Bishop Hill Rebecca Roache's potty time
Readers may remember a paper I wrote about a few years back which considered whether the human race shouldn't biomedically modify itself to have a smaller impact on Gaia. This tinkering with a kind of eco-eugenics was the stuff of 15-minute headlines, and was quickly forgotten, but one of the paper's author's came to my attention again over the weekend when Maurizio tweeted about her ramblings in the wake of the election result. Here's her considered view of Cameron's victory, published at the Practical Ethics blog of the University of Oxford:
One of the first things I did after seeing the depressing election news this morning was check to see which of my Facebook friends ‘like’ the pages of the Conservatives or David Cameron, and unfriend them. (Thankfully, none of my friends ‘like’ the UKIP page.) Life is too short, I thought, to hang out with people who hold abhorrent political views, even if it’s just online...
I don’t want to be friends with racists, sexists, or homophobes. And I don’t want to be friends with Conservatives either.
There is some interesting discussion in the comments as to whether her astonishing bigotry makes it impossible for anyone of right-wing political views to attend Ms Roache's course. Last week, someone helpfully pointed out to me that something like 90% of UK academics have left-wing views of one kind or another. That being the case, and in the light of the kind of behaviour described above, what future is there for the universities?
Reader Comments (83)
What a poppet she is!
Poor dear thing is Rebecca and heavens all roseate tinted deluded. In a meandering, far away in some distant galaxy, zoning in and out of consciousness. When and how did the 'dreaming spires', became a nightmarish drug addled dystopia, permeated with Marxist demagogues preachifying ever more bizarre pretentious hogwash and fashioning a production line churning out increasingly deranged alumni?
Ouch, it must hurt her brain - and lets face it dearest Rebecca Roache, she is not alone is she...?
Um....................oh dear God.
Hoisted and now swinging on her own bustier.
Like that self anointed 'son of the manse' his moral compass gone all all points somewhere off the chart, a Kirkcaldy steak of dreich. Blimey, have we got another McMental?
"Well roger me" said the Prince of darkness,
"beam me up roger said Houston - I think we have".
Below the Rebecca Roache article I found this very insightfull comment. It describes my opinion better than I could myself.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/05/if-youre-a-conservative-im-not-your-friend/
Ideology? A thing safely left to enthusiasts. My right-wing stance is in favour of freedom and personal (and group, and corporate) responsibility.
I cn't remember any time a tory politician articulated that in public. I don't believe they dare do so for fear of criticism from the bien-pensant.
Don't leftists believe in freedom too? Of couse they do, but they also believe in collectivism. Which to me is an incompatible pairing.
On another axis, I'm not too fond of big government. I just don't think it works very well in practice. I wouldn't like that to be a definer of left vs right, but it is. Leading me to conclude that it is a right-wing tendency to go for 'what works' and a left-wing tendency to go for 'what ought to work in an ideal world of perfect socialists.'
And nobody in the public arena in Britain seems to be debating on the level of this comment. They all took sides years ago. They don't need to know what the other side thinks.
On another slightly related subject, here in Texas we had a local election last saturday. Being from Oxfordshire I don't get a vote, of course.
They vote for Mayor, town council, school board and for propositions put on the ballot by citizens. A local town had 8 props, mostly about allocating money to various projects, but also about thing like banning red-light cameras (passed) and pretty much anything else done at local level. The county and the town are powerful in Texas politics, not so much the state. People who vote for expenditure are going to pay for it in their property tax. I was very impressed. I'd like to see something similar at home. Except by the 6% turnout.
The historical ignorance, the bad manners, and the irresponsibility of the Roache post are appalling. She disregards the long haul to achieve a near-universal suffrage. She disdains debate and discussion, and goes for innuendo and abuse instead. She is in a leadership position for many young and presumably still impressionable people in search of learning and insight, and she pisses upon them with her bile (please excuse the mixed metaphor). All because she wishes to be seen to distance herself from a political party with a long history of doing good things for our society, and indeed for the wider world, sensing that this perversity will bring her admiration from the like-minded who seem so prevalent in both education and the mass media. Tawdry, and shameful I call it. One can easily find corresponding ignorance, bad manners, and irresponsibility in the climate arena in the promoters of alarm over carbon dioxide.
I really cannot understand how the likes of this foolish person can allow a single issue such as political ideology to dictate far more important matters in their lives such as personal, professional and social interactions. As an ex-civil servant, I gave up on politics and voting decades ago, the vast majority of them are only in it for their own self promotion/interests.
My family and friend's politics cover the whole range from far left to far right, but I would not want to lose a single one of them for the sake of their political beliefs or ideologies. Maybe Ms Roache and her ilk would benefit from some counselling?
So it seems that some people can define and justify why they hold right-wing views. That isn't a surprise.
What is a surprise is that the public debate refuses to discuss these views and that the right-wing are happy to let that continue. Or at least are willing to let that continue. Because, I am told;
1) They see no rational alternative so they don't bother to engage (for example May 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM | bill).
2) They think we lefties are all thugs who will threaten them (for example May 11, 2015 at 6:16 PM |Mike Jackson).
3) They believe that they have no ideology and come to every viewpoint independently of all others (for example May 11, 2015 at 6:19 PM | Athelstan).
Point 1 is the same arrogance we see from Ms Roache. It is a threat to civic society.
Point 2 is only true in a small minority of cases. And every side has a few thugs hanging around. Don’t be fearful.
Point 3 is at best unproven and most improbable.
This is why engaging with alternative views can be of value. A different perspective gives a new viewpoint that can be accepted or rejected but only with new insights, either way.
We are all challenged by the trolls among us.
And on this thread I seem to be the troll.
M Courtney, do you not see that the left wing has control of the 'narrative'? That's how it looks to us. We never see an articulate right-wing voice on the BBC. They just don't get invited*. And because we don't have so much an ideology as an anti-ideology the left doesn't understand us. It is looking for that ideology, seeing nothing, and substituting its own version as a straw man. Which means when I am concerned about the effects of immigration the other side proceed immediately to 'racist' without stopping to listen to the justification.
Of course by modern definitions I AM a racist, because it is sufficient only to see the various races as having different characteristics to get the epithet.
Anyhow, it looks to me as if the left has control of the debate, of the allowable language, of who is allowed in front of the audience and of who selects the audience. Does it not look like that to you?
* Yes, I know you might see a couple of token rightists on the telly, but they are invariably pitched against three times as many leftists and never allowed an uninterrupted turn. Or that how it looks to me. As an exercise, name the articulate right-wingers regulary used by the BBC.
Has anyone looked her up on Facebook to see if she's got any friends?
Rhoda, I didn't dispute that the broadcast media is biased to the left. It has been since homosexuality was banned and freedom of expression was constrained by McCarthy and Hays (and in the UK theatre was censored by the establishment).
It's easy to forget that this bias dates way back to when the right was the landed gentry - the church and aristocracy. And though the power is no there anymore... And though the right wing isn't there anymore... That is the institutional bias.
However, my comment was initially about the public discourse online. As is the original article. And how we are all hiding in our own herds. Shy Tories are not willing to discuss with their opponents online - away from the institutional bias.
Not all, of course. I acknowledge your thoughtful disagreement wit me. But largely, the right-wing doesn't dare verbalise their views and so doesn't consider them.
Rhoda,
As an exercise, name the articulate right-wingers regulary used by the BBC.
Michael Portillo. :)
Trolling much? The subject of the post is Rebecca Roach, how about commenting on that.
M Courtney, I do not see you as a troll, and value your contributions on all threads, because they are not shouted, they are rational, and also, because they do come from a different angle.
The left have framed global warming as a left v right debate, and in my opinion, have used the original scientific concern to support all sorts of issues around "equality". Equality is a great idea, provided someone else is going to pay for it.
The original scientific concern is now discredited, but remains driven by those who still believe in it, or choose to use it as a means to an end. I support some of the equality issues of those to the left of centre, but did not realise how annoyed I had become with Labour until about Friday lunchtime.
If you are annoyed about the election result, please direct it at the Labour party, who have started to blame everybody. If they have been locked in a room tonight, it will be interesting to see who appears on camera with unmarked knuckles and faces. That does not of course mean they were correct, but that is politics.
For the sake of equality, in England, UK, EU, rest of the world, I am happy with this election result, as being part of the kick back against the Green Blob.
Because I was helping other people, to help themselves, and others, including me, all without payment, I never made it back to the polling station until after it shut!
Chuckles, Rebecca Roach demonstrates why the electorate preferred Cameron to Miliband, and why the Labour party chose the wrong Miliband.
Your turn now!
Chuckles, I began by claiming that this narrow-mindedness happens on both sides of the political divide. I still believe that. And I think because of social media this failing is becoming more common.
Later I acknowledged that I had become a troll.
That was truly not my intention. And I thank Rhoda for giving me a pass. But I'm not sure I can accept it.
You are right. My original counter-point has thread-jacked.
Sorry.
While working in the uk, I was surprised at the number of my university-educated teaching colleagues who insisted they were 'working class' on the basis of a Grandfather who worked 'down 't pit'. When I pointed out that my Paternal Grandfather had been a lead miner before he emigrated to NZ, but, unlike him, on all measures I am middle class. I was shouted down when I attempted to discuss this and was actually called 'a traitor to my roots'!
Chuckles, there's not much more to be said about Rebecca. It's not trolling to engage, which is where she went wrong, she tried to shut down debate even before she'd had one, which is very relevant to AGW.
M Courtney, I don't think any of the parties with the exception of the SNP made a good case for their sides. At the last election the Conservatives were almost guaranteed a win but they managed to mess it up by being limp and unsure of what they stood for. They wanted to be all things to all men and ended up appealing to almost nobody. Only the fact that Labour had messed up, meant there was little option but vote for someone else. This time, the Conservatives had a track record but they were almost as limp in their defence of what they stand for. Only Labour presenting a package that was more unacceptable made up many minds.
There's much introspection on the Guardian about how the left did a lot of talking but not enough listening, especially to those who ended up drifting into the UKIP camp.
However, right wing meets left wing goes like this-
LEFT we should fully finance the hospitals.
RIGHT Well yes, that would be nice but we can't afford it all.
LEFT So you want babies and pensioners to die in a filthy hospital waiting room while you rich f***s get private health care?
RIGHT No but we do need to pick where the money we have got is best spent.
LEFT Oh, you mean we should hand over services to the private sector and let your friends rake in the money.
RIGHT Well some services can be done just as well by outside organisations but that should only happen if they can provide as good a service but for less money.
LEFT You mean companies that pay their staff peanuts?
RIGHT Certainly not as much as some of the over paid staff salaries that have crept well above the private sector, not to mention the other staff benefits like the generous pension.
LEFT So you'd have our wonderful nurses, those angels, working every hour god sends for a pittance, before you throw them on the scrap heap with nothing.
RIGHT have you been in hospital lately? Some nurses are wonderful but others are miserable, lazy and too well educated to want to do the admittedly dirty work that nursing entails. Since they introduced degrees, their salaries are now very generous, so much so that we're poaching nurses from developing countries, whether they can speak English or not.
LEFT Oh, so you're a racist as well.
RIGHT It's not racist to expect people dealing with the sick and elderly to be able to read, write and speak the language of the people they are caring for.
LEFT So you admit they care, which is more than can be said for you...
And so on. Can you see why those aren't 100% sure of their arguments just avoid getting into them?
PS, we might want to move this to discussion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150424122312.htm
"World's first genetic modification of human embryos reported: Experts consider ethics"
time, gentlebunnies, time
I thought you were the first genetic experiment. Half bunny, half man. Allegedly.
TinyCO2 11:32 Nicely put!
Eli Rabett 11:49 What is it about the UK political left's disaster that you don't want discussed?
TinyCO2 11:58 I thought the first genetic experiment was shortly after Adam met Eve, and the serpent reared its head. Apparently there was no one else around, so rumours that they behaved like a pair of rabbits, must be treated, as rumours.
Haha. Reminds me of the classic line from the movie The Big Lebowski: "I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude. At least it's an ethos."
Something tells me many people will respond, "Rebecca who?" when they find out she has unfriended them. Others may well breathe a sigh of relief at her actions.
Logan's Run compulsory euthanasia for the entire population at age 30
What a bummer think of all that lovely MILF Cougar Sex they,re all gonna miss out on.
GENISIS - The Winkler
"This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height."
It seems much of the left are content to live in an echo chamber where dissenting voices are silenced and debate discouraged.
Which is fine, but if you do not engage with the 'enemy' how do you bring them to your side of the argument? It's the equivalent of putting fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalala" when your world view is threatened.
Perhaps she should try painting some fruit for therapy. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/traumatised-by-the-election-result-a-psychotherapists-recovery-guide
I have a number of simple rules from experience and observation. The first one is 'You can't tell anybody anything'. Think about it. When is anybody ever willing to change their position because they are argued out of one trench into another. Never, that's when. Now, people do change their position, but it's in their own good time and from their own reasoning or emotion.
You might learn what the other side really thinks and feels by engaging with them, if you are a rare truly receptive person, but you won't convince them nor they you. That's just how things are, most of the time. We arrive at our opinions by mystic instinctive processes and them justify them by conscious thought. Whoever you are, try not to fool yourself into believing you came about your position rationally. Not many people work that way. This is so universal I'm inclined to wonder whether it's a survival characteristic.
Awww Rhoda, that just crying out for me to write 'I absolutely don't agree.' :-D LOL.
But I do think bloody mindedness is a basic human trait.
Rhoda, I agree but don't think it's as clear cut.
Although people are rarely persuaded to change position they are often persuaded to take up and drop arguments in favour of their original position.
If argument A is proven to be a weaker than argument B then people do stick with argument A if argument A leads to the answer that they know is right.
But if argument A is proven to be a weaker than argument B then people will drop argument A if argument A and argument B both lead to the answer that they know is right.
In the long run engaging with views you disagree with will lead you closer to the truth. Or at least closer to a more justifiable falsehood.
(I was planning to not come back to this site for 24 hours. Just failed. I am now a self-feeding troll).
M C, you can't be a troll, because I don't engage with trolls.
Left- and right-inclined individuals don't see issues in the same way. I recommend Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind' (often mentioned hereabouts) for the theory/hypothesis.
I find I can have a conversation with a rational lefty but we invariably differ on the lines of 'fairness' and of practicality. That is the difference between what works and what fits the leftish ideal. The difference between 'That has never worked in 10,000 years' and 'If we give it another try, it'll work this time'. Or the difference between observation and models?
Rhoda, we really ought to move this to a Discussion but as you rightly imply, there is little point.
However, for vanity reasons, I will respond and grab the last word.
The idea that the left goes on what makes sense in theory and the right goes on what works in practice is right about the biases.
But I dispute the idea that the left, with it's Union background - in contact with the shopfloor - is entirely other-worldly.
And I dispute the idea that the right knows what works. Without introspection you can just fall into a cargo cult. (building airbases worked in WW2 to bring prosperity so it will now).
For example, selling off social housing was popular in the 1980s so it's good.
Or railways stimulated Victorian England so HS2.
I actually support HS2 but I had to ponder the matter.
" Left- and right-inclined individuals don't see issues in the same way. I
recommend Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind' (often mentioned
hereabouts) for the theory/hypothesis."
I still don't understand what the difference really is between left and right. I assume the NHS is a 'socialist' left wing concept is that correct? I think I'm essentially a small government 'libertarian' as I think large organisations always get corrupted in some way. I'm not really sure whether I am left or right.... I do think 'wealth' isn't distributed fairly which must be a socialist thing but I have no real idea how to fix that... probably tax more wealth and less income but that is very hard to do. By far the fairest tax must be death but again that is easy to get around if you still want all your wealth 'not going to the state' even when you are dead.
Is this news ?
steady on guys ... we already know that in 2015 Green/Left people are often bigoted and intimidating.
..and you would be too if you lived in the bubble they find themselves in. ie kindly protected by BBC-Guardian from deniers and others who might challenge their views.
- Show her some empathy , one would expect her to shout out at the moment after her dream has been shattered.
- Her editor should have probably knocked back her post however publishers like such stuff. It is COMMENT-BAIT published precisely cos it winds you up
...and in the end you view more adverts.
Use your time wisely.
some #GreensSecretlyVoteTory
- Perhaps some of Those people that talk green but have high consumption & fly frequently #GreensGoByAir are probably the same ones that care about their personal wealth and don't want their money taken by a mansion tax so voted Tory.
...Hypocrites but secret hypocrites in that respect.
..Hypocrisy is the national sport of Greenie-land.