Reluctant to join the discussion.

Pens
Whether you call them 'migrants' 'immigrants' 'refugees' 'asylum seekers' 'illegal entrants' 'boat people' it has to be 'generic'.

Calling people Brexiters, Tories, 'rightists' , 'lefties' is the same they are all nouns to describe genres.

There is nothing 'dehumanising' about any of these.

I sense from your post, and youre very honest to admit to being not just left but "extreme" left, that you are indulging in what is my bete noire attempting to prescribe the words others may use!
I suspect you would only really be happy with 'refugee' or 'migrants' although these are every bit as 'generic' as 'boat people' and not words I tend to choose as they are inaccurate.

Sorry petra I missed your post on the Maltese PM.

My objection to referring to frightened people, often fleeing desparate places, as generic 'boat people' is that it can act as a way to make some people think they are not as human as you and me.

Professional politicians consciously use language quite carefully to fulfil their own ends. It is not always accidental/casual.

The term 'boat people' Mair put this in her usual blunt way and I have never had a problem in the way she tells it.
I did post about the Maltese prime minister who holds the chair in the European Parliament speaking on this very subject. His meaning was exactly the same but couched in more rarified way. I'm sure that some posters on GN read the article but nobody commented on it.

Ps Morethan2,sorry to read you are having a difficult time at the moment, ?

I have always been on the left politically, extreme left , I suspect, if you are a Thatcherite or further right. I have no concerns or worries about expressing that. It is based on my family and personal experience. Whilst I am politically active I am not necessarily politically astute because I find retaining facts/figures is not my strength and I need to keep re-reading/checking. My politics are passionate but I am not always able to be back things up quickly with facts/figures.
I do read a range of media from the full political spectrum. Nothing yet has persuaded me to change my political values.
I totally agree with rosesarered and her proposal that we try to debate the points/views expressed without falling into the 'you said' ' she said' and personal sniping.

However it would also be naive to think people will not become impassioned and post things in haste. Also some posters are able to be more controlled and will post a faux naive comment which is designed to agitate a discussion.

I too see 'boatpeople' as a derogatory term. I understand thatbags logical deconstruction but I recall it from headlines in the past and what the term stood for then implied a dehumanisation of ordinarypeople in a dreadful and frightening situation. Not everyone will have that memory, others will.
Some may use the term without the previous context in mind, others may use it because they have the previous context in mind. It is not really possible on a forum, when w do not actually know each other, what motivates posters.

Very well put Morethan2, my sentiments exactly , I Would go further & say some threads /topics attract quite a degree of nastiness &/or a degree of snobbery for want of a better word.

I generally enjoy the political threads as I enjoy a good debate, but if i dont check in for a couple of days I find it has moved on too far and I have been left behind! However, being shot down or misinterpreted is not just on GN; I made the mistake of getting into a smallish chat on FB about Trump and the demonstrations against him. One person basically said that the free world had to 'suck it up' as he was democratically elected and anyway, there was nothing we in GB could do about it. I replied that although this was true, we had a right to demonstrate if we so wished, and if everyone just took a selfish view point and did nothing, then we wouldnt have had votes for women......well.....I got a blast of 'how dare you call me selfish..... etc. Ducked out of that one as the person concerned obviously failed to get my point. Lessons learned there.Please keep the discussions going on GN, I am a big girl and can fight my own corner.

Well at least we now know who the phantom reporter was.

GGM2 and Daphnedil if you don't want to go along with the idea that we try and be more civil to each other that's fine it's not compulsory.
We have had run ins with each other recently, but the idea starts from right now, not complaining about past comments or worrying how long this idea will last, that we try and put disagreements to one side.Why should we all say we agree with one another about politics?Of course we won't, but we wouldn't be sniping all the time either, what a breakthrough!
Some will want to do this ( as evidenced by this thread) and some won't.

Gone.

Yes. she did, Ana...many times! No, I'm not going to direct you, because I'm going to do something else. The posts might have been deleted anyway, because I reported them.

I doubt very much whether any GN poster has ever said you're 'not welcome' or that you're 'not popular' never mind 'on numerous occasions' daphnedill.

Perhaps you could direct us to a few of those posts...

Jalima No, I'm not suggesting that people can't have opinions or an opinion opposed to mine. Please show me where I've stated that.

Maybe you should scroll back through this thread and see who has been trying to dictate how people should post. A couple of hints...it wasn't me; it was the same person who has told me on numerous occasions that I'm not welcome, I'm not popular, that I put people off posting, has tried to shut threads down I actually find that rude and frankly hurtful. It's real playground bullying stuff.

I only post now, because I'm stubborn and refuse to be bullied. To be honest, I'm not sure that it's worth the aggro any more.

I'm not sure, if we could edit in the first couple of minutes after posting it would be useful (especially mistakes!) but after that it could alter the meaning and perhaps make the thread incomprehensible.

Likewise deleted posts can make a thread confusing.

It is GGMK2 but others shouldn't be put off posting their opinions or views on current affairs by those who are (or think they are) more knowledgeable about politics.

Posters may disagree about a view, a political stance but name-calling and accusations are offputting and do not add to debate.

They not the - I do wish we had an edit button. Would it be worth discussing that?

It would surely be a little foolish to go on to a thread marked 'politics' make your point and expect everyone to say 'oh yes, I agree'.

I do find, if you track down those who are asking for others to be 'polite' the words mote, plank and eye come to mind. The often have little to say about the politics and a lot about other people. Just ignore them and get on with the discussion - that's what a forum is for surely.

Some people are very knowledgeable and others supply information - some have direct knowledge about the situation under discussion - how great is that

"I posted in my own words, they may not be the same ones that you may use, so why are you asking me to post differently in the words you would use?"

This is one of the things that makes me cross, posters who try to control the language, complaining about the use of words they do not like because it doesnt fit with the particular political agenda they are pushing.

So long as one isnt using obscenities or racial abuse terms (which are now illegal in certain contexts), then its down to every poster to choose their own words without some Newspeak Big Brother piping up and complaining that they do not like a word!

Error in above post! if it's worth saying it's worth saying twice.

you could have worded it differently. But no

Well, not really because I remembered similar words from the political threads and used those words as an example and the other words were what you wanted me to write which are the words you wanted me to write iyswim

A very reasonable answer Jalima
Yes ww you could be right about 2 weeks, as not everyone is happy being civil, but look at it this way.....it would be 2 weeks of peace! Not to be sniffed at.

No I wouldn't have used the words - I was giving an example from the other point of view and then said that given what was being expressed on this thread, you could have worded it differently. But no

Only quoting loosely what has been posted on other threads.
Not slanging at all.

I am just pointing out what does happen on threads and why it is wrong and why would be better if someone pointed out the true facts in a pleasant fashion.

I posted in my own words, they may not be the same ones that you may use, so why are you asking me to post differently in the words you would use?
Polite question from someone who is

That is precisely it really.

Jalima why on this particular thread did you have to use a partisan example? How about ' you Guardian reading bleeding heart champagne socialist wanting to give my hard earned money to people who have children they can't afford? That's exactly why threads deteriorate into a slanging match. You could in the spirit of this thread just have said that factual errors should be pointed out politely but no.

Perfectly fine if the answer is couched in reasonable terms giving the correct information and not:
'Don't be silly, check your facts, you must be a rightwing fascist because you don't agree with child benefit'
which is not a reasonable answer.