bobbins

This is a great article that I think speaks to the LoKi-type opinions andto mine and others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...k-riots-society

These recent nights have felt like nights of the living dead, the darkness

Bobbins:

 

You asked me a question in this thread before all the rioting kicked off again but understandably missed the response:

 

I'll try to explain, because you're a good lad who's just got really wound up here.

 

I disagree with statements like this

 

(your words)

 

but still talk about social ills because I'm trying to see this subject in a balanced way rather than black and white.

 

I don't believe either strictly in nature OR strictly in nurture. I know that how and where you grow up hugely informs your character, and yet I also know that there are plenty of young teenagers from Tottenham who WEREN'T rioting on Saturday night. Same background, but "not scum" to put it in the language of tabloids. I know people who came from rubbish inner-city schools and now leverage huge salaries and work at the highest levels of business whilst their school chums smoke cracks and go to jail.

 

Regardless of your circumstances, I believe every individual is personally responsible to society and that there is an unspoken (though possibly it should be codified) charter of social responsibility that parallels your human rights as it were. Things that you owe others as opposed to things that others owe you. And not burning down people's businesses would definitely be one of those responsibilities.

 

There's no excuse for what happened on Saturday. Perhaps a few of them were just caught up and followed the herd. But most of them weren't just rioting because they'd got a bum deal in life, they were rioting because they are absolute twats, and they deserve whatever punishment is meted out to them (within the parameters of the law, obviously). It's their schoolmates who didn't riot, and who have to continue to live in those areas that I reserve my sympathies for.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't bother responding, because I've gone over it a hundred times in this thread and got nothing but shit for it. All your talk of social ills is washed away with the notion that people were rioting purely because they are absolute twats. This is why I was asking the question, what makes them absolute twats? Were they born absolute twats? Is it innate? A twat gene? Honestly, it's a serious question. Is it really that simple? They're just twats? End of? If you honestly believe that, then why waste your time with the society talk? You really can't have it both ways. The deeper reasons are either relevant to the discussion or they're not. This is the post that lead me to believe that you're just a Tory dressed up as a liberal. Talking a good talk on social ills is all just a cover if you're going to brush it away with "they're absolute twats, nothing to do with a bum deal in life, zero sympathy".

I agree with you to a certain extent about personal responsibility, but those ideals are not bestowed from heaven. Those responsibilities come from a lifetime of being shown the right way to do things. The right way to behave, the right way to treat others. It comes from parents, teachers, role models, uncles and aunties, grandparents, siblings, peers, TV, music, whatever. But what if your parents, teachers, role models etc etc are mostly twats? What if the people that you really look up to and listen to as a child are twats? What if your favourite musicians and your peers are all twats? What if you lived all your life in an area where nobody goes to work, they just deal drugs or sit off? In a place where money and possessions are everything, but working to earn it is nothing? (before the simple-minded Pitcos jumps in with "why isn't everyone in those areas a twat then? That proves you're wrong. good arrows checkmate", I'll mention that even when surrounded by twattery, many people are able to figure out the right way for themselves, have an innate capacity to listen out for the right advice and take the right decisions in life and that's fucking great, but many aren't so lucky).

It's absolutely possible for society to be set up in a way that doesn't create that kind of situation. A society where if your parents are twats, there are always other people who will step in and show young people the right way and teach them the responsibilities that society rightly expects of them. Any society where the twats strongly outnumber the responsible people, where the voices of community leaders are drowned out and where the education system is failing is just going to breed more twats. It really does not have to be that way, and that's on the government and society to create a better way. And just for the hard of thinking I'll mention that I'M NOT MAKING EXCUSES for anybody. I think looters and rioters are twats too, I just think that the deeper reasons for that kind of twattery always has to be part of the equation and discussion or you're just pissing in the wind.

So, that's my philosophy. You might not like it, but I live my life by it and judge others by it. For the record, I've been pretty critical of the Lib Dems since they've been in power, without actually trying to present them as the second coming of Satan. Their policies in goverment don't represent by beliefs; however I voted for them so I have to accept the consequences of that. It's called democracy.

That's a pretty frickin weird definition of democracy if you ask me but whatevs.

Why has he only named Tory MPs who were fiddling?

you mean like Hazel Blears and Gerald Kaufman?

And the Ecclestone, Blunkett, Grange, Hewitt, Hoon, Byers, Mandelson and cash-for-access comments were all Labour related. I think the Tories got off lightly.

That's a very eloquent explanation of it, Adam. You bring in the tiniest element of common-sense and pragmatism into liberal politics and some loony labels you a Nazi. I really hate ideologues of any description, they are incapable of proper debate, and therefore in the long-term can contribute nothing to the betterment of society.

 

I've spent my life in support of the Lib Dems - when they were the Liberal Party, then the Alliance, I still have David Steel placards in the shed. But that doesn't mean I will blindly support every policy or decision that liberal politicians make, nor does it mean that I subscribe to a particular set of ideological conceits. They are just the party that is closest aligned, generally, to my beliefs.

 

For someone like dopper, though, apparently that's a betrayal of the cause. It's really quite sad.

I actually think that's exactly what you've been guilty of. Your opinions have conveniently moved to the right since the formation of the coalition, constantly making excuses for your party's capitulation. I'm not suggesting you should stick to rigid ideology, but you've either abandoned your principles in order to defend your party or you never really had any.

The issue isn't about people being wrong - in terms of proposing solutions to the situation going forward, I think you were right. However, I don't recall hearing from either of you as to what you thought that the situation in the short-term should have been.

Actually Whiskey went to great length to try and come up with short-term solutions. But it's a completely misleading and distracting argument. It's not as if perfect short-term answers were demanded of anyone other than those wishing to discuss the broader issues. Those demands were made out of a desire to move away from a political argument that didn't fit a certain world view. There is no easy quick solution to stop rioting, if there was, the authorities would have thought of it long before anybody on the UKFF.

Even when Whiskey advocated the use of water cannons (which I believe to be totally inappropriate and counter-productive), it wasn't good enough for the "smash heads and lock them up forever" brigade.

In the end it looks like the policy of vastly increased police numbers, but non-aggressive, non-violent policing has done the trick. Do you think any of us suggesting that would have been greeted happily by the smash heads lot?

It's amazed me that people actually think that the police haven't resorted to violence because of hand-tying bureaucracy, rather than because it would be a tactical error.

Also, the kind of shit that makes me shy away from getting too involved in liberal activism - "we're right, because we're so smart and clear-minded... you know, the educated ones? Like us."

I don't mean to be patronising, but it's frustrating when there's so much active hostility to the mere desire for broader debate. Anyway, I've been praising Whiskey, not myself. I've lost any clear-mindedness I was striving for a few times in the face of Pitcos' trolling.

Ahhhh... THAT argument. If you aren't the most liberal person you could be under all circumstances, and maintain a solid party line of staunch acceptance, then you are not a liberal at all. That, my friend, is the reason for internal weakness in the Democratic Party, the Labour party, the union movement, and for all I am aware, the communist party. There is a distinct lack of pragmatism in the left, and a great deal of ideological rigidity. Yes, social circumstances need to be improved. Yes, spending is the engine which will drive recovery. Indeed, we ARE living in an unequal society, and a more egalitarian society is far more desirable. Most certainly, racism is a blight on society, as is the demonization of the 'lower classes'. However, there are times when one cannot be so stiffly doctrinaire, and yourself, Whiskey, and especially Framing June have failed to do anything but offer long-term answers that I think anyone on this forum that calls themselves liberal would have (and has) agreed with, outside of some of June's more outre concepts.

You make good points, but I disagree that there's been any ideological rigidity from myself or Whiskey. I certainly don't wish to promote a solid line of staunch acceptance.

I don't know how you can say that liberals would have agreed with our long-term answers. They've done the exact opposite, either ruthlessly attacking those opinions or desperately dismissing them. "Shut up! We can't discuss this now! People are stealing trainers!". According to self-proclaimed liberal LoKi, Whiskey1 has been entirely wrong throughout the entire thread. Doesn't quite add up, does it?

Oh come on, bobbins, you're better than that. He's been entirely wrong in this thread, even you can see that. My politics are about as far from Happ's as it's possible to get, you just make yourself look stupid with a comment like that.

 

If you're going to completely ignore all the extremely patient and intelligent arguments in this thread, then you might as well stay away.

I think you're normally a good guy, albeit exposed your true colours a little in classic liberal fashion of late, but I honestly believe you've behaved shamefully in this thread. I've read every word of the thread. Yes, there have been patient and intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate, but none from you. Whiskey has stood out superbly despite being under constant attack from all sides, even being goaded by demands for flawless immediate answers to the riots in a disgraceful display of pack-distraction by the rubber-bullet-brigade. Applaud MickeyEDL with your darts all you like, you guys sure proved him "entirely wrong".

Look back to what started off the discussion over the use of "scum". It was spurs4life, angry about people with no respect for human life, people that aren't worth engaging because they can't be reached or shown a better way, scum to the core. I like spurs4life, so I totally think he was worth engaging in discussion about that. I think it's worthwhile to try and foster more productive attitudes, and look at the wider picture. You and many others have done little but try to distract from honest debate, in order to justify your impotent fury.

I understand the desire to depoliticise this issue from people whose politics don't have any answers, people whose politics are the direct cause of social collapse. It's times like this that you need to ask yourself if you're really a liberal, or if it's just a tag you use to feel good about yourself and to hide your true conservatism from others but mainly from yourself.

That just reads like "People don't agree with me so they're thick dickheads" which I thought you were better than, to be honest.

That's not my intention. I think people have let their anger get the better of them.

Fair enough - I won't continue to confuse you all. I just think it's a shame when we have had decent discussion here but people like King Pitcos insist on accusing me of being scared to answer points, when sometimes there's not a point to answer or I haven't even read it yet. It was also the same when I disagreed with the final sentence of someones post the other day and edited my post when I had read it properly - I was accused of backtracking etc. I think by the fact a lot of you seem sick of reading my posts shows that I have been pretty active in this thread and I'm sure that if you have read my posts you will see I have been pretty consistent as to what direction I'm coming from - whether you agree with me or not.

Kudos, Whiskey for fighting, at times, a one man fight for the causes of clear-minded rationale and honest debate against a barrage of anger, trolling, idiocy and wilful ignorance. Great job.

When did Happ Hazzard change his username to LoKi? I must have missed the memo.

I was also quite amazed at the sheer fury that met Flaming June's suggestions for a more egalitarian society. The false consciousness of late capitalism is in full effect it seems.

Smithdown and Lawrence Road are in Toxteth according to Sky and the BBC.

Well you'd no need to, nature had already done that.

I like to think it was nurture.

What did you think of the video then, bobbins?

I felt fucking sick watching it. But I didn't let the anger consume me or turn me into a furious simpleton.

Fucking hell, that's disgusting. Even the "it's society's fault they're like this" people would surely think bad of the scumbags after watching that.

Surely not. I don't think the human brain is capable of thinking bad of individual criminality, while also contemplating the wider societal problems that can lead to the entrenchment of said behaviour. We only have one brain each, you know! Maybe one day we'll evolve to be able to take on such complex, nuanced thinking, or more likely someone will find a way to weld two brains together. Until that day though, it's one brain each, one thought process each. Either "society's fault" or "scumbags". Pick one and stick to it.

Honestly go back and read it again.

Or don't bother, and make a snarky comment to try and "win" the argument. Whatever you need to do.

Because Loki -- like anyone with a bit of sense -- doesn't think the socio-economic factors that contribute to someone being a bad egg is a valid excuse for the rioters, presumably. I expect he doesn't think a police statement about shooting the drug dealer or a priest doing an interview on the news asking for calm will make much difference to someone who wants a new plasma telly and some protein mix for nowt, either.

And neither does anyone else. That's a construct of your own imagination. Honestly go back and read it again.

There's something deliciously funny about trying to defend the actions of rioters and looters whilst rioting and looting is actually taking place outside people's windows! "Yes, I know your high street is being burned to the ground, but if you could only see past their bandanas you're realise they just want to be loved".

Deliciously funny eh? Ooh I love a good laugh, please link to one of these posts of hilarity, I seem to have skipped past them.

Oh, found it!

...Ultimately, all this is fuelled by the problems of long-term unemployment and low education standards amongst a very specific segment of what used to be called the "working class". And it's only going to get worse as local services are withdrawn due to the sever public spending cuts.

 

For example, knife crime is going to go through the roof this summer, particularly amongst inner-city ethnic communities as the youth services that would normally work at keeping bored teenagers off the streets have all been cut to pieces. That's in turn going generate a backlash from EDL types.

MAKING EXCUSES FOR LOOTERS!!! DEFENDING THE RIOTERS!!! "Ultimately fuelled" eh? It's ultimately fuelled by scumbag rioters. They make their own decisions, personal responsibility, and there you are talking all your slacktivist bullshit about unemployment and education and spending cuts. These people are incapable of respect for human life, they need to be cleaned from the streets not hugged and given an IT course. Knife crime will go up because of scumbags stabbing people, not because of your "youth services" and your hug-a-hoodie "community building".

Seriously though, how can you post that and disagree with anything Whiskey or I have said, or accuse us of defending the rioters. That post is the core of my argument, and that's been clear from the first post to the last. You're too smart to buy PITCOS' strawman bollocks.

Editing it now, hours later, doesn't help you know.

Hours later? Not even half an hour. 16 minutes. Maybe you misread the times. Easy mistake to make. Maybe you should go back and edit?

I've been guilty of raging at Pitcos for his inability to read, but I did the same thing with RIP Diva Sunny's post aswell, just skimmed over the last sentence or misunderstood it. And only noticed when Whiskey posted "Apart from the last sentence". I went back and read it and was like "Oh yeah, totally disagree with that". A careless mistake, but one that I've admitted and rectified. Maybe Loki and Pitcos can go back and reread the thread and admit their reading mistakes and make amends?

Yes, about as ambiguous as when I first used it and you cried about how it completely changed and misrepresented a sentence's meaning.

No actually. Your "only" was reinforced by a "because". Also, context of course is important.

It's funny that you cry that I'm trolling you, whilst also posting shite like "lol cant u post about samoa joe instead?" to try and troll me. But I suppose that comes back to that lack of self-awareness that has been your signifier on here for quite some time now. Ah, here's another instance of it:

Just fighting fire with fire. Shouldn't have let myself get dragged down to your level. I'm clearly 100% a victim of my environment and upbringing and not personally responsible for any flamebaiting posts I might make.

Aye, it was. He wasn't thick enough to say, and I quote, "people only behave like scum when they're treated like scum." He wasn't quite that unproductive and simplistic. Perhaps Whiskey actually does have some nuance to his viewpoint, rather than just smugly throwing the word "nuance" out willy-nilly to try and sound clever whilst simultaneously making hypocritically broad judgements.

Touched a nerve with that nuance stuff eh. Maybe say that sentence aloud, maybe take a little emphasis off the word "only", maybe read it as part of the whole paragraph? Throw it about in your mind a bit. That "only" becomes a bit more ambiguous doesn't it? My apologies for the lack of clarity, I should have chosen a clearer word. If only I knew a full on troll attack was in the offing, I would have been more careful. Still, taking the word at its full value, and choosing the definition of "only" that you've chosen me to have meant, it's actually not in any way a broad or hypocritical judgement based on the notion of scum as defined throughout the thread.

Isn't there a thread about Randy Orton or someone you could get involved in?

I never added "only" to that to misrepresent it. I've just quoted it as is from the unproductive, simplistic bell-end who originally wrote it.

I see the nuances of the English language are completely beyond you. It was actually one of whiskey's quotes that you changed anyway. Maybe read the thread again, but slower, and instead of trying to look for sentences you can take out of context to present to the circle jerk, perhaps try to take in the words and their meaning.

Uh oh, another meltdown because someone's obliterated your white-knighting?

Nice troll.

You've realised you've not a leg to stand on, then. Excellent.

LOLOLOLOL NICE TROLL DICKEYES. Srsly can you keep this crap to threads about Samoa Joe?

Of course there are multiple factors for someone turning out bad, but the difference is I don't think that excuses them or warrants brushing their actions under the carpet.

Good that you've come round to my way of thinking. All I've done is argue against the unproductive and simplistic act of classing people as scum incapable of respect for human life, shit breeding shit etc. But keep on talking about making excuses and brushing under the carpet and desperately looking for holes in arguments while ignoring the wider point. You've added nothing to this discussion, just come in and misrepresented what people have said in order to start a horrible circle jerk. Kindly take it back to on-topic.

If they would of built more Youth Centers none of these youths would of ever done these things.

lol I preferred it before the edit when your attempt at sarcasm was actually almost certainly accurate.

Possibly, although his post that gave only that reason for them acting like scum made that very easy to do.

That's some disingenuous shit. You've read the thread. You created a strawman to knock down. Admit it.

Read back, I think you were the mongol he tripped up with it in the first place. Why is "they only act like scum because people call them scum" more valid than "people only call them scum because they act like scum"?

YOU read back. I was the one who sarcastically pointed out that Rick's reversal of my comment that people behave like scum when they are treated like (not "called", big difference) scum was like a chicken and egg scenario. I'm sure he didn't intend it that way, he just made the statement that people are only treated like scum when they act like scum. I think I was the mongol who pointed out that taken to it's natural conclusion that would imply that Baby P had it coming. And that a foetus would need to be possessed by a scum-demon in the womb for it to be true.

"You people"? Not the best term to use when you're so determined to do your bleeding heart slacktivist routine. Then again, White Knighting for looters who corrupted a peaceful protest and turned it into a destructive free-for-all is a bit of a new low anyway.

I think you managed to cram every cynical bullshit internet distracting rhetorical device into a couple of lines there. Good work. "You people" was intended ironically. Not white-knighting for looters obviously, just think that it's more productive to try and understand the wider problems that can lead to this kind of behaviour if we want to sort them out, rather than yelling "INHUMAN SCUM" from the sidelines creating more anger and fear and scapegoating.

You're representing your own view as an absolute, as is Whiskey. Until you make a post that even slightly suggests these people are responsible for their own actions, you're firmly in the "it's everyone else's fault they're like that" camp, because that's been the tone and implication of all of your posts thus far.

I'm sorry if it's come across that way, but we're fighting a tide against the idea that all of society's problems can be solved by chucking out the bad apples. Of course every human is responsible for their own actions, and no-one has made any excuses for individuals behaving badly. Whiskey1 has made that clear several times. But do you have no intellectual curiosity at all about why humans behave the way they do? Do you honestly believe that humans behave badly purely because they're scum? Do you believe that the ability to make good decisions in life is learned behaviour, or is it something innate like a scum gene? That is the absolute position being presented here. Whiskey and I have presented the idea that there is a whole host of possible reasons for anti-social or criminal behaviour, from upbringing, to genetics, to education, to poverty, to surroundings, peer groups, expectations, role models, childhood trauma, learning difficulties etc etc, and yes individual sense of morality. That's not an absolute position, that's a nuanced position. I've underlined some of the nuancey words there to try and help.

There is a world of difference between making excuses for societal behaviour and trying to understand and resolve the societal problems that tend to lead to anti-social and criminal behaviour. Nuance motherfucker, nuance.

"They only act like scum because people call them scum"

You seem to have added the word "only" in order to completely misrepresent what Whiskey said. You're either stupid or dishonest.

Besides, tiger_rick's post already exposed that chicken-and-egg fallacy pages ago.

Ahh. Stupid it is. Seriously, please explain how he did this.

Why are you people only capable thinking in absolutes? And therefore represent everyone else's view as absolutes.

*stands and applauds Whiskey1's post*

They are like this because they are uneducated, badly brought up and generally moronic people, not because they are poor souls that were treated like scum once.

"Once"? I'm talking about a lifetime of being surrounded by this behaviour from family members, peers and neighbours. You think that has no effect? You think moral guidance is beamed down from God's mouth to a child's brain? You don't think being badly educated and badly brought up constitutes being treated like scum?

Bloody hell, have you ever left the house? Of course they can.

 

Last year a group of 11 year olds killed an innocent man in a street very close to mine just because he refused to go in the shop and get them alcohol. Are you really suggesting they did it because they 'didn't know better'? Scum is scum, age doesn't have to come into play.

I'm not saying they didn't know better, but violence is learned behaviour. If scum is scum, and it's entirely an individual choice to become scum, they why does that sort of thing never happen in rich areas or from middle-class kids? That's got to be a massive fucking coincidence that every single recorded incident of this nature has happened in poor, deprived areas.

Yeah, but shit breeds shit. Not always, but usually.

I'll give you a couple of minutes to think about that one.

These kids and a lot of them are kids have zero respect for human life.

Were they born with zero respect for human life, was that innate from the womb or was it something they learned over time? You say they're just kids, starting out as young as 12, but already they're dismissed as inhuman scum? Can 12 year olds really be that evil and conniving? Aren't they just playing the game as they know it? And the solution is to flood the area with police with a mandate for violence? Surely you can see that's an oversimplification of the problems? The way the communities are run needs to be fundamentally changed. Throwing a bunch of police at a problem area never solved any societal problems.

The sooner these criminals are driven out and away the better.

Where to?

People are treated like scum because they behave like scum.

Chicken and egg scenario isn't it. People aren't born as scum. Baby P had it coming I guess.

What sort of work do you do, Whiskey? Out of curiosity.

He mentioned earlier in the thread that he'd worked as a CSO, so I'd imagine dealing with "scum" is not an alien experience if that's what you're intending to imply.

Every post i've made in this thread should explain it to you but your so set on your agenda you have ignored the fact that unlike you i have lived and worked there for half my life, unlike you i still know people who live and work there.

 

It has everything to do with the internet as you would never meet someone from Tottenham in person so from your un burnt home you can spout all the conspiracy theories you like.

 

When your friend has had sawn off shot guns pointed at his head whilst the fella goes stay down ash, note he knew his name as the prick went into the shop every day, when your friends have been chased out of their jobs by gangs of large teenagers after witnessing people being stabbed in the head over some loose change, after being punched and watching kids as young as 14 pull knives out on the police. When you have lived in Tottenham and had to meet your girlfriend at her car as you were both scared to walk the 50 yards back to your house as the chances of you getting mugged are stupidly high, when you have been to my area as you put it, lived in it, experienced what the mentality is, then after all that i'll happily let you come on the internet and spout bollocks.

Do you think it's possible that rather than giving you some special clear-minded insight, living in the area so long with all those negative experiences could have clouded your vision of the problems in the area? People only behave like scum when they're treated like scum. Growing up in those surroundings entrenches that kind of behaviour.