The reason Labour keeps its cards close to its chest.

Glorianny

Casdon

Your view isn’t the widely accepted one Glorianny. Here’s some archive material from the BBC, note the momentum and ‘concessions’ before the suffragettes - it was going to happen regardless. Not to say it wasn’t speeded up by their actions, but the move towards the universal vote was inexorable without.
www.bbc.co.uk/teach/did-the-suffragettes-win-women-the-vote/z7736v4

I would say Casdon that most male historians are influenced by their ideas of how women should act and behave. It took over 100 years to erase the perceived view of Emily Wilding Davison that she was erratic, a little unhinged and unstable. The historians view until 1969 was that she threw herself under the King's horse. Then "One way ticket to Epsom" was published, but her actions were only proved to be well thought out, logical and planned when Lucy Fisher published her biography and detailed her speeches and writing. Women cannot be acknowledged as militant or violent and any women who behaved in such a manner cannot be credited with anything.

Yes, I appreciate that of course you’d say that Glorianny, we’ve had similar debates before. You’re a hard line feminist, I’m a pragmatist. Therefore our perspectives on the same scenario will always differ. If you read what I’d said, I acknowledged that the suffragette movement speeded up the vote for women, I’m not anti suffrage at all, I just don’t think it was the only catalyst for change, as I don’t think other forms of extremism are either.

Glorianny

You've said extremism doesn't work. I've provided examples of when it has.
I could add the French Revolution, the Boston tea party and the War of Independence, the Cuban revolution and others. Extremists started them all.

I am getting fed up with you rewriting my posts to make them fit your prejudices.

I did not post that "extremism doesn't work". I said that I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference to the outcome. You can add and twist what you like but why do you do that? This is not the first time, and such playing around with the truth is a form of gaslighting. Why not just quote what I did say or do you truly think it is your place in life to try and change what others beliefs are.

What next if I don't agree - kneecapping?

Glorianny, the French Revolution, etc all had extremists involved - extremists enjoy a kerfuffle. They also had activists drawn from the general public. When things are obviously oppressive, exploitative then people eventually rise up.

I have always felt Iam that, to a greater or lesser degree, those used to ferment events such as the French Revolution often become the losers, while others walk off with the riches of such chaos.

You only have to look at the striking pitmen to see who comes out ahead.

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

You've said extremism doesn't work. I've provided examples of when it has.
I could add the French Revolution, the Boston tea party and the War of Independence, the Cuban revolution and others. Extremists started them all.

I am getting fed up with you rewriting my posts to make them fit your prejudices.

I did not post that "extremism doesn't work". I said that I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference to the outcome. You can add and twist what you like but why do you do that? This is not the first time, and such playing around with the truth is a form of gaslighting. Why not just quote what I did say or do you truly think it is your place in life to try and change what others beliefs are.

What next if I don't agree - kneecapping?

Now kneecapping did have a beneficial side effect. It was responsible for the speedy development of knee replacement surgery. Hip replacement has taken decades of surgery to develop, knee replacement has come on much faster, partly due to the availability of young fit men willing to undergo experimental surgery.
It's an ill wind.......

I did not post that "extremism doesn't work". I said that I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference to the outcome.

The whole point of my original statement was that without extremism there wouldn't be any outcome at all. Because it's usually extremists who provide the first steps. I also said that the end result might not be to their liking.

By 'extremist' I didn't mean people who use or advocate violence to achieve their ends. I meant people whose thinking radically challenges the perceived 'norm'.

MaizieD

^I did not post that "extremism doesn't work". I said that I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference to the outcome.^

The whole point of my original statement was that without extremism there wouldn't be any outcome at all. Because it's usually extremists who provide the first steps. I also said that the end result might not be to their liking.

By 'extremist' I didn't mean people who use or advocate violence to achieve their ends. I meant people whose thinking radically challenges the perceived 'norm'.

But I don't agree Maizie. Both you and Glorianny will have to accept that while we all have opinions those opinions are not always the same as yours. We are not obliged to agree with you or to believe you are the fount of all truth and wisdom.

I accept that you believe the sacrifices made by many have proved to be worthwhile. I can accept that as your opinion, made from your perspective, but I do not, from my perspective, believe it is always, or even often true.

Radical thinking is a long way from what you both have been suggesting; I can't find any previous reference to it. To go back to the various examples, the suffragists thought radically so, as this accords with your thinking, why the need for others to become law-breakers?

You don't need to answer that. Your insistence on knowing the truth for others has made me lose interest in the whole discussion - or rather fight if you both had your way. Just as in life, on GN it proves nothing except that some people are more extreme than others in their actions as in their views. This appears to include suggesting that kneecapping was a good thing because of the outcomes. Sometimes there is just no point in the conversation.

I think it's time you accepted that your comments about people are unpleasant and I shall start reporting posts where you have a go at other posters.

Sorry, I meant to quote DaisyAnne's last post.

Once again we have the self righteous riding up against those that challenge them. Funny how anyone disagreeing with them is cast as ‘unpleasant’ or decried as stupid or pushed aside by pseudo-intellectualism.
I no nowt much about the Suffragist movement other than the change in votes for women. That’s because no one can know everything about everything. To some that’d make me deficient in some way but hey ho.
But I do know it has little to do with the OP. Over the weeks I’ve been using this site I do question just how dynamic a life the angry must lead when they pour such vitriol at others over so much time.

ExperiencedNotOld

Once again we have the self righteous riding up against those that challenge them. Funny how anyone disagreeing with them is cast as ‘unpleasant’ or decried as stupid or pushed aside by pseudo-intellectualism.
I no nowt much about the Suffragist movement other than the change in votes for women. That’s because no one can know everything about everything. To some that’d make me deficient in some way but hey ho.
But I do know it has little to do with the OP. Over the weeks I’ve been using this site I do question just how dynamic a life the angry must lead when they pour such vitriol at others over so much time.

Blimey. Who was that intended for?

Daisy Anne radical activists have a long record of militant activities from the Peasants Revolt, through the Cornish uprising and the Newport Chartists. At the time of the suffragettes many others were involved in violence, including Sinn Fein , anarchists and revolutionaries. Most radical movements have militant activists.

Just to say I totally agree with you WW2

Glorianny

*Daisy Anne* radical activists have a long record of militant activities from the Peasants Revolt, through the Cornish uprising and the Newport Chartists. At the time of the suffragettes many others were involved in violence, including Sinn Fein , anarchists and revolutionaries. Most radical movements have militant activists.

So what? Why keep introducing new areas Glorianny. It will not change my overall opinion about whether extremists who carry out illegal and/or violent actions ultimately change the outcomes of these causes. All your ranting makes no difference to the opinion I have formed based on my perspective. It hasn't since you started on this. It is a long held belief, so why are you so determined that I may not, on your say-so, hold that opinion?

If you and I went into a supermarket and I picked up my favourite bread rolls and read the price saying "these are 4 for £2" that would be a fact. If I said, "that seems reasonable", and you said, "I think they are expensive", neither of us would necessarily be right; neither of us is necessarily wrong. It is just our personal opinion based on our knowledge and perspective.

When we both say "there was a movement in the country wanting women's suffrage" and "eventually we got universal suffarage", both those would be facts. However, what led to that, or the freedom of slaves, or any other good cause coming to a positive conclusion, is an opinion we each reach from our personal perspective.

You cannot change my opinion any more than I can yours - although noticeably, I have no wish to change yours. All I want is for you to stop being so intolerant and accept that I am entitled to hold mine. So why are you still trying to change it and prove only your perception is the right one?

Daisy-Anne perhaps you don't realise the statements you make are very questionable.
For example
Radical thinking is a long way from what you both have been suggesting; I can't find any previous reference to it. To go back to the various examples, the suffragists thought radically so, as this accords with your thinking, why the need for others to become law-breakers?
The evidence is that every radical movement has always had an extremist element. Now you are quite entitled to say you think that extremism didn't work, although there is also evidence that many changes only happened after extremist actions. You are not entitled to say radical thinking didn't involve extremism when it patently did.
Nor would I say all the suffragists were radical. Many of them believed in the status quo and just wanted women with the same qualifications as men to be able to vote. That's very different to the radical belief, which was universal suffrage.

Yet again Glorianny, you have misquoted me and twisted what I said. I did not say, "radical thinking didn't involve extremism". That comment is, in any case, irrelevant to my argument that I am as entitled to my perspective on history as you are.

What you say above is not something I want to or have ever wanted to discuss with you. I repeat, my opinion is that the extremists make little difference to outcomes and that sometimes they even make things worse for those they purport to be standing up for. That's it, and it's just an opinion.

I do understand that you have what is called an "egocentric bias". We see it from the extremes on the right and the left and, even occasionally, from the centre. This bias often comes from those who believe they have the only correct and reasonable political view, so they stop questioning what they think. These people rely too heavily on their "cast in stone" beliefs when looking at life.

I appreciate that this makes it hard for you to understand that others are looking from a different perspective. However, if you could try and see from their perspective, it might broaden your thinking. I am not suggesting you agree, but that you stop your anger long enough to gain some understanding. Whether or not the extremists on this forum, these exceptionally intolerant people, can do this, is something I cannot even guess.

DaisyAnne Thank you for your analysis of exactly what is wrong with me. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your posts. But this is a direct quote, so cannot be a misquote as you claim.
^Radical thinking is a long way from what you both have been suggesting; I can't find any previous reference to it. To go back to the various examples, the suffragists thought radically so, as this accords with your thinking, why the need for others to become law-breakers?

I also explained why I thought suffragists were not necessarily radical thinkers.
My argument is that radical thinking and ideas always to some extent involved extremism. That the extremist actions contributed to the ultimate outcome.
You are entitled to disagree with that.
But could you explain to me exactly what
Radical thinking is a long way from what you both have been suggesting; I can't find any previous reference to it.
particularly with reference to what the "it", means please?
Perhaps I mistakenly viewed the "it" as extremism. If so I apologise and would be grateful for a full explanation.
I'm always interested in broadening my views and gaining more knowledge. However I do prefer to base my beliefs on actual facts and not simply the opinions or beliefs of others.

My post was not about "what's wrong" with you Glorianny. Yet again, you try to twist my words. It describes the psychology of how you see and treat others' political thinking.

You seem unable to allow others to have their point of view if it differs from your perspective. Annoying as you may find it, psychologists have a word for this, just as they have for much in politics and work. It seems, however, that I have inadvertently touched a sore spot, for which I apologise.

You have gone off-piste with your many attempts at arguments. Much of what you want me to discuss doesn't interest me. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that. I have tried, but either you don't understand or are being deliberately perverse. Neither is a basis for a conversation.

My only point of discussion has been that just because I have a different perspective doesn't mean I am wrong. It doesn't mean you are wrong either. It just means we are looking at it from a different point of view. That is all I was and am prepared to discuss. I have said so frequently. It really is simple. Perhaps you can give yourself a rest now.

DaisyAnne

My post was not about "what's wrong" with you Glorianny. Yet again, you try to twist my words. It describes the psychology of how you see and treat others' political thinking.

You seem unable to allow others to have their point of view if it differs from your perspective. Annoying as you may find it, psychologists have a word for this, just as they have for much in politics and work. It seems, however, that I have inadvertently touched a sore spot, for which I apologise.

You have gone off-piste with your many attempts at arguments. Much of what you want me to discuss doesn't interest me. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that. I have tried, but either you don't understand or are being deliberately perverse. Neither is a basis for a conversation.

My only point of discussion has been that just because I have a different perspective doesn't mean I am wrong. It doesn't mean you are wrong either. It just means we are looking at it from a different point of view. That is all I was and am prepared to discuss. I have said so frequently. It really is simple. Perhaps you can give yourself a rest now.

As you won't discuss the things you post or answer anything I ask it is difficult to understand where your views come from. I think your concept of what is radical probably differs from mine.
It might be nice if you could discuss ideas without resorting to personal remarks.

You are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't you Glorianny.

You say you want to know from where my ideas come. They come from my life, the things I've seen and the things I've learned. I have friends and family with whom I can discuss them and there are some on GN whose opinions I value.

All you do is try and find what you see as a weakness in others' opinions and then set out to assault and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't hold the same ones as you. That is not a discussion.

I can't remember who introduced the word "radical". It wasn't me. Why not go and argue with them? That is what you want. Someone, anyone, to argue with about anything, so you can feel you are right and they are wrong. That is not a discussion; it is an attack.

MaizieD

ExperiencedNotOld

Once again we have the self righteous riding up against those that challenge them. Funny how anyone disagreeing with them is cast as ‘unpleasant’ or decried as stupid or pushed aside by pseudo-intellectualism.
I no nowt much about the Suffragist movement other than the change in votes for women. That’s because no one can know everything about everything. To some that’d make me deficient in some way but hey ho.
But I do know it has little to do with the OP. Over the weeks I’ve been using this site I do question just how dynamic a life the angry must lead when they pour such vitriol at others over so much time.

Blimey. Who was that intended for?

I think that’s now become evident, don’t you? All rather arguing for arguing’s sake.

DaisyAnne

You are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't you Glorianny.

You say you want to know from where my ideas come. They come from my life, the things I've seen and the things I've learned. I have friends and family with whom I can discuss them and there are some on GN whose opinions I value.

All you do is try and find what you see as a weakness in others' opinions and then set out to assault and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't hold the same ones as you. That is not a discussion.

I can't remember who introduced the word "radical". It wasn't me. Why not go and argue with them? That is what you want. Someone, anyone, to argue with about anything, so you can feel you are right and they are wrong. That is not a discussion; it is an attack.

Whatever

Whatever Glorianny

Well, that's a start of stopping the idea that no one else's views have any value.

I look forward to the day when you see an opinion that doesn't match yours but accept that, although you don't currently concur, it could still be a legitimate way of looking at the issue - and that it certainly isn't for you to decide it isn't.

DaisyAnne

^Whatever^ Glorianny

Well, that's a start of stopping the idea that no one else's views have any value.

I look forward to the day when you see an opinion that doesn't match yours but accept that, although you don't currently concur, it could still be a legitimate way of looking at the issue - and that it certainly isn't for you to decide it isn't.

Whatever