ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
It was also laughably bad when written three years ago and was widely discredited at the time. That the writer had to enhance the article by using 'oblivia' and 'dirty oil' to make a point, rather than, say, 'facts' or 'truth', should say enough to the reader of moderate intelligence.
Indeed when it takes Robert Peston to frame your article in a coherent manner
you should probably check you know what you're talking about. Mind you, its Monbiot so I don't know why I was even slightly surprised at the time.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Without going into all my technical issues with the failings of how the article describes the legislation, the key point that monbiot almost certainly intentionally ignores (as opposed to not being aware of) is that it was legislation first proposed by Gordon brown, refined for introduction by darling, and passed by the Tories with more anti tax avoidance protections than the original contained.
So worse than pure unadulterated anti Tory hysteria. It is intentionally misleading.
For me, it's the whole psychology of the thing that's the most interesting aspect here; why write, less still post, a piece that doesn't even withstand the most basic scrutiny; is intentionally misleading and as such, nothing more than piss-poor, rather embarrassing propaganda?
As you say then, far worse than mere anti-Tory hysteria. I mean, just how desperate does one have to be to carry on clinging to the dead, stinking corpse of a demonstrably failed ideology, even purposely trying to mislead and misinform others as well as yourself, rather than facing up to reality? What chance any such person bringing something constructive to this discussion and/or having an actual debate?
Of course, it's this latter point that I was (rather clumsily) trying to explain to Wookie before. I'm not necessarily trying to be 'elitist' when I say that I wish a few usual suspects would keep out of this thread, merely that these characters can simply never, ever be 'reprogrammed' by facts or argument, no matter how compelling or persuasive? They have their life-long held political narrative, mantra and beliefs, and that's that - period. The analogy I'd draw is that of die-hard football supporters or even a cult?
There are many left wing contributors here like Curio, Peter St John etc. who bring quality discussion and debate to the table, without resorting to misinformation, getting personal about whether X or Y have 'flounced' and/or accusing their opponent of 'pressing their buttons' (even when they're speaking to someone else entirely), and/or just plain old sputtering ire. Let's have a cerebral, quality political discussion for grownups.