

Hey, I forgot I'd posted this. Will try to get back in touch tomorrow.

So you're an agent provocateur? Literally...

<>

The same right-wing, cynical, one-dimensional POV *every day*?! Do you actually live in the wilds of Montana or something?



<<>>

The political process is very complicated, and involves all sorts of trade offs, including;
what you think is right
what you think you can actually do
who you think you can afford to piss off
who you think you can't afford to piss off.

It's a wonder sometimes anything gets done at all, with all the competing interests. There are also many other factors obviously(eg I think New Labour becoming economic Tories is quite a blow to democracy in the UK), but I think you consistently underestimate just how difficult politics is, and the problems that politicians face.

Re IDS, I can well believe he's a good guy etc, but at the end of the day if he really believed in reducing inequality he wouldn't be a Tory, would he? Did he vote for a minimum wage, or even push for it when the Tories were in power? Doubt it. The fact is that under Tory economics policies since Thatcher inequality has risen incredibly, just as it was meant to do.

The immigrants you mentioned were all white. I wonder how different their experiences are to those who came from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean. Christ, go back far enough and all the anti-Muslim shite you hear now is indistinguishable from the stuff levelled at Irish Catholics. Plus ca change..

It's probably true, for obvious reasons, that immigrants tend to congregate in poorer areas, which does stretch resources there. By definition it's hard to project how many people will show up in a given area and what their needs will be etc etc, so it's no surprise that while we have enough resources to deal with them as a *whole* there will be shortfalls locally. I still don't think it's at all central in any way to the levels of inequality in society, and even less so to our attitudes towards climate change and/or sustainability.

PS, what's your tag mean?

What's the point of posting a Right-Wing POV on a Right Wing board? I flit between a few boards and get differing opinions on all of them. I laugh like hell when I get called racist here given that I led an exodus from JSG a couple of years ago in protest at the racism there. Do you honestly think I could get through all the screenings and assessments of the ultra-PC Victim Support if I were the racist I'm often depicted as here? This is in no way a balanced board, although it does host a variety of opinions. In general, it's firmly towards the left of the political spectrum.

However, the whole Right/Left thing is a misnomer imo. The Thatcher govt tore up the old rule book and Liberalism became the new ideology imo. Personal empowerment, personal rights within a broader framework, personal engagement in pensions etc. Politics changed but the old labels live on, partly because they are an intrinsic part of so many people's identity. I think this current generation will be the last to use the badges of the 1970s class struggle. Look at how fundamentally similar the main parties have become - I think it's because they're all singing from the same hymn sheet. Parties no longer have to appeal to voters, to meet hopes and expectations because no matter who gets in, the same political agenda is pursued.

The Welfare State is the sacred cow that a certain generation of voters will not see attacked, but I think future generations will realise that it's financially impossible to have a welfare system open to all when increasing numbers of people are not contributing to it. We keep chipping away at the foundations - rising long-term unemployment (at least 1 million plus even in the good times), increasing numbers of people on base-line wages who take out more than they put in (not being critical, just accurate) and millions of people who through no fault of their own need extra help from the welfare state because of language difficulties etc.

Inequality is increasing partly because of increased numbers of people being shovelled on to the bottom of the heap. Never mind concentrations, the pool of unskilled, poorly educated labour is swelling at the exact same time as traditional manual work is declining. A lot is made of the old 7:84 figure (7% of the population hold 84% of the wealth), but what about 1:23 (1% of the population contribute 23% of the income tax)? We have an unequal society because people are unequal in their abilities and expectations.


Oh, Haka Tiki Mou Sha'ami Leeki Toru means "Death To Mainland Scum, But Leave Your Money" - it's Hawaiian

<>

What's the point of not being yourself? You get called racist here because you come over as anti-Muslim, which is often code for racism. Nobody knows what you do on other boards.

As for personal empowerment, it goes hand in hand with large amounts of people being left in poverty, going by, erm, all the evidence of, erm, all of history. And the feckless who don't make the most of their opportunities etc., tend to come from the same background.

If you remember that political compass questionnaire thingy, it divided left/right into economic and social categories. I don't think that'll go away, ever. Some people will continue to think that gays are bad, drugs should be illegal cos they're bad, contraception is bad, only sex, when married, in the missionary position, with the woman not enjoying it too much etc, is good. Likewise, some people will always go for free market stuff economically, while others will want govt control to avert the worst effects of the free market. Slogans may change but the themes won't.

PS, in the last few decades, the right *totally* won the economic argument, while the left totally triumphed in the social sphere. Given that the right have just totally lost the argument in the last year or so, what odds that the left will take a social gubbing?

<>

Which is *exactly* the argument used by supporters of Israel who decry all criticism as anti-Semitic. Yet that argument routinely (and rightly) gets dismissed here. If it's a fallacious argument, how come it can be selectively applied at will? Is criticism of Climate Change automatically criticism of all scientists?

The Galtonian mania for pigeon-holing that leads you from criticism of Islam to racism is as erroneous now as it was in the 19th Century. It's sloppy, lazy thinking but useful for those who wish to terminate debate. Note that it's well over a year since I last typed "Islam" in H2G2 on the threads.

The real me? Plenty to be seen in the EG and in various stuff I've written.

The personal empowerment liberalism peddles is a myth. It's about shifting responsibilities away from the state and onto individuals. It's all smoke and mirrors. People talk about greater opportunities in the workplace that the service industry brings compared with manufacturing. Really? Like zero hours and temporary contracts? Taking personal responsibility for pensions means paying the State and an insurer, but having both devalued by avaricious Chancellors.

<>

I disagree. That's essentialism, which is basically flawed. Let's take gay as an example. In the 60s and before that, there was no conception of a gay lifestyle, of a gay community. Homosexuality was aberrant behaviour, to be hidden, closeted ("homosexual" was a term invented in 1868). Those who tried to be open about their sexuality were at the extremes of societal norms and, in an example of looping, became extreme themselves (Quentin Crisp?). That changed in the mid 70s US with a book called "The Homosexual Matrix" which described gay people as being normal. It was a message taken up by a guy called Kramer who started up Gay activist and support groups and organised things like Gay Pride marches. For the first time gay people were shown that it was ok to be gay and a gay lifestyle developed. Looping evidenced itself again as gay people identified with and adopted this lifestyle, reinforcing it. Kids today are far less judgemental about homosexuality than their parents and it's likely that homophobia will continue to decrease.

My point is, pigeon-holing people by dated categories is itself a conservative concept. Continuing the whole right/left thing is unprogressive. It's like tarring people with the ultimate slur - the BNP tag and calling them right wing fascists. Anyone looking at fascism can see strong links with socialism and the BNP have far more socialist policies than anything on Labour's books nowadays.

Ironically, decrying anyone who speaks out against immigration or socialism as a racist/fascist is exactly the technique used by Stalin in the 30's. He made support for the party line a black/white issue of Marxist Socialism vs Fascism. Even Trotsky was a fascist in Stalin's book.

Which takes me back to looping again. Call someone a racist or a fascist often enough in connection with immigration/socialism and people who object to immigration/socialism will come to identify with racism/fascism. Shouting "racist" actually creates racists.

As to the economic arguments, my personal feeling is things won't really change much, at least not at street level. I notice that Dundee City Council are offering 100% mortgages now

The BNP target Muslims, and thus it's become a code: if you don't like Muslims, nudge nudge, you know what we mean. It's good politics on their behalf because there's so much misogyny there that there's obviously plenty to disagree with.

Whether you getting tarred with their brush is fair is another thing, but you have criticised Islam at length plenty of times when most folk would have spent a bit of time including nutty Christians as well.

<> etc

I think you misunderstood me there. The gays point is that some people are naturally right wing socially. Ho hum. If we can get rid of the religious viewpoint and just realise that some people are gay (and who really gives a fLIck), then that's one thing.

Economically though, there will always be inequality in society, and a huge determinant of that will be the part of society you are born into. If you're born poor, chances are you'll be poor; if you're born rich, chances are you'll be rich. Determining the 'best' level of inequality (cos nobody's really going for complete equality, no matter what anyone thinks) is always going to be a choice between economic efficiency and fairness (and it's not remotely certain that state-led 'Old Labour' type economics is worse than Thatcherite economics). If this type of conflict is a Marxist one then I'd say that the old dude has got this part right, no matter how wrong he was on any other amount of things.

So, the social left/right is basically a matter of prejudice imo. The economic left/right is part of the fabric of society.

And to take the point about gays in more detail; how would heteros feel if the hetero lifestyle had been denigrated forever and then it became 'ok' to be straight? We're social creatures (check the Milgram experiment for all the disturbing implications) and it shouldn't be a surprise if we show a herd instinct.

Ah heck, I got distracted and couldn't answer right away and now some bugger's yikesed it

Well, at least you're popular. Your very own phantom yikeser.

Unless it was a link to stormfront or something.

The point is, there wasn't such a thing as a gay "lifestyle" as such before. It's a totally new social construct. Our ideas of what's "normal" and "abnormal" are constantly evolving. We're also redefining what it means to be a politician now. Once it was the preserve of the rich & influential, then we saw an influx of people from working backgrounds. It was this influx that led to the greatest social change. For 60-70 years there was a real connection between at least some politicians and the public at large. But increasingly we're seeing politicians like Ed Balls - people who go from school to uni to Westminster (as researchers) and then directly to becoming MPs themselves. We rightly castigated the landed gentry for having no conception of how ordinary people lived, but this new breed of politicians are exactly the same. We're constructing a new social category - the professional politician. For these people, inequality is in the shape of graphs and statistics but they nowhere near tell the full story.

Some people (not all) are quite happy knowing their life has a structure. I'm not saying they "know their place", but if you create a social category of "poor and oppressed", it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our careers guidance teacher at school in 1982 said openly "Three out of five of you are not going to get a job". Surprise, surprise, she was right because some of my friends took it for granted. Some of them have still never worked 27 years later. A report today said that children of long term unemployed are likely to be long term unemployed themselves. No surprises there either.

I'm all for removing artificial barriers. We've discussed this before, "Equality of opportunities". But "Equality of outcomes" is a pipe dream. And this is exactly what I meant when I argued the point - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5992989.ece

Making comparisons with Sweden or Australia or wherever is to totally ignore the cultural aspect. It's a fact that unemployment amongst Scottish Protestants is historically lower than that for Catholics. Partly this was due to discrimination, yes, but across the Catholic world you see a different attitude to work. Whether it's "better", "healthier" or "lazier" is entirely moot. What matters is that the differences in attitude are real. But those cultural and attitudinal differences never show up in statistics.

Social inequality is rising. Yes, absolutely. No question. But the causes of that inequality are far more nuanced than "evil capitalism".

(Off to look up the Milgram experiment )

Didn't recognise that name. Yeah, that's a similar effect to the looping I was talking about. People conform to expectations. It's linked to Social Identity Theory.

Post 10 was reinstated. D'you have any idea who stalks you? The eds said they wouldn't have yikesed it.

Ah, who says it's *me* that's being stalked?

Can't see anything yikeseable in there though. However, homophobia is a right-wing phenomenon? Are you sure? Marx and Engels were pretty scathing about homosexuals, in particular railing against pederasts. I think homophobia is the preserve of the sexually insecure and is independent of political ideologies. All totalitarian regimes try to "stamp out" homosexuality (Stalin re-criminalised sodomy in 1933). I think that's got more to do with keeping the populace vigilant against an "enemy within" than anything else.

Possibly what's been mistaken here is an attempt by the left to wear the clothes of liberalism and thus have a broader appeal than the rather crude class warfare which worked earlier on.

It was the fLIck thing that got me.

Historically, homophobia has been extremely widespread (any ideas why? I don't really). Recently though, it's been coming from the (social) right. I think Marx et al. (and anyone who thinks individuals should be a certain way to fit society's norms) will probably have a go at gays. And anyone else who doesn't conform.

Does that put Marx on the social right?

But would Marx have differentiated between the social and the political spheres?

Actually, I'm reading a book just now called "Liberal Fascism" which argues that liberalism is just fascism at heart. Has some interesting stuff to say about America and the Woodrow Wilson administration.

I don't think I'd trust any book called 'Liberal Fascism'. Montyf uq. Is it published by Fox News Extremophile division>