[Politics] It isn't easy being Blue.

[davywavy]

Whilst out on the town a few weeks ago, I got talking to a girl in a bar. After a while, for reasons I can't recall, the conversation came round to politics. Suddenly she stopped short and looked at me quizzically.
"You're right-wing, aren't you?"
"Yup", I replied.
"Well, I don't think we should let homeless people starve to death on the street", she said, smugly ensuring her moral superiority over me and my homeless-starving ways whilst necking the booze I'd just bought her like there was no tomorrow.

A friend of mine who shares my political opinions once told me they didn't really like going to social events with many of my friends, because they knew that they would be belittled and insulted for holding their political beliefs. They found it upsetting that they would be insulted by people they barely knew not even for their beliefs, but for what those people considered their beliefs to be without even taking the time to find out the reality of the situation. In other circumstances this sort of behaviour would be considered 'prejudice'. When you're dealing with a lot of people I run into, it's called 'informed debate'. Sometimes it's nice to open LJ and read the wise words of the mind-numbingly gorgeous vulgarcriminal, who is political voice of reason.
The irony of the intellectual intolerance of many people amuses me in a bleak sort of way; most of the people on my friends list consider themselves to be tolerant, understanding and non-judgemental; however this just highlights the basic dichotomy of many people's political views - they're tolerant of any kink, perversion, social attitudes and outre behaviour which they happen to agree with. Their tolerance doesn't extend so far as being polite to people who think that, oh, say, civil liberties have been undermined quite a lot by the current government or that spending thirty-seven billion quid which we don't have every year in a slowing economy might lead to trouble later.
raggedhalo recently made a post in which he compared prejudice against vegetarians to homophobia, and presented himself as being a persecuted minority. Personally I think it's a bit difficult to be a persecuted minority when you're a socialist vegetarian in a student union, but that's just me.
Re-reading his post, it's interesting to me just how much of his argument I can apply to my own point. After all, if he can compare prejudice against sexualities with his own political views, so can I - to object to that would be prejudiced, wouldn't it? Back in the 1980's, being gay would get you socially ostracised and sometimes insulted in public, whilst being Conservative would get you social acceptance and congratulations on your snappy dress sense. And now...?
There's a comparison to be made here, I think...

Of course, I think Joe's comparison is as nonsensical as mine. But it's funny nevertheless.

Comments

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

yes, you do; you're just being facetious.

1. Person, through cunning sales techniques, and lack of business acumen is tricked into buying product for more than it's worth = Hurrah for skill of salesman

2. Person, through cunning burglary techniques, and lack of security knowledge, has house broken into and has items stolen = Hurrah for skill of burglar

1. Regulation is needed to censure and prevent said action
2. Regulation is needed to censure and prevent said action

[(Anonymous)]

Well, there is a weight of legislation defining minimum standards for food, pharmaceuticals, property, sale of financial services, etc, but I assume you are arguing that these are inadequate. What extra legislation do you propose?

H

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Ah, now we're at cross purposes.

I'm not calling for further regulation, I'm merely - in an albeit protracted way - pointing out that there needs to be SOME government regulation in commerce and industry.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

And you are being facetious in your turn - more so than the original.

If Criminals were deterred by regulation to censure, then there would be no crime by now. The law, as covering selling by false pretenses, is already pretty comprehensive - ask your advertising sales guys just how much shiot they'll get into if they lie to a potential advertiser.
Regulation does not prevent people breaking the law, however, and to equate criminality as being automatically the same as business is not only cobblers when talking to a businessman such as myself, it's also wildly inaccurate.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

see my point to Helen

[(Anonymous)]

That's Hilary, not Helen. And if you regard the current legislation as adequate, both as regards consumer protection and burglary, then the analogy given above doesn't work.

Either you remove some legislation, treating the criminal as a businessman, or, you tighten the net of law round the businessman, treating him as a criminal every time an aggrieved consumer protests disassisfaction with his purchase. One or the other. You can't have it both ways.

H

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Well I knew it wasn't the bloke from Steps.

I'm comfortable with my analogy not working - it wasn't meant to be a guide to future policy.

I've gone round in circles so many times now I think I'm just arguing for the sake of it. Suffice it to say, although most businesspeople are merely responding to a need by a section of the community, and attempting to make the best version of said product in a competitive market, there are enough people in this world who will abuse this position of trust that regulation of some kind needs to occur; I've seen Watchdog.

[(Anonymous)]

.....

..."steps" ???

H

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

[(Anonymous)]

I assume, given the above debate, that this man is some sort of criminal.

H