View Full Version : Bleeding-heart liberal do-gooders
This ill-defined menagerie of meddlers is blamed for much of what goes wrong in our society these days. So much so, that whole arguments on this very forum are built around them, and objections to such arguments can often focus on whether or not they even exist rather than the substantive issue.
So, what do people think? Is there any such thing? What makes a person a 'do-gooder' or a 'bleeding-heart liberal'? Is anyone prepared to stand up and say 'I'm a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder and proud of it!'?
Is anyone prepared to stand up and say 'I'm a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder and proud of it!'? :D
downquark1
02-07-2004, 11:40
I'm a liberal, but if you talked to anyone who knows me they would tell you that they wonder if I have any feelings at all. I am also very pale and sometimes have bad circulation so they maybe symptoms of a 'bleeding heart' but not the kind you are thinking of. ;)
[joke]
Intersting question ..... I note that the vote isn't "Public" tho' ;) ;)
Intersting question ..... I note that the vote isn't "Public" tho' ;) ;)
:D
it's the safest way for closet liberals to register their presence on the board without setting themselves up for target practice by the 'nasty' conservatives (small 'c')
Come to think of it, it offers the conservatives a cloak of anonymity too.
All "do gooders" should be lined up and shot ....... :D
Shouldn't we be proud of do-gooders, as they do good things all the time? :)
downquark1
02-07-2004, 12:47
If conservatives consider liberals 'do-gooders' do they consider themselves 'do-badders' i.e. evil?
If conservatives consider liberals 'do-gooders' do they consider themselves 'do-badders' i.e. evil?
I think conservatives use the term 'do-gooder' with a heavy dose of irony. The implication of the label, I think, is to suggest that blinkered, short-term thinking, though intended to result in good, can actually end up doing long-term harm.
etccarmageddon
02-07-2004, 12:52
perhaps it's another term for 'busy-body'? and the meaning of "do gooder" is someone who meddles to much.
PESKY MEDDLING DO GOODERS!
I think conservatives use the term 'do-gooder' with a heavy dose of irony. The implication of the label, I think, is to suggest that blinkered, short-term thinking, though intended to result in good, can actually end up doing long-term harm.
I think do-gooders exist, they are in small numbers but are powerfull because they use methods to make people guilty when they expect fair treatment.
We have one in work, he will just shut off when he doesn't like what the vast majority are saying, he will always argue and ask us for proof that people are cheating ie: benefit of people coming into this country for freebies.
The news carried a story about 10% of NHS patients not being entitled to the treatment they are receiving, we were talking about this and he walked away rather than get his views shot down in flames. He also thinks that every single assylum seeker or illegal immigrant is coming into this country to seek work and pay tax! He constantly goes on about how we should help our neighbour and how our taxes should be raised even further to help those less well off.
The real bit that gets me about this guy is how unhelpfull he is to everyone around him, he takes great delight in others who have a problem in the workplace.
Oh, and he's a born again Christian.
escapee ducks :disturbd:
downquark1
02-07-2004, 13:00
he walked away rather than get his views shot down in flames. And why not?
Oh, and he's a born again Christian.
escapee ducks :disturbd:
/phtannng
Darn, missed, you ducked too quick ;)
I don't know that there's a necessary connection between 'born again Christian' and 'bleeding-heart liberal' - a lot of the liberal types I know are fervent atheists who think the world would be a better place without religion.
And why not?
It's just the fact that he's so narrow minded and forms his opinion by listening to the bits he wants to hear.
I think that I am fairly middle on most of the issues that cause these sort of arguments, I can see both sides even if I do not agree.
This guy will only see one side and thinks anyone who doesn't agree with his views is a very bad person.
I think the bottom line is the guy thinks everyone out there is an angel.
downquark1
02-07-2004, 13:10
It's just the fact that he's so narrow minded and forms his opinion by listening to the bits he wants to hear.
I think that I am fairly middle on most of the issues that cause these sort of arguments, I can see both sides even if I do not agree.
This guy will only see one side and thinks anyone who doesn't agree with his views is a very bad person.
I think the bottom line is the guy thinks everyone out there is an angel. Fair enough. Just if I was in a group of people who opinions differed widely from my own I would probably not participate in discussion due to intimidation.
It would be a bit like and atheist walking into a church and declaring there is no god.
/phtannng
Darn, missed, you ducked too quick ;)
I don't know that there's a necessary connection between 'born again Christian' and 'bleeding-heart liberal' - a lot of the liberal types I know are fervent atheists who think the world would be a better place without religion.
I suppose I tend to link do-gooders with religion, because I suppose in general terms I percieve religious people as mild natured, caring, honest and giving to others.
I think those qualities generally tend to steer them towards seeing the good side of people and ignoring the bad side.
(Just my views in the open, no argument intended) :angel:
I suppose I tend to link do-gooders with religion, because I suppose in general terms I percieve religious people as mild natured, caring, honest and giving to others.
I think those qualities generally tend to steer them towards seeing the good side of people and ignoring the bad side.
(Just my views in the open, no argument intended) :angel:
No argument given :)
As a Christian who is not a bleeding heart liberal, I want to do the best I can for people, but I have no issues with the Christian doctrine of original sin (which essentially is fundamental separation from God and an inability to live a holy life, not sex as some think). I am quite happy to think that a lot of people are just out for what they can get and think this country is a soft touch on asylum.
But I don't intend this thread to become an argument about religion or asylum - the point I wanted to get at was the motivations of those labelled bleeding-hearts and do-gooders, not their pet topics per se.
I love the way the poll is going :D
No argument given :)
As a Christian who is not a bleeding heart liberal, I want to do the best I can for people, but I have no issues with the Christian doctrine of original sin (which essentially is fundamental separation from God and an inability to live a holy life, not sex as some think). I am quite happy to think that a lot of people are just out for what they can get and think this country is a soft touch on asylum.
But I don't intend this thread to become an argument about religion or asylum - the point I wanted to get at was the motivations of those labelled bleeding-hearts and do-gooders, not their pet topics per se.
Perhaps the more basic wider reason could be that people in this country always champion the underdog or look for a loser to support.
It certainly happens in sport etc, Frank Bruno, Eddie the Eagle, Tim Henman etc etc.
I guess these people just latch onto current events.
I love the way the poll is going :D
The whole thing could be pretty much tailor made for Defiant, pity he got himself banned again so quickly. :D
The whole thing could be pretty much tailor made for Defiant, pity he got himself banned again so quickly. :DHe's banned?! What did he do? :confused:
He was a naughty boy .... so behave yerself
He's banned?! What did he do? :confused:
<OT>
Don't know exactly, but this post (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showpost.php?p=225819&postcount=76) prolly had something to do with it, it was almost his last.
</OT>
Doesn't look like the Guardian's a very popular newspaper around here though :D
I'm all for do-gooders, if they champion the right people in the right place with their own money ... how many "outreach co-ordinators" do we need, and do they actually reach anyone after being recruited through the pages of the Guardian?
He was a naughty boy .... so behave yerself :angel: :D
its just a thing that right wing groups say to attack liberals the BNP often uses that prase it makes them seem llike they cannnot be tough and such
Surely every issue should be approached on it's merits not on political ideology This means I can't vote in the poll because it doesn't cover what I think and feel.
Incog. :)
Surely every issue should be approached on it's merits not on political ideology This means I can't vote in the poll because it doesn't cover what I think and feel.
Incog. :)Yes, I agree arguments should be settled on the relevant issues in each case but if you have a meta-narrative through which you understand the world (and all of us do, of one kind or another), then that meta-narrative becomes one of the 'merits' upon which you decide each issue. The ability to debate in a 'moral vacuum' is useful in a forum like this but when you're in the real world, you have to decide on issues based on how you believe those issues fit into the world as you see it. To do it any other way you would have to be a robot, IMHO. :)
That aside, the poll doesn't ask how moral/political issues should be decided - it asks, in so many words, whether or not there exists a 'class' of person as a 'bleeding-heart, liberal do-gooder' who reads the Guardian, is determined only to see the 'nice' in other people and finds tough decisions impossible to take, or whether this person doesn't exist at all and is merely a myth invented by the conservative Press as a handy insult for anybody who disagrees with their point of view.
To that extent, you ought to be able to participate in the Poll and say you think yes, they exist, no they don't ... or you don't know/care. :)
Well thinking about it on it's merits means that I'd have to really know anyone like that and I don't.I do know people who read the Guardian but they aren't always incessant do gooders all the time.They are just people most of the time who have particular 'pet' hates from time to time but the rest of the time they are quite sensible down to earth folk who do judge most issues on their merits.
I think that there are however a group known as SUN readers who believe EVERY word that toilet paper produces.However not EVERY SUN reader fits into this catergory.
Sorry towny I still can't vote. :)
Well thinking about it on it's merits means that I'd have to really know anyone like that and I don't.I do know people who read the Guardian but they aren't always incessant do gooders all the time.They are just people most of the time who have particular 'pet' hates from time to time but the rest of the time they are quite sensible down to earth folk who do judge most issues on their merits.
I think that there are however a group known as SUN readers who believe EVERY word that toilet paper produces.However not EVERY SUN reader fits into this catergory.
Sorry towny I still can't vote. :)
Sounds to me like you ought to vote 'Are an invention of the right wing Press'. ;)
its just a thing that right wing groups say to attack liberals the BNP often uses that prase it makes them seem llike they cannnot be tough and such
And dont forget the other way around, liberals will accuse people of supporting the hard line BNP policies if someone agrees in principle with one item on the BNP agenda.
I've in trouble with this recently so I better be careful. I think the distinctions need to be made between "do-gooder", "liberal" and "bleeding-heart". They are all different although sometimes people can be more than one. In my mind, a "do-gooder" is someone who can't help helping, but has very short sight. They are so consumed in what they are doing, they don't realise, or wan't to know the consequences of it down the road. Removing "The Three Little Pigs" books to not offend muslims, that kind of thing. Liberal is a pretty open term. Anyone who is left-wing, casual, etc. (Not that liberal, is different from socialist, which is also left-wing). A "bleeding-heart" person is someone who cares about everyone, wether they should or not/deserve it or not.
Interesting someone said that as liberals are do-gooders, are conservatives evil? Well, that is how we are all percieved. If you think liberal, you think of a harmless, happy, hippy, don't you? You think of conservative, you think of a CEO in skyscraper smoking cigars, killing children. Although, nowadays, I tend think of the ELF, etc with liberal, and I think they are way more evil.
I'm kind of suprised by the poll, I thought here the liberal Guardian readers way outnumbered the right-wingers.
Is anyone prepared to stand up and say 'I'm a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder and proud of it!'?
No, but I'm probably the type of person that certain people choose to characterise as a "a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder" because I'm not in favour of bringing back National Service or capital punishment or the Birch or shooting people in the back or locking people up without a fair trial or considering there might be another side to the story than the one they read/ saw in the Murdoch media or...
Still, is anyone prepared to stand up and say "I'm a narrow-minded, right-wing, reactionary, knee-jerk authoritarian and proud of it"?
<Graham steps out of the way before he's trampled in the rush...! :D >
downquark1
03-07-2004, 10:36
Interesting someone said that as liberals are do-gooders, are conservatives evil? Well, that is how we are all percieved. If you think liberal, you think of a harmless, happy, hippy, don't you? You think of conservative, you think of a CEO in skyscraper smoking cigars, killing children. Although, nowadays, I tend think of the ELF, etc with liberal, and I think they are way more evil.
Sorry I was being pedantic. ;)
What story is this about pigs? Wouldn't the 3 little pigs also be offensive to Jews and Christians also?
" The pig also because it is a splitter of the
hoof but there is no cud. It is unclean for
you. None of their flesh must you eat and carcass
you must not touch. "
Deuteronomy 14:8 ( Bible)
Of course I don't see a problem with a story about a pigs, they are merely forbidden from eating them, not telling stories about them.
Oh come on! Most of us are a mixture of the two sides of the coin.Not many people are truly,totally one side or the other.They are rare people too.
Incog who hopes she is a liberal but realises that at times she is a fascist about certain issues. :(
Incog.
Earl of Bronze
03-07-2004, 13:09
No, but I'm probably the type of person that certain people choose to characterise as a "a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder" because I'm not in favour of bringing back National Service or capital punishment or the Birch or shooting people in the back or locking people up without a fair trial or considering there might be another side to the story than the one they read/ saw in the Murdoch media or...
Still, is anyone prepared to stand up and say "I'm a narrow-minded, right-wing, reactionary, knee-jerk authoritarian and proud of it"?
<Graham steps out of the way before he's trampled in the rush...! :D >
I freely admit to being a right-wing, euro-sceptic, authoritarian, in favour of National Service, Corporal Punishment and Capital Punishment.
At the same time I believe that it is important that we live in an inclusive, classless society. That protects the weak, and punishes those who break the law. I firmly believe that was can build a fair society, but only if we treat everyone the same, be they black, white, asian, disabled or of good health. As far as I an concerned, 'Western Civilisation' is quickly becomming morally bankrupt, and staggering toward decline.
But thats just how I see the circular pattern of history repeating itself.
Well that's my opinion, and as everyone knows -
Opinions are like @$$h0le$, everyone's got one. ;)
Charlie_Bubble
03-07-2004, 13:29
Sorry I was being pedantic. ;)
What story is this about pigs? Wouldn't the 3 little pigs also be offensive to Jews and Christians also?
" The pig also because it is a splitter of the
hoof but there is no cud. It is unclean for
you. None of their flesh must you eat and carcass
you must not touch. "
Deuteronomy 14:8 ( Bible)
Of course I don't see a problem with a story about a pigs, they are merely forbidden from eating them, not telling stories about them.
That is the exact point. You're average muslim isn't bothered about a childs book about pigs, but some people go too far the other way, thinking that they would be upset by it and ban them.
I freely admit to being a right-wing, euro-sceptic, authoritarian, in favour of National Service, Corporal Punishment and Capital Punishment.
Well apart from euro-sceptic, I can't say I agree with the above, however...
At the same time I believe that it is important that we live in an inclusive, classless society. That protects the weak, and punishes those who break the law. I firmly believe that was can build a fair society, but only if we treat everyone the same, be they black, white, asian, disabled or of good health. As far as I an concerned, 'Western Civilisation' is quickly becomming morally bankrupt, and staggering toward decline.
... let's see what I agree with here:
Inclusive, classless society? Check
Protect the weak? Check
Punish those who break the law? Check (Well, sort of, I prefer "attempt to rehabilitate, if possible")
Fair society? Check
Treat everybody the same? Check
So, it seems that, as usual, the goal is the same, it's just the way to get there that is different...
I freely admit to being a right-wing, euro-sceptic, authoritarian, in favour of National Service, Corporal Punishment and Capital Punishment.
National Service - A thoroughly bad idea these days. A modern soldier requires a much better skill set than in the "good old days". The average person off the street wouldn`t make an effective soldier, even with training, unless you are advocating using the masses as cannon fodder. As I said in a thread before, put me in National Service and I`ll make sure I`m sitting on my arse in the brig more quickly than they can get the call-up papers to me.
Corporal Punishment - Yeah, I suppose I`ll agree with you there, the one time I got the cane it was the easiest punishment I ever had. A few lashes across the palm of the hand, over in under a minute and I was out of there. Compared to the knocks and scrapes I got in the playground it was a cakewalk. I`d take that any day over detention, at least with the cane I was home in time to catch the children's television on BBC1.
Capital Punishment - Not exactly a punishment though compared to a life behind bars. If I was up on a murder charge and given the option of capital punishment I'd take it, certainly preferable to being permanently locked away.
What story is this about pigs? Wouldn't the 3 little pigs also be offensive to Jews and Christians also?
" The pig also because it is a splitter of the
hoof but there is no cud. It is unclean for
you. None of their flesh must you eat and carcass
you must not touch. "
Deuteronomy 14:8 ( Bible)
Of course I don't see a problem with a story about a pigs, they are merely forbidden from eating them, not telling stories about them.
Don't have a go at me about it :) I'm suprised you don't rememeber, it has been on here a few times. Anyway. Some school somewhere decided to remove books about the three little pigs. I'm pretty sure they said it was to benefit Muslims solely, as the school had an extremely large proportion of Muslims versus Jews and Christians. At the time the Muslim Council Of Great Britain, or whatever its called was largely silent, but now as these kind of things become more common, they have started to say it is unnecessary patronisation of Muslims.
Also, if I was a solidly right-wing I would declare it, but i'm not really. The last political poll I took, which was one to decide what presidential candidate was right for me came out as Edwards, Kerry then Bush :erm: I like to think of myself as independant, but as time goes on and I get older, i'm becoming more and more right-leaning. That said I do believe in some of the staples of the left-wing manifesto, like right to have an abortion, a government recognised union of gay people, a fair, balanced, common-sense based welfare system. The right wing bits that come in are normally to do with fiancial policies and such. A country is like a business and needs to be run so. I'm against a national service obviously, i'm pro-capital punishment, I think for certain cases, and I don't think schools should bring back the birch, but I think they should maybe more scope for disciplining kids. I've said it before, the country doesn't need a right or left wing government. It needs a bit of both.
aliferste
04-07-2004, 00:57
This ill-defined menagerie of meddlers is blamed for much of what goes wrong in our society these days. So much so, that whole arguments on this very forum are built around them, and objections to such arguments can often focus on whether or not they even exist rather than the substantive issue.
So, what do people think? Is there any such thing? What makes a person a 'do-gooder' or a 'bleeding-heart liberal'? Is anyone prepared to stand up and say 'I'm a bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder and proud of it!'?
Im about to go to bed so have not read the whole thread.
On this forum I have often been labeled a "do gooder" ...once someone even said "your so right on it hurts"
I stand up for the oppressed.....whats up with that :shrug:
I believe in being an egalitarian :)
Corporal Punishment - Yeah, I suppose I`ll agree with you there, the one time I got the cane it was the easiest punishment I ever had. A few lashes across the palm of the hand, over in under a minute and I was out of there.Caning on the hand was always seen as a 'pretend' caning (in my schools). Proper caning was on the backside and that bl**dy well hurt :cry:
Don't have a go at me about it :) I'm suprised you don't rememeber, it has been on here a few times. Anyway. Some school somewhere decided to remove books about the three little pigs. I'm pretty sure they said it was to benefit Muslims solely, as the school had an extremely large proportion of Muslims versus Jews and Christians. At the time the Muslim Council Of Great Britain, or whatever its called was largely silent, but now as these kind of things become more common, they have started to say it is unnecessary patronisation of Muslims.
Also, if I was a solidly right-wing I would declare it, but i'm not really. The last political poll I took, which was one to decide what presidential candidate was right for me came out as Edwards, Kerry then Bush :erm: I like to think of myself as independant, but as time goes on and I get older, i'm becoming more and more right-leaning. That said I do believe in some of the staples of the left-wing manifesto, like right to have an abortion, a government recognised union of gay people, a fair, balanced, common-sense based welfare system. The right wing bits that come in are normally to do with fiancial policies and such. A country is like a business and needs to be run so. I'm against a national service obviously, i'm pro-capital punishment, I think for certain cases, and I don't think schools should bring back the birch, but I think they should maybe more scope for disciplining kids. I've said it before, the country doesn't need a right or left wing government. It needs a bit of both.
Finally someone after my own heart. :tu:
Interesting someone said that as liberals are do-gooders, are conservatives evil? Well, that is how we are all percieved. If you think liberal, you think of a harmless, happy, hippy, don't you? You think of conservative, you think of a CEO in skyscraper smoking cigars, killing children. Although, nowadays, I tend think of the ELF, etc with liberal, and I think they are way more evil.
Thats just a stupid stereotype people are not defined by their political leanings (although it depends).
Also the liberals do good stuff a lot of time and to label them as do-gooders etc etc is stupid. I personally hate the phrase as it is usually used by the BNP and right wing groups to put down those opposed to them
As someone said its both sides of the coin but either way the world is not heading to disaster because of lack of discipline or rampant crime or whatever wave of fear people have. We should just see what really needs to be improved and how instead on constantly criticizing and bad mouthing and having a belief that all right wing people are NAZIS and all left wing people are commies its stupid
downquark1
04-07-2004, 14:35
From the poll results can we conclude that the members of cable forum are predominantly conservative and hostile to the guardian newspaper?
It'll give me an excuse for loosing arguments in the future ;)
From the poll results can we conclude that the members of cable forum are predominantly conservative and hostile to the guardian newspaper?
It'll give me an excuse for loosing arguments in the future ;)
I'm hostile to ALL the newspapers.
From the poll results can we conclude that the members of cable forum are predominantly conservative and hostile to the guardian newspaper?
It'll give me an excuse for loosing arguments in the future ;)
It certainly looks that way ... ;)
I think the majority of people in the UK are instinctively right-of-centre in their thinking anyway. Remember no Labour Government has ever managed to serve two complete terms in office. This one looks like being the first and they've had to steal the Tories' clothes in order to manage it.
Thats just a stupid stereotype people are not defined by their political leanings (although it depends).
Also the liberals do good stuff a lot of time and to label them as do-gooders etc etc is stupid. I personally hate the phrase as it is usually used by the BNP and right wing groups to put down those opposed to them
As someone said its both sides of the coin but either way the world is not heading to disaster because of lack of discipline or rampant crime or whatever wave of fear people have. We should just see what really needs to be improved and how instead on constantly criticizing and bad mouthing and having a belief that all right wing people are NAZIS and all left wing people are commies its stupid
Don't forget there is a clear disctinction between a "do-gooder" and someone who "does good" IMO anyway. The way I think of it is something like this: Someone who does good, is like a charity worker. A problem exists and they help to rectify it. A "do-gooder" is someone with too much time and money and not enough common sense. They won't fix existing problems, but cause their own. Like the one about the school with the three little pigs books.
Also the left political side is split into two: the liberals and the socialists. So it is unfair to say the left is only one of the two. They are a mix of both.
Out of the three terms in 'bleeding-heart do-gooder liberal' only one is likely to be used by the subject of the accusation. Since the only use of the phrase is pejorative, the other two must therefore be made up by someone hostile to the idea of trying to do good, empathise with other people and have a live and let live attitude.
In this country the most vociferous opponents of such attitudes are found in the right-wing press (think Littlejohn, Wade, Dacre).
Hence logically the term is a smear by the right-wing press.
he will always argue and ask us for proof that people are cheating
Gosh. Good thing that questioning attitude isn't more prevalent, Kevin. What kind of society would we be in if people actually asked for proof of accusation.
Me, if anyone's interested?
I'm not an outreach co-ordinator, nor am I going round libraries editing their content. I'm an engineer by inclination, training and occupation, and as such can see the damage caused by short-term thinking. However, all the short-termism I see emanates from right-wing thinking - that financial considerations are all that's important, that the way of financing something is more important than the thing itself (think PFI), that short-term profits are the only ways to go, that humans are a 'resource', that experience is unnecessary and sometimes downright unwelcome (cf Railtrack signalling policy), that regular maintenance is a waste of money, that you can win a war in three weeks and not worry unduly about the subsequent occupation, that history has no lessons for us, that lawyers and accountants should run the world rather than people who build things.
This thinking is much more prevalent amongst those in power (every British government since 1979 for instance and such thinking is *demanded* by large PLC shareholders) than any alleged do-good liberalism, which even those believe in it think is limited to areas without real power. If the school library where your putative Three Little Pigs is found is unusable due to Jarvis doing things on the cheap under a PFI deal, or the school being moved onto a smaller site at the behest of property developers looking for a quick buck, then the removal of one book looks rather small-time.
If I was being a conspiracy theorist, I'd posit that blaming a few small individuals for the ills of society is a classic tactic to shift attention from those who have been given responsibility but failed in their duty (are you listening Messrs. Blunkett, Bush and Blair). The best example I have is the fear of crime - we're more scared of muggers nicking a few quid and a mobile phone than a portly grey-haired fund manager in a BMW nicking our pension fund.
David Blunkett has thrown some new light on who the Bleeding-heart Liberal Do-Gooders are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3872675.stm
They are 'The Liberati'.
"Whenever I do this, by the way, I usually get the Liberati on my back for being against people being able to express themselves."
According to this report, they are also known as:
'woolly-minded Hampstead Liberals'
and
'the yoghurt-eating, muesli-eating, Guardian-reading fraternity'
downquark1
08-07-2004, 12:47
'the yoghurt-eating, muesli-eating, Guardian-reading fraternity' Can we have a law against inciting cereal and dairy hatred
Can we have a law against inciting cereal and dairy hatred
:rofl:
Or inciting hatred based upon ones newspaper-reading habits (actually, not such a good idea, that would criminalise most of Liverpool :erm: )
Out of the three terms in 'bleeding-heart do-gooder liberal' only one is likely to be used by the subject of the accusation. Since the only use of the phrase is pejorative, the other two must therefore be made up by someone hostile to the idea of trying to do good, empathise with other people and have a live and let live attitude.
In this country the most vociferous opponents of such attitudes are found in the right-wing press (think Littlejohn, Wade, Dacre).
Hence logically the term is a smear by the right-wing press.
Gosh. Good thing that questioning attitude isn't more prevalent, Kevin. What kind of society would we be in if people actually asked for proof of accusation.
Me, if anyone's interested?
I'm not an outreach co-ordinator, nor am I going round libraries editing their content. I'm an engineer by inclination, training and occupation, and as such can see the damage caused by short-term thinking. However, all the short-termism I see emanates from right-wing thinking - that financial considerations are all that's important, that the way of financing something is more important than the thing itself (think PFI), that short-term profits are the only ways to go, that humans are a 'resource', that experience is unnecessary and sometimes downright unwelcome (cf Railtrack signalling policy), that regular maintenance is a waste of money, that you can win a war in three weeks and not worry unduly about the subsequent occupation, that history has no lessons for us, that lawyers and accountants should run the world rather than people who build things.
This thinking is much more prevalent amongst those in power (every British government since 1979 for instance and such thinking is *demanded* by large PLC shareholders) than any alleged do-good liberalism, which even those believe in it think is limited to areas without real power. If the school library where your putative Three Little Pigs is found is unusable due to Jarvis doing things on the cheap under a PFI deal, or the school being moved onto a smaller site at the behest of property developers looking for a quick buck, then the removal of one book looks rather small-time.
If I was being a conspiracy theorist, I'd posit that blaming a few small individuals for the ills of society is a classic tactic to shift attention from those who have been given responsibility but failed in their duty (are you listening Messrs. Blunkett, Bush and Blair). The best example I have is the fear of crime - we're more scared of muggers nicking a few quid and a mobile phone than a portly grey-haired fund manager in a BMW nicking our pension fund.Even though I don't agree with everything he said, could someone rep BBKing for me please...... :tu:
homealone
08-07-2004, 13:09
Could someone rep BBKing for me please...... :tu:
Done ;)
aliferste
08-07-2004, 15:09
From the poll results can we conclude that the members of cable forum are predominantly conservative and hostile to the guardian newspaper?
It'll give me an excuse for loosing arguments in the future ;)
Ive noticed that too!
Ive noticed that too!
I think the way the Guardian goes about offering its opinion rankles with me more than most newspapers (except perhaps the so-called Independent, which I was beginning to respect until it started to go a bit mental a month or so ago).
The Daily Mail does the moral outrage thing very well, but it doesn't use its front page to tell you what to think (except when it occasionally runs a comment on the front page, which is always clearly labelled as such) or to suggest you're heartless or pathetic if you don't think a certain way. The Guardian and the Inde, on the other hand, are very good at adopting a tone of snide moral superiority even in items that are, ostensibly, straight reporting and not editorial comment.
downquark1
08-07-2004, 15:59
I think the way the Guardian goes about offering its opinion rankles with me more than most newspapers (except perhaps the so-called Independent, which I was beginning to respect until it started to go a bit mental a month or so ago).
The Daily Mail does the moral outrage thing very well, but it doesn't use its front page to tell you what to think (except when it occasionally runs a comment on the front page, which is always clearly labelled as such) or to suggest you're heartless or pathetic if you don't think a certain way. The Guardian and the Inde, on the other hand, are very good at adopting a tone of snide moral superiority even in items that are, ostensibly, straight reporting and not editorial comment.
I have to totally disagree, daily mail articles seem to be very closed minded and aggresive. And moral outrage entirely depends on the morality or the person in question.
Plus the editor was on desert island discs - he was a jerk.
I have to totally disagree, daily mail articles seem to be very closed minded and aggresive. And moral outrage entirely depends on the morality or the person in question.
Plus the editor was on desert island discs - he was a jerk.
Whereas the Gruniad is open-minded and easy going? :erm: ;)
'Moral outrage' describes a way of presenting one's point of view, so I was in effect agreeing with you (before you even said it :angel: ) that the Mail is aggressive in tone. All I was saying was that the Mail is very good at doing it. It's not a comment on what the morality of the Mail actually is. The Guardian could be equally good at moral outrage if it chose to be - it would just express outrage based on a slightly different set of morals. In fact, the Guardian chooses not to express its displeasure at world events by sounding outraged. I find its approach, typified by Polly Toynbee's front-pager after the wrangling over the Euro-Constitution was complete, to be deeply patronising. If the Daily Mail is very good at employing a tone of 'moral outrage', then the Guardian is equally good at affecting 'moral superiority'.
As an aside, I don't think there's a single national newspaper in this country whose editorial line on any major issue couldn't be guessed in advance. That's why it's possible to get an inkling what kind of worldview a person might have by finding out what paper they read.
downquark1
08-07-2004, 17:45
but it doesn't use its front page to tell you what to think Have you seen the front of today's mail?
Even though I don't agree with everything he said, could someone rep BBKing for me please...... :tu:
I did it on my own account already. :)
Whereas the Gruniad is open-minded and easy going? :erm: ;)
'Moral outrage' describes a way of presenting one's point of view, so I was in effect agreeing with you (before you even said it :angel: ) that the Mail is aggressive in tone. All I was saying was that the Mail is very good at doing it. It's not a comment on what the morality of the Mail actually is. The Guardian could be equally good at moral outrage if it chose to be - it would just express outrage based on a slightly different set of morals. In fact, the Guardian chooses not to express its displeasure at world events by sounding outraged. I find its approach, typified by Polly Toynbee's front-pager after the wrangling over the Euro-Constitution was complete, to be deeply patronising. If the Daily Mail is very good at employing a tone of 'moral outrage', then the Guardian is equally good at affecting 'moral superiority'.
As an aside, I don't think there's a single national newspaper in this country whose editorial line on any major issue couldn't be guessed in advance. That's why it's possible to get an inkling what kind of worldview a person might have by finding out what paper they read.
I don't buy papers and frankly don't miss them.What does that say about me?
I don't buy papers and frankly don't miss them.What does that say about me?
That you prefer to get your news from other sources? I don't think it's anything negative. I only read them so much because I work in a PR department.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.