Blogs

The left’s empathy deficit

12 October 2012

11:45 AM

12 October 2012

11:45 AM

A very good point made by Peter Hitchens in an interview with the Evening Standard yesterday. It was this:

‘A particular problem of the Left is that they believe their personal goodness is entangled with their opinions. Therefore, it is hard for them to have friendships with — or even like — conservative people. It’s not just that they disagree with them; it’s that they feel superior to them and they feel these people are morally bad. I enjoy the company of the people I disagree with, probably rather more than the people I agree with, but I don’t think people are bad because I disagree with them. I just think they’re wrong.’

This strikes me as indisputable – although I think Peter is referring less to the “left” than to the gibbering libtards of London. Though having said that there was a study a short while back which suggested that left wing people were far more likely than right wing people to “defriend” someone on Facebook because they disagreed with their views. I suppose Marx and Habermas and Gramsci and even Plekhanov, along with numerous other similar post-Marxist thugs, are somewhere at the heart of the answer, with their views as to objective reality and the personal being political and so on. Or is there a simpler reason?

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • rndtechnologies786

    Nice view.

  • Fraziel

    Eddie, my political opinions woud appear to be similar to yours and I have had several similar experiences. I was un friended on facebook last week by someone who called me a fascist and went on about how much i had offended and insulted her as i had replied to an overtly political post by her and stated that i agreed with the tories on a particular issue. Why can’t people with ideologically left wing views have civil converstaions about politics with those who don’t? I suspect Peter Hitchins is bang on about this one, for a change.

  • wfraser11

    Anglichan, we all look forward to your magical designer research paper flat earther.!
    20,000,000 Library of Congress research papers say you are still not a scientist. But hey thanks for sharing. Hot mash, is that what you fed your pigs at the hog farm outside Minsk?
    Perhaps if you try reading the NCSE website on creationism and what it is, you won’t be putting yourself in a public forum where your position is untenable and immoral. Just a thought. Your brain, its not a block of cement. Try using it before you humiliate yourself in public. Or, get used to being laughed at. 🙂

    • anglichan

      Willy, dear little Willy, might I suggest you take note of the Bard’s observation that ‘…..brevity is the soul of wit’ before responding? There’s no doubt, is there that you will reply? You seem to need to have the last word.

  • wfraser11

    Anglican Church ! Scientists do not debate creationists as there is no debate about creationism not being science.Its not, its religion, which would be okay for a sect or cult as I respect that. You however , like all creationists are intent on convincing your target audience that you have something credible scientifically to support your magical designer pseudoscience claims. As a Lutheran Christian I find your behavior appalling for one who claims to be a Christian. If you are not an intentional liar sir, then you unfortunately still fit into one of the other categories mentioned. IF, you have any research supporting your “scientific” claims, please, submit them to an accreditted journal. We all await anxiously your incredible logic and reasoning skills as well as your knowledge of natural laws and the basics of scintific research. What an intellect.! You deserve what was said and it was accurate. Thank you however for your classic denial response. And Darwinist ! Fantastic ! If your claims are religious, and you choose not to attack science, we have no quarrel. Your post reveals an intention to rconvincve others of your bizarre claims against a theory with mountains of evidence and more support than the theory of gravity. You must call physicists
    Newtonists then sir. Its only fair.
    In the oil business, whose basic tenets of moderrn geology your fundamentalist dogma attacks we have a saying,
    “Never try to teach a pig to read. Its a waste of time, and it annoys the pig”.
    You have proven that this is in fact the case. There is no debating someone who can’t absorb realities such as yourself.
    I’m sure you are affiliated with a church, probably the one you reference.
    Feel free to keep your denominational dispute away from our public schools
    and discussions of actual science, which creationism is not..
    What science skills! What knowledge of basic physics, biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology ! You are a credit to the human race sir and a prince among men!
    Finally, since you are a creationist kind sir, you need to go ALL the way. The Old Testament says the earth is flat and resting on pillars. Feel free to get up and sermon to your flock explaining the scientific conspiracy hiding this fact from the
    world. A giant among the world’s thinkers , I am quite impressed.
    I am, your humble and devoted servant,
    Will 🙂

    • anglichan

      “Never try to teach a pig to read. Its a waste of time, and it annoys the pig”.
      Quite true, Will, quite true.
      My name is anglichan, not Anglican. It’s a transliteration of the Russian for ‘Englishman’.
      ‘Hey! Anyone got any acorns or hot mash for Mr. Fraser?’

  • wfraser11

    Sir, If you are a creationist you can only be one of 5 things.
    A non thinking religious dogmatic person
    b a liar
    c stupid
    d ignorant
    e mentally ill
    Its probable you have a little of each. Get help, creationsim is not scientific it is religious. and its never getting into a public school.

    • anglichan

      Wow! What a well thought out treatise; and such impeccable logic. What an intellect! What debating skills! Sir, you’re a credit to whatever it is that you believe. If you’re a Darwinist then you must be one of three things.
      1. a moron
      2. a halfwit.
      3. a halfwitted moron.
      Hey, it’s fun this debating lark, ne c’est pas?

  • SouthamObserver

    So, to summarise: right wing people are good and happy to be friends with left wing people, but left wing people hate right wing people, this makes left wing people vile, repulsive and not worth being friends with.
    Rod – you need to do another piece about self awareness and irony, and whether right wing readers of your articles have any sense of either.

    • ted cole

      Right wing, left wing or middle of the road bird brains, I have lots of friends that fit into all of these categories and I have never lost one of them (for any length of time) talking/arguing over our different political views, I value their good friendship far too much for that.
      I think that the majority of right wing or left wing people do not hate or despise or feel contempt for one another, but there are some of course who do and perhaps these are the people that we should dislike?
      Re your comment above “Rod – you need to do another piece about self awareness and irony” whilst thoroughly agreeing with it my breath is not going to be held waiting for it.
      He talks about a recent study on Facebook…”Though having said that there was a study a short while back which suggested that left wing people were far more likely than right wing people to “defriend” someone on Facebook because they disagreed with their views.” glory be to me! a study on Facebook ! do people actually do that??
      I know of some who have hundreds of Facebook friends, but would recognise just a score or so if they met.
      I say hang on to your good pals, regardless of whether they are nodding agreement at you all of the time or not, friends on the Net come and go with a sigh.
      Peace to you and yours.

  • Baron

    But, Eddie, you yourself are often guilty what you accuse the leftists of, and it’s not just being trenchant (Baron can do that, it’s often his default position), but pushing it a couple of notches beyond, coming across as a kind of secular heretic in the mould of the TS Eliot’s definition of it as ‘someone who seizes upon a truth and pushes it to the point at which it becomes a falsehood’. Simon’s remark is a case in point.

    Still, Baron has figured one’s hard put to make friends, real friends with the leftists because one cannot talk them out of their take on the world with facts and reasoning as facts and reasoning do not determine their take on the world in the first place. Their life philosophy and how they read things derive from deep emotions, feelings, and that can be deadly in a world that doesn’t run on that sort of fuel, hence the messed up Britain with their multi-culti, PC, moral equivalence, something they often dislike if it touches them personally, but cannot be persuaded to turn against. But then, there’s always hypocrisy to the rescue.

    • Eddie

      Maybe true Baron – and I may have called someone a pleb in the heat of the moment once or twice – but whadaya want, blood?
      Opposing the nonsense of creationists want to fill people’s heads with is NOT beings a ‘secular heretic’ – it is merely arguing from a position of evidence. I refuse to see absurd fantasy theories based on old myths as equally as valid as what science has shown is fact: that the world is billions of years old and life evolved (how life started is another matter – you can say God started it if you want).
      Anyway, as someone who believes in selective education I can assure you that I was made to feel like a Jewboy at a Nazi youth meeting when doing my teacher training postgraduate qualification: this is really just bullying, but it does exist – those who refuse to defer to political correctness and socalled ‘liberal’ or leftwing thinking can forget about an academic career really: in most universities they’ll be ostracised and forced out somehow.
      But then, it helps when one knows of the political situations in other countries: for example, I know that my views on integration (the healthy twin of the deformed diseased twin of multiculturalism which leads to ghettoisation and worse) tallies excatly with that of both right and centre and left-wing people and parties in France. So I always put in to the PC mob: ‘are you saying all French people are right-wing, racist Daily Mail readers too?’
      These lefties are just parrots who squawk what they have been taught to squawk – just like all members of ‘the mob’.
      Me, I am independent of mind and represent myself only.

      • Baron

        Eddie, my blogging friend, but if non-mythical science were indeed the pillar underpinning your looking at the world you eould not dismiss the existence of God (a Force, an Intelligent mechanism, an Entity or whatever one may call it) as firmly as you do since neither you nor Dawkins nor anyone else around can either prove or disapprove any such Agent exists or not.

        • Eddie

          Yes we all can – because what all atheists say is that there is no evidence for the existence of God.
          Come up with the evidence and we can change our minds – we rational persons. Of course, the religious are rarely prepared to change their minds.
          One cannot prove a negative; but religious people cannot prove that god exists and it seems an awful longshot to bet so much on a hunch! There is though evidnece for evolution – masses of it – and it has disproven most of what religious people believed for centuries – which is understandable, because they didn’t know any better back then. But now we do know the world was not made in 6 days and that the earh goes round the sun, despite the Bible and the Koran saying it doesn’t – so either those books are flawed or God is a liar, non?
          Also, the whole concept of God or an Entity is one thing; the religions built around that by Man are quite another.

          • anglichan

            Eddie wrote, ‘the earh goes round the sun, despite the Bible and the Koran saying it doesn’t’ Where, exactly, in the Bible does it say, or even imply, that the earth does not go around the sun? [ I’m not interested in what the Qur’an says so you don’t need to reference that book ]

  • Simon

    Eddie..I was right with you until the “silly creationists” comment, totally unnecessary and a massive generalization. I am a Christian and a creationist, I believe in a literal interpretation of scripture, but I do not fit the leftist attitudes you describe. You see to us Evolutionists are the silly ones. Be a little less patronizing in future, thus you will also find yourself less hypocritical.

    • Peter Treadwell

      Why would you “literally interpret” a book written by humans and therefore fallible? How do you “literally interpret” the bits of the Bible that contradict other bits? These are not sneers, but genuine questions.

    • Eddie

      Sorry, but whay should anyone NOT ridicule a creationist? Anyone who decides the literal interpretation of scripture is true and fact should accept that their position is not backed up by evidence and is shown to be totally absurd by science.
      It is not the case of your silly creationist views being the equal and opposite of the fact of evolution: the latter is correct as shown by masses of evidence (more than for any historical event) and your belief is based on recycled myths in old books cobbled together in the desert centuries ago.
      I am not being hypocritical at all: creationists deserve to be ridiculed for their deepy stupid beliefs.
      I respect you about as much as someone who claims the second world war never happened, or that eggs are laid by trees.
      If you accept that your faith is not reality and thus just a faith whose beliefs are utterly disproven by science, then I shall respect you. The problem is, you flatearthers seem to think your belief in such nonsense is somehow valid and desrves respect. Sorry, but it doesn’t – though you do have the right to believe in whatever nonsense you want of course, (but if you try and argue it’s valid scientifically or should be taught as fact, then you have crossed the line and must face the attack dogs of Reason, OK?)

      • anglichan

        Eddie, I think the reason you lose friends is not because they don’t agree with or tolerate your political stance but rather that you are an arrogant boor.

  • William Reid Boyd

    Whereas I get the distinct feeling that the Right think the Left (i.e.the 88% of us scrounging off the state etc.) are simply inferior, whether morally or otherwise not really an issue. They might like us in a patronising sort of way, but it’s not that we’re wrong and they’re right: it’s that we’re inferior and they’re superior and we should know our place, opening gates promptly when summoned and so on.

    • WoodstockWastrel

      Exactly, you’re paranoid.

      • William Reid Boyd

        I’m sure you’re right, in the nicest sort of way of course.

        There’s a good joke doing the rounds on the internet at the moment by the way.

        Q: What did Maggie Thatcher and Jimmy Savile have in common?

        A: They both liked each other a lot even though their sexual tastes differed!

        (Think that’s right).

        • WoodstockWastrel

          I don’t think your one of the liberal lefty nutters we’re talking about.

        • ted cole

          Or hitting on miners !

          • William Reid Boyd

            @Ted: ah yes, that’s the one (I was always terrible at telling jokes).

            I don’t actually believe this stuff about Savile spending eleven consecutive Christmases or New Years (commentators are undecided) at Chequers with Maggie. I know that she enthused about Savile’s charity work and no doubt had him along once or twice for PR reasons, but that’s what politicians do and I just can’t imagine Maggie, who when all was said and done was a fairly decent old cove, putting up with him on a serial basis – he was plainly quite insufferable.

            • WoodstockWastrel

              I’m extremely surprised he wasn’t ever beaten up.

              • William Reid Boyd

                Yes, with you both on that. It will be interesting to see how the whole miserable business pans out.

                It’s Maggie Thatcher’s birthday today I see. All the best from us.

                A word in your ear, Ted – Rod has some sort of thing about handbags, best not to excite him too much on the subject … 😉

                • ted cole

                  Old Winnie had a thing going with house bricks.

            • ted cole

              Hello William, No I was not familiar with that joke….so I just added an alternative ending to it as I thought?
              I’m a sort of a socialist by thought and nature (if that makes sense to you) but sometimes lean the other way so much that I glimpse the bald spot on the back of my head.
              I am no great admirer of Margaret Thatcher and her works, but she, as both a woman and a mother I strongly suspect (had she known what this vile creature was up to?) would have put a house brick in her handbag, swung it around her head a few times and delivered him a wrong un in the Jimmies.
              I for one would have given a lot to see that and would probably (after of course she had de bricked the said handbag) have given her a kiss ha ha ha!

  • Kevinc

    But their vindictiveness goes way beyond the destruction of friendship. I was once doing some contracting work for a right-on company in Hackney and one night in the pub after work during a “discussion” (sic) about Israel and the Palestinians I suggested (ever so gently) that perhaps Israel wasn’t entirely bad and there were perhaps 2 sides to every story. Cue outraged silence and much Sotto Voce abuse (A true London libtard is a great coward and will never say anything to your face). The next day I was sent (unofficially of course) to Coventry and the following Monday I received a letter saying my services were no longer required. How nice it must be to be a liberal, knowing that you are so full of generosity and kindness and compassion towards the human race that you are exempt from normal human decency and tolerance.

    • Eddie

      Ah yes, but the People’s Republic of Hackney is now a Taliban stronghold.
      I remember walking down a street there and the air of menace chilled my spine. I think I was the only white face there too.
      Your experience chimes with mine when at a London university – the academics and teacher trainers were ALL left-wing and anti-Israel (and turned a blind eye to blatant antisemitic campaigning by Muslim societies who tried and succeeded in getting Israeli academics banned from visiting from some UK universities). I read a great satire on all this (‘Crump’) in which Israel (and Jews) and all who defend her are persecuted at a London university.

  • MikeF

    Something I have come to percive increasingly is that socialism is less a political ideology and more a cult of self-regard the purpose of which is the continuous vindication of and reinforcement of its adherents’ estimation of themselves. It isn’t about anything except itself.To put it another way socialism is about socialists. Once you get that everythign else falls into place.

  • John Steadman

    Yes, my defriending ishyew (by an old college mate leftie) occurred recently, and I’m not sure whether it was because he found me in the vicinity of this blog or because I told him I liked Pat Boone.

  • The Masked Marvel

    Actually, Rod, “the personal is the political” really is the simpler reason. Their beliefs – I use that term advisedly – are part of how they view themselves. They believe they are good people not because they actually give to charity or help little old ladies cross the street or volunteer one night a week at a homeless shelter, but because they hold the approved thoughts. That is to say, their political beliefs are part of who they are, their sense of self. Those who don’t hold the same approved thoughts simply cannot be the good people they believe themselves to be. It’s largely based on emotion rather than reason, so the foundations are rather fragile and easily disturbed.

    If you took any of their beliefs away – for example, if you were to convince one of these people that, say, businesses like accounting firms and chemistry labs do not derive any benefit from having a diverse workforce – it would make them question their belief in the “equality” pantheon as a whole. This would then lead to a cascade effect as the entire house of emotional cards becomes unstable. Their very being would be challenged; they would feel lost. Many people are able to adapt to new facts and circumstances, but true believers are not. It’s like one of those specialist animal species who eat only the one kind of fruit and would go extinct if it disappeared from their territory. Imagine proving to one of those American Evangelicals you sneer at that the whole Jesus thing was a fraud. You would see someone undergo an instant identity crisis. It’s the same thing with your Lefter friends.

    If the religious example doesn’t work for you, imagine a composer going deaf, or a painter losing his sight. Try to consider for a moment the loss of self they must go through as they come to terms with their loss. Who they are, how they understand themselves, has been taken from them. It’s a very difficult thing to go through. The kind of Left-wing ideologues you’re talking about – and it’s more than just the gibbering Londoners you mention, as you well know – face this struggle every time they have to deal with an opposing viewpoint. A challenge to a single one of their political beliefs is a challenge to who they are. It’s not a pretty sight.

    Their positions on most big-picture issues are based on emotion rather than reason, which adds a bio-chemical dimension to the process. This makes it all the more difficult for anyone to have the kind of reasonable approach you’re playing at here.

    • Alexandrovich

      Yes, and here’s an example from the comments section of The Independent after an article about the BBC censuring Jeremy Clarkson:
      Crain6 • 3 days ago • parent

      Brimstone52: What
      an absolutely stupid post! You have no idea how successful I am. In
      fact, if I had failed as dismally as those that are being discussed, I
      would be ashamed of myself. You see, unlike you, I don’t count success
      by wealth. I know that I am successful because I am not racist, I do
      not make jokes designed to insult and hurt people. I do not treat my
      wife with disdain. I do not stab my leader in the back, whilst cooing
      in his ear. I do work hard and run my own company, successfully, etc.
      etc. etc.

      My approach to life is just great, I am well-liked. You are an
      ignorant oaf, not only because of the people whom you hold in high
      esteem, but also, because you are incapable of making a cogent argument.
      You are an ignoramus.

  • Trofim

    Roger Scruton said essentially the same thing years ago:
    ‘Leftwing people find it very hard to get on with rightwing people, because they believe that they are evil. Whereas I have no problem getting on with leftwing people, because I simply believe that they are mistaken.’

  • Daniel Maris

    Well Peter Hitchens is probably talking about serious ideologues. When it comes to people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, they are far more alike than they would like to admit and probably get on very well. They tend to go to the same sorts of dinner parties, back the same sorts of charities, have the same sorts of wives, and their children go to the same sorts of school (ask Diane Abbott).

  • Wilhelm

    Several months ago on the Richard Bacon BBC radio 5 show , Labour voter Dawn French ( who I’m led to believe practiced miscegenation with her ex husband, some people might find that rather disagreeable ) was the guest along with conservative voter Kirsty ” its all jolly hockey sticks” Allsop.

    Mrs French thought our Kirsty was quite malevolent because she voted tory, while she just thought Dawn was just misguided.

    • Daniel Maris

      True,but they would probably both think you were quite boneheadedly racist. Yes? So they agree on something.

      • Wilhelm

        Maris squeals ” waaycist .”

        Oh dear, I’ve upset Maris, Oh well, ho hum.

        Ps, do get some new material, squealing ” waaycist ” is so old and tiresome now.

        Meanwhile in Uganda 9000 children have disappeared , they’re killed and their body parts are used in witchcraft rituals.

        ”ABC news reported a horrific story of a father killing his 17 month
        old son to sell his head for ritual sacrifice. The father said he wanted
        money to set up a business fixing bicycles, so he and his friend
        beheaded his infant son and sold his head to a wealthy businessman for
        $2000. According to the report, the businessman believed that the head
        of the child would bring him more wealth. ”

        I suppose this news report is ” waaycist ” Maris ?

        kitmantv.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/child-sacrifice-africa-jubilee-campaign.html?utm_source=BP_recent

        • Daniel Maris

          You need some new material. Why not try the white fathers of England who kill their children “so she won’t be able to have them”, before they kill themselves. That’s not very civilised behaviour either.

          • Eddie

            Oh that’s called the ‘anihilator dad’ – and it happens a lot in the US and Canada, with Asians topping the league table, I think.
            Perhaps if the law were changed to give fathers the assumption of equal and joint custody, then some men wouldn’t be pushed so far that they snap, with such tragic results. One does too have to look at the behaviour of the mother and ex- or soon to be ex-wife – who very ofteh tells a man she wants a divorce and will leave with the children and go abroad and the kids with have a new father and their real father will never see them again.
            We need new laws that give fathers equality – but as per usual, genedr equality is NOT what the feminists want whenever it means women many have to give up some privilege to give men the rights they assume are solely theirs.

            • StephanieJCW

              “Perhaps if the law were changed to give fathers the assumption of equal and joint custody, then some men wouldn’t be pushed so far that they snap, with such tragic results.” Yes so it’s the law’s fault.

              After all killing your children is a very reasonable response to not having custody.

    • StephanieJCW

      “( who I’m led to believe practiced miscegenation with her ex husband, some people might find that rather disagreeable )”

      Good Lord…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Davis/662052517 David Davis

    Karl Marx fathered a son by his wife’s maid, in his own household, and who was arguably underage at the time. What “movers and groovers” socialist layabouts sometimes are, then! The boy, however, through his mother’s efforts, went on to have an honourable career working for the Great Northern Railway and later the LNER. But…perhaps we should send a posse to Highgate cemetery and “have Marx’s gravestone removed”?

  • Kevin

    You are probably right to draw attention to the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. If conservatism is to be overthrown by constant criticism, then “defriending” a conservative is part of that process. The latter can always hope to be “refriended” once he has learnt to think correctly.

  • http://twitter.com/JulianSymes Julian Symes

    Don’t blame the Marxists. Problem is, most liberals are in fact not.

  • ted cole

    I really don’t know just why the caption on the “Karl Marx image” reads thus “Karl Marx being adored in Madame Tussauds.” ?? The person responsible for this caption sees things rather differently than I do, I see a group of people looking at an exhibit that in this case happens to be Marx.
    I am told that at Madame Tussauds they also have Crippen and Thatcher exhibits, has he put captions on any images of people looking at those.
    These are not adoring looks, they are just looking at the exhibit and then go on to look at the others. what’s your agenda Roy and why the silly and clumsy caption ?

  • Tron

    What is revealing about the Left are the motives that they accuse the Right of having. They say the Tories want to cut the state because they “hate the poor ” and want to cut immigration because they “hate foreigners” .You cannot use rational argument against this mind set. This shuts the debate down.
    Ironically, I’ve never heard a Tory say they hate the poor but I hear Lefties saying they hate the rich almost every day.

  • WoodstockWastrel

    Leftists will never accept that those on the right are trying to achieve a better standard of living for all and not just a wealthy few. They delude themselves by assuming a bloated state will look after their every need and protect them from greedy capitalists who conspire to hold back the poor and downtrodden. They are paranoid, sanctimonious and like to use words such as ‘progressive’ to describe themselves. In reality of course nothing does more damage to the general well-being of a nation than mountains of crazy legislation, high taxation and high public expenditure.
    You only have to watch an episode of ‘Mock the Week’ to see plenty of smug, self satisfied leftists broadcasting their in built sense of moral superiority to the dribbling clapping saps in the audience

  • BillRees

    I think it comes down to the fact that many right wing people love an argument, and most left wing people love ideology.

  • Eddie

    Peter Hitchens is spot-on.
    I do not consider myself right-wing or conservative – (in fact I used to be loyal Labour) – and am someone who has independent opinions, some of which tally with traditional Toryism, others of which would be seen as left-wing, some which would be considered liberal and some not.
    And yet, I have often encountered the self-righteous pompous disapproval of those who see themselves as ‘liberal’ (though often are not) and leftwingers.
    It is typical of the leftwing to assume they hold the moral high ground and can dispense judgements like god on high – decide who is and is not racist/sexist. whatever-ist, decide who is and is not ‘liberal-minded’ and good.
    This ivory-towered toss-pottery is utterly typical of academics, who are about the only people (with their secure unsackable £50k pa tenures and goldplated pensions) who can afford to be socialists these days. How these twerps blanch at those who are against mass immigration because of the way it lowers REAL working people’s wages and makes homes unaffordable for them!
    I have lost a few friends and acquiatances this way too – left wing pompous arses who simply cannot stand anyone challenging their deeply-held prejudices. For example, one was lost when I detailed my opinions of the wrongness of misguided multiculturalism and how integration is the only way (for which as per usual one gets called a BNP supporter, a Nazi, and worse, a Daily Mail reader). I pointed out that my view on this is actually identical to leftwing people and parties in France, if not Britain. But, it was no good – the sanctimonious leftwing lickspittle of the church of political correctness simply could not compute and his head blew off like an overloaded robot’s! I lost another old friend/contact by stating how easy peasy GCSEs had become – now that he has a son who got 27 A* GCSEs he won;t hear any mention of the massive dumbing down that has occured over the last two ‘all must have prizes’ decades.
    It is really a sort of puritanism – often seen in US politicians and feminists too, and campaigners against racism: it is as though they assume a halo is shimmering over their fat nattering heads as they parrot whatever they’re read in The Grauniad that morning. It is as though they assume themselves to be some sort of new priestly class in the church of political correctness. And I am not sure it’s always been like this either: maybe this like pc itself comes from the USA and the identity politics there? A sort of Sean Penn Disease that has crossed the Atlantic? Religious persons are equally pompous of course, such as silly creationists and the devout who see everyone else as inferior beings.
    Those who rabbit on about the wondrousness of Diversity never seem to think diversity of opinion is a good idea, or real debate. A shame really. They might learn something.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.court.315 John Court

      I think you should be given your own blog on here.

    • anotherjoeblogs

      brilliant ! my thoughts exactly but you have conveyed them much better than i ever could. spot on Eddie, spot on .

    • Mark

      Too true, and especially so in the middle and higher reaches of the public sector, where these people glide around effortlessly like a new brahmin class. When I worked in central government within a large spending ministry, it was only too obvious that preferment was contingent upon having a narrow and well defined set of views, and that those who did not share them were simply not worth the time of day or even the air that they breathed. And you’re right too about the Daily Mail reader epithet – usually accompanied by a condescending smirk on the part of those delivering the insult.

      • racyrich

        You should try walking into the ITN newsroom with a copy of the Daily Mail under your arm. Winston Silcott would have been more welcome in a BNP meeting!

        • Eddie

          I hear that all those who have done the same at the BBC suffer a worse fate: I think they send them to some sort of concentration camp in Salford (though it could be the town centre)… Few are ever heard of again…

      • Eddie

        The irony is that all journalists would admit that the Daily Mail is the best put-together national rag, with standards which are the envy of the others. All hacks of all political colours can see this.
        But it has just become a sort of knee-jerk insult to accuse someone of being a Daily Mail reader – as if the paper were called ‘Nazi Daily’ or something. That is lazy, boring and silly – and an insult thrown by those very mediocre of mind who lack wit and imagination in their attempts to insult.
        The Daily Mail is of course a women’s paper – a man like me rarely if ever sees it (not having a wife to spend all my money, thank goodness) – and is very ‘housewife with a moderate education’ really, perfect for the huge swathes of Tory-voting women in Britain.

    • Damon

      “Religious persons are equally pompous of course, such as silly
      creationists and the devout who see everyone else as inferior beings.”
      You were spot on, Eddie, until this irrelevant generalisation about ‘religious persons’. I’m a mainstream Christian, but I’m not a creationist, and I certainly don’t consider myself superior to others. This, indeed, would run against the principle of Christian humility. I think Peter Hitchens would agree with me there, too. Still, as I say, the rest of the post was thoughtful and acute.

      • Eddie

        I did not say ALL religious persons – but certainly there are VERY many who see all the non-religious as being inferior and living a lesser life than the spiritually-bent.
        This cuts across political lines too – the conservatives (Christians, Muslims, etc) see the non-faithful as idiots who cannot see their ‘Truth’ and tell them they won’t go to heaven on a regular basis; the left just use their usual ‘I’m morally superior to you’ smugness – a la Yasmin Alibi-Braun who is insufferably self-righteous on this matter (‘oh how can the non-religious appreciate a sunset without things of allah’ blah blah blah) – but the conclusion is the same as the right’s: the non-religious are inferior and live lesser lives and will go to hell, unlike the righteous.
        You couldn’t make it up really, But wait – they did!

    • SouthamObserver

      Wonderful stuff:
      “I have lost a few friends and acquiatances this way too – left wing pompous arses who simply cannot stand anyone challenging their deeply-held prejudices”
      “the sanctimonious leftwing lickspittle of the church of political correctness”
      I cannot imagine for one moment why people with left wing views might find it hard to extend the hand of friendship to you when you are so clearly incredibly tolerant of those whose opiniuons you do not agree with.

    • Peter Treadwell

      Aren’t you the contributor who was recently disgustingly rude to someone who disagreed with him? Didn’t you then sneer that the person you had deliberately set out to offend felt offended? Please look into a mirror.

      • Eddie

        Oh, do you mean when I called another poster an idiot and worse (SHOCK HORROR) for accusing me of being a racist because I stated the fact that most muggers are black and that in areas where there are hardly any black people there’s hardly any mugging?
        (A fact cannot be racist, dear)
        Or perhaps you’re referring to the hissing spitting manhating feminasty who accuses me of inciting racial and gender hatred, being an apologist for rape, and encouraging child abuse – and all because I disagreed with her silly hateful misandrist view of the world?
        Personally, I think the habit to accuse anyone of racism, sexism, whatever-ism – and to make false accusations of rape ir sex abuse – are a sign a losing the argument and descending into the moral gutter; also, these false accusations devalue the words and concepts of racism, sexism, rape, ‘abuse’ – and perhaps make it easier for perpetrators to get away with it. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
        Nice to see you’ve borrowed Ms Gillard’s mirror, matey, and tried rather unsuccessfully for match her vituperative wit – but you can keep your mirror: perhaps look at the green glow of failure staring back at you, eh?

      • Eddie

        Oh, do you mean when I called another poster an idiot and worse (SHOCK HORROR) for accusing me of being a racist because I stated the fact that most muggers are black and that in areas where there are hardly any black people there’s hardly any mugging?
        (A fact cannot be racist, dear)
        Or perhaps you’re referring to the hissing spitting manhating feminasty who accuses me of inciting racial and gender hatred, being an apologist for rape, and encouraging child abuse – and all because I disagreed with her silly hateful misandrist view of the world?
        Personally, I think the habit to accuse anyone of racism, sexism, whatever-ism – and to make false accusations of rape ir sex abuse – are a sign a losing the argument and descending into the moral gutter; also, these false accusations devalue the words and concepts of racism, sexism, rape, ‘abuse’ – and perhaps make it easier for perpetrators to get away with it. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
        Nice to see you’ve borrowed Ms Gillard’s mirror, matey, and tried rather unsuccessfully for match her vituperative wit – but you can keep your mirror: perhaps look at the green glow of failure staring back at you, eh?

      • Eddie

        Oh, do you mean when I called another poster an idiot and worse (SHOCK HORROR) for accusing me of being a racist because I stated the fact that most muggers are black and that in areas where there are hardly any black people there’s hardly any mugging?
        (A fact cannot be racist, dear)
        Or perhaps you’re referring to the hissing spitting manhating feminasty who accuses me of inciting racial and gender hatred, being an apologist for rape, and encouraging child abuse – and all because I disagreed with her silly hateful misandrist view of the world?
        Personally, I think the habit to accuse anyone of racism, sexism, whatever-ism – and to make false accusations of rape ir sex abuse – are a sign a losing the argument and descending into the moral gutter; also, these false accusations devalue the words and concepts of racism, sexism, rape, ‘abuse’ – and perhaps make it easier for perpetrators to get away with it. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
        Nice to see you’ve borrowed Ms Gillard’s mirror, matey, and tried rather unsuccessfully for match her vituperative wit – but you can keep your mirror: perhaps look at the green glow of failure staring back at you, eh?

        • Peter Treadwell

          No Eddie, your entire reply is completely irrelevant to my post. I am not accusing you of any -ism. And I am not being in the last vituperative. Your spleen is being vented in the wrong direction.

        • StephanieJCW

          Except it wasn’t a fact was it. I believe violent crime rates in Glasgow are rather high. And I am sure that areas where the black people are largely middle class would have few muggings.

  • AGS

    Reminds me of a remark by the Rev. C. H. Smyth that Maurice Cowling quoted in his book on Mill:
    “It is an inevitable mark of the tyranny of liberalism that the liberal is not only convinced that he is right: he is also convinced that other people secretly agree with him – how could they do otherwise? – and are only restrained from saying so by unworthy motives arising from worldly prudence, material interest, and so forth.”

  • Robert Taggart

    Love Lefty Loons !…
    They talk locally (Manchester +) about the mass of support they enjoy – “we weigh the votes” – and presume they must be right ! While their hearts may be beating in the right place – their heads are calculating in another.
    The fact that most of the electorate locally are dimwits – ill educated nay uneducated – never seems to bother them !
    Without this ocean of ignorance – they and their kind would be powerless – “education, education, education” ? ‘Oh Yeah’ !

  • SouthamObserver

    In every single case that a right winger is friends with a left winger, a left winger is friends with a right winger. The imminent influx of right wingers agreeing with both Rod and Mr Hitchens may want to reflect on that.

    • AGS

      Yes, but one person may have ten friends, while ten people may have just one friend. I’m not sure what your point is. Perhaps you’re a Liberal?

    • http://twitter.com/JulianSymes Julian Symes

      But ‘defriending’ is unilateral.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here