Exalting Curiosity

Eloethan

You are so sadly wrong and I am surprised you feel you can dictate my reasoning to attend. I said irony would crop up in the thread and your post to my mind cements the points raised .

I DID I assure you attended a Labour Candidates meeting as I WAS interested in what he had to say, he is a thoroughly decent person and did not display/engage in what I call nasty politics. I am not as bigoted / partisan as you obviously believe me to be. Yes I will challenge your views and others but that is more to do with a dislike of pure partisan politics . Each Party has it's good and bad points I simply weigh up which I believe is best at the time. I will never vote for Corbyn , true, I do not like his politics but I might well have backed Labour with Liz Kendall because I like what she says . Yes that is admitting to being a middle ground voter but obviously far left politics does not appeal to me for so many reasons, that's why I returned to New Labour and voted for Blair. You on the other hand go in the other direction. Neither of us are wrong and neither of us are right simply have different views. However I try to be open minded , albeit difficult to excercise a non partisan thought at times I agree. I try not to be so bloody minded I elect to close my mind and ears to views that might challenge my preconceptions and that means listening to what is said from both sides of the divide, hence I went to a hear a Labour Candidate.

Perhaps Pogs wanted to see the opponents from close quarters? You know what they say about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

What is wrong for accepting people's own reasons for what they do? Why invent contradictory secret motivations? Are they guilty until they prove otherwise? Is is not possible even to go along just to see what these alien beings really get up to?

For example, your post addressed to pogs seems to be saying that you don't believe what pogs said about her motivation for attending a meeting!

?

If that's not judgmental, what is?

POGS You didn't attend the Labour candidate's meeting because you supported him/her or because you thought you might support him/her or because you support Labour values. I can't think why on earth you would attend then. Since you'd already established that you didn't support Labour values - and that is very clear from many of your historical posts on Gransnet - I can't see why you would want to learn more about the Labour candidate - who would, of course, represent Labour values.

Political meetings are different from "rallies" which "rally" support. I have certainly been to political meetings here where there are differences of opinion. In the US, rallies are as described in my last post - you must have seen that all the cheering, flag waving, singing, etc. etc., takes precedence over any serious analysis of what the candidate intends to do if he/she is elected and how he/she intends to do it.

Fair point, eloethan, though your posts do often give that impression.

Very interesting post, wilmak. Thank you.

Eloethan

Eloethan to me.

That is your opinion and the Dave Manual North whatever brigade. I will stick with my thought.

For example. I attended our local Labour Party candidates open meeting prior to the last General Election. By your reckoning the fact I attended his meeting makes me a Labour voter or at least having the same political values as Labour because of the simple fact I attended his husting. Wrong!

This point alone directs me to think that what bags has put forward as a debate is a valid one because I am not of that political persuasion but I wanted to know I was not making a biased decision where to put my cross and that entailed listening to what all the parties had to offer.

Obviously taking your point in your post to me all I can say is this. Those who would comment on my being there and making the assumption as you and Dave doo da have mentioned both of you have a preconceived/mistaken idea of why I was there and it says more about the attitude of those who consider they must be right to think that way. Whilst I accept the vast majority at a political meeting will hold the same political views it can also be the case some will be there to hear the horses mouth speak to help them decide, some maybe there to challenge what is said, some might be there hoping for a cup of tea afterwards. Or are political rallies so anal these days?

Forgive me but obviously I have noted by your posts you attend political meetings may I ask , are they always attended by 100% like minded people who never challenge nor ask so much as one remotely awkward question? I remember having to go to political meetings with my dad , a one time staunch Labour
man/Shop Steward /Works Convenor. They were often aggressive and most certainly not sycophant or one sided affairs , only those meetings. held in secret or by 'those who need to be in the know' . Anybody who spoke against the union for example were not shall I say ' appreciated for their candour ' and dealt with in a not too friendly manner. I do recollect the poor old man heavy handedly removed from the Labour Party Conference for daring to heckle .

He sounds like a fence sitter. Nothing wrong with that, but fence sitters still indicate their possible stance and real feelings.

As someone else has said, he is going to all other rallies?

thatbags You said I seemed to be saying:

"if someone doesn't do the same as you (which is more or less my approach too, listening to or reading proper debates) then you don't take them at face value; you make judgments about them instead of staying open-minded until you know more certain facts about them."

That appears very much to me like you are saying I am closed-minded and judgmental, which I don't believe is true. Of course it is impossible for anyone to be totally unbiased but I do my best to be reasonably objective and to support my arguments with facts rather than personal slights.

POGS An interview is a very different thing from a rally. The DaveManuel North American political/financial site describes the purpose of a political rally in this way:

"A "political rally" is a gathering at which people of similar political beliefs listen to speakers or musicians. Political rallies are often high energy events that are used to raise morale and support.

".......most everybody in attendance supports the specific party in one way or another, and the speakers/musicians are staunch supporters of the party.

"Political rallies happen on a federal, state and municipal level."

They are therefore not really the place to go if you are looking for an opportunity to rigorously examine and assess a candidate's stance on various issues or their integrity and competency.

I've been reading about Richard Dreyfus and I think what we're perhaps not aware of is that he's been politically active all his adult life.

I think he attended the Cruz rally knowing he would be reported by the media, so when asked if his being there suggested he supported Cruz, he could respond, “It suggests that I’m interested in what he has to say… It’s the politics of my country, so I’m interested.”

He spends his time campaigning for good citizenship (civics) to be taught in schools and in 2008 he started the the Dreyfuss Civics Initiative, ...a non-profit, non-partisan organization that aims to revive the teaching of civics in American public education to empower future generations with the critical-thinking skills they need to fulfill the vast potential of American citizenship.

He has criticised the mainstream media for being obsessed with delivering instantaneous news and images that provides too little context for audiences to reflect and understand what is happening in the world. In an interview he called it “shaped news” — a version of events according to how the mainstream media want audiences to see what happened, and a violation of journalism’s core value of objectivity. Citizen journalism is playing a vital part in broadening news coverage, as well as scrutinising professional journalism.

In 2011 he stated I’m not a follower of current affairs in that way. I ceased being a Democrat a while ago, and thought that it would hurt this [civics] endeavor, and because I thought that there was very little difference between the two parties...I used to think that voting was the be all and end all of citizenship,...And now I think citizenship is far more complex, far more constant, far more boring, far more filled with failure and those rare victories, and that that’s the greatness of being a good citizen is the willingness to work hard at something that is hard.”

The point bags is making is an interesting one and probably just one of many points Richard Dreyfus was making by attending the rally.

Regarding your comment thatbags about 6% cent of priests being identified as being child abusers, I think I made a rather clumsy attempt to try and put it into some sort of context, as with the Asian grooming scandals, by saying we must not tar the majority with the transgressions of a minority. If that makes any sense Of course 6% is shocking, in fact any per cent is shocking. I wasn't trying to minimize the appalling nature of any crime committed against a child. In fact the words I remember most from the film "Spotlight" referred in my first post was those uttered by a reporter played by Mark Gruffalo when urging a colleague to publish a story that revealed the full magnitude of the abuse he said something along the lines when speaking about the abused kids "it could have been me, it could have been you, it could have been any of us". Those words stayed with me because I think we should all dwell on the fact of how would any of us have come through such a situation, how would it have impacted on the rest of our lives, our future relationships, our mental health etc. In the news today, I see there is yet another Asian gang have been jailed for a total of 143 years, sounds a lot, but not when you see how many of them there are, for subjecting a 13 year old girl to brutal rapes and beating. I think I also read somewhere some Asian councilor said something along the lines of it "takes two to tango" implying this child therefore was somehow culpable for her predicament. Tory MP for Keighley Kris Hopkins, and Labour Anne Cryer before him have both criticized the grooming that takes places within some Asian communities. And yes I do still regard the reluctance to talk about these matters comes mainly from the left. I know having read about Anne Cryer who I understand was a thoroughly commendable MP campaigned on these matters and did not receive support from her party, if anything she was admonished for doing so. I think we all need to dwell on the words "it could have been me" alternatively "it could have been my child/grandchild" Which brings me to the Tommy Robinson link supplied by thatbags, I would urge anyone to listen to that interview because he raises these sort of issues and frankly much of what he says echos what many feel. I do not think he came across as a racist bigot.

Turning to Ted Cruz, I am not very well versed in American politics, I am more interested in the European political landscape. All I know about Ted Cruz is that he is an Hispanic Republican. However, based on his beliefs as set out by Eloethan I can say that I dislike every single one of his views and he wouldn't get my vote if I was American. However, I think we should not judge individuals for attending one of his rallies.

By George I got it. Signs off Eliza .

Yep. Spot on, pogs.

Must work on my cool detachment not taking sides persona ?

Whether or not Dreyfuss attended the rally is not the point of the thread is it?, or have I got it wrong.

My interpretation of the 2 links put forward are challenging the prejudices/bigotry /partisanship that at times we ' all ' can display/adhere to.

The OP is eluding to the reasoned thought that having an open mind when challenging/debating is perhaps a wise/smart move rather than sticking blindly to an intolerance to listen to or engage with others points of view. To be able to do so you have to listen to all sides of an argument and you should not be castigated for doing so as with Dreyfuss.

Sharing a platform with , joining in a demonstration shows an obvious agreement with those you choose to join in with. Sitting listening at a rally, interviewing someone you have a preconceived/prejudicial thought of does not. That is showing the ability to listen to an opposing view and making among a rational unbiased decision. If you are not prepared to do the latter then are you tantamount to being as bigoted and partisan as the person/group you are holding a prejudice toward.

This is not an attack on any person it is my perception of what bags was hoping to discuss, to repeat unless I have misread the point of both links.

Trump is not someone we would use as an example to follow, is he? What he would ban is beside the point.

Thank you, eloethan, for saving me the trouble of looking for what you said about Trump coming here. I did not make any judgment about what you might have said. I simply asked because I didn't know. Your penultimate paragraph seems to assume that I would be negative about your views. I am not now and I wasn't when I asked. Why so defensive?

dj, it's a mathematician's joke. Sense of humour required to appreciate it. Hey ho.

Sorry, bags but in what universe would a mathematician say I can only see one side of a black sheep?
The universe that says black sheep do not exist if you cannot see them?

I think Trump should not be allowed in the UK because he has said worse things than people who have been banned.
Whether or not you agree with the law on banning people, if there is such a law it should apply to all people, not just those Theresa May disagrees with.
Theresa May is our equivalent of the thought police.
In fact this country reminds me more and more of Orwell's 1984; fighting wars in countries far away, with weapons that are guided. Information being doctored. The government still says no civilians have been killed by us.

Trump would ban a lot of our politicians from going to the US if he were ever made president.

thatbags This is what I said on the matter of Trump:

"I am undecided as to whether Trump should be banned from entering Britain. I don't believe he should be welcomed here by the government or any public body, or invited to speak at public functions. But I wonder if banning him raises the risk of him being portrayed as a victim because he exercises his right to free speech.

"It may be complacent to think he is of no significance. I believe he is polling way ahead of other Republican candidates and is certainly popular in some areas."

I then went on to say:

"I think it may be difficult to unequivocally prove:

he intends [thereby] to stir up racial hatred

but it seems very likely that this criteria could be met:

"having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

I don't see either of these contributions as being particularly against freedom of speech. In the second comment I was quoting from a piece of British law that is used to prevent some people from entering the UK. If you think that is wrong, take it up with the British government.

I said re Dreyfuss "I wonder if, in the interests of acquainting himself more fully with the politics of his country, he has attended rallies held by other candidates representing different parts of the political spectrum." I did say if - and I still think it is a reasonable observation to make.

On the freedom of speech issue, eloethan and dj, what were your views on the proposal to ban Trump from visiting Britain?

What came of that, btw? <goes to investigate?>

The thought police makes me shudder. Makes me think of things like Russia, cults, brainwashing, grooming, radicalisation.

Spot on, obi.

You are trying to be the thought police.
You like freedom of speech but not freedom of thought.

No one knows the thoughts and reasons of everyone about everything they do. And never will. And why should they.

I guess my approach is rather mathematical in the same way that this anecdote is: when a person on a train passes a field containing a sheep that looks black, they'll say "I can see a black sheep". A mathematician will say "I can see one side of a black sheep".

What you seem to be saying eloethan is that if someone doesn't do the same as you (which is more or less my approach too, listening to or reading proper debates) then you don't take them at face value; you make judgments about them instead of staying open-minded until you know more certain facts about them.

Going to political rallies is not a wrong way of finding out about politics and since we don't know whether Dreyfus Snr goes to the rallies of other politicans, I don't think we can judge him. I think that's the only real difference between your assessment and mine; you seem to think you can judge someone on an amount of information that I don't find sufficient. For all we know Dreyfus Snr might be sitting on the fence between Republicans and Democrats

dj, I agree that using terms like "mouth breather" and "dumb" could well sway a person's viewpoint. However, I don't think those terms are regarded as quite as strong in the US as they are here.

For me the article is a lesson in being non-judgmental and not engaging in stereotyping when one only has minimal information.

So his dad did not say whether he supported him or not.
And the son calling people who criticised his dad mouth-breathers and The Dumb is not going to sway them.