UK Politics: Cost of Living Crisis

[Spockydog]

 

[Heartofice]

Quote

For the record: if you think the story above, if true, and if it did somehow lead to the original story - and that's two colossal 'ifs' - somehow turns the issue around to the point where it's Angela Rayner who comes off worst, it's because you didn't understand what the issue originally was.

So for the record, last week when the story came out, I thought it was a grim example of Mail on Sunday reporting that was sexist and misogynistic and a pretty horrible smear on Rayner. I can't remember if I said anything here at the time but yeah, it wasn't good. 

I do however think this turns things very much on their head and paints the story in a very different light, it also paints Rayner herself in a very different light given that she has spent the last week going on every available outlet to talk about it and declare herself as a victim.

It makes a difference if, for instance that the story is in fact true. If Rayner is actually flashing her legs and her 'growler' at Boris as a means of distracting him, then firstly, why isn't that newsworthy? Isn't the actual issue that she is actually doing that? How can she complain about it being reported if it's something she is actually doing? The blame is on her in that situation and she can have no complaints that it 'got leaked'. 

And even if it's that she doesn't actually do it, but she frequently and openly jokes about doing it, well then she also cannot really too upset if that also gets leaked to the press, given that everything gets leaked to press eventually and everything an MP says or does it open for scrutiny and there to be taken out of context and used against them. It happens to everyone else, why is she immune? If she is happy to laugh and joke about it with MPs, seemingly on numerous occasions then it's pretty hypocritical of her to cry outrage when other people talk about it.
 

3 hours ago, mormont said:

It doesn't address the issue of why Rayner would say such a thing in a context of trying to curry favour within that culture. It doesn't, in short, scratch the surface of the problems the original story highlighted. 

I'm still trying to work out what your actual point is, and why you think my opinion is 'appalling' here, but maybe the above gets to the heart of it. It looks like you are trying to portray Rayner as some delicate oppressed victim of 'the patriarchy', who was forced to tell earthy stories about herself and engage in grim tactics to distract people by a sexist male culture. I'd suggest it's your own sexist, misogynistic attitudes to women that can't allow you to think of them as anything other than passive victims who have no agency or responsibility for their own actions. 
Let's be clear, Angela Rayner is a big girl, she can look after herself. She's perfect capable of having her own mind. How utterly patronising of you to think that she must have been trying to curry favour with the men folk to fit in by telling lewd jokes. How little of an opinion of women do you have to have to truly think like this? She is not a child. Rayner is one of the most outspoken and confident people on the labour benches, she is not some put upon wallflower that needs your pat on the head.
This is not surprising however, it ties into a general trend of painting everyone as a perpetual victim with no ability to act under their own volition or be responsible for the things they do, if they belong to the correct group of course. 

So actually yes, Rayner does come off worse out of all this I think. We have had a week of her painting herself as a victim, crying misogyny and false outrage, but it turns out that might well be a lie. She started the story in the first place, she found it hilarious enough to tell multiple people, and didn't seem to think there was anything misogynistic about it when she was telling everyone,  but is somehow shocked when the story comes out in the press. The original story seemed appalling because we all thought it was made up and just a horrible smear, but it isn't all that appalling if its actually true, and the fact that Rayner neglected to mention it was true or that she had been the one telling everyone about it is not a good look. 

 

4 hours ago, mormont said:

I would also be obliged if you would stop trying to use the fact that I am a moderator to shield yourself by means of crying 'personal attack' any time I criticise your appalling political opinions.

Well this could have its own topic, but actually yeah I do think you have a level of responsibility to set the tone of discussion and act like the adult in the room. As a mod that is your job. This place is pretty prone to personal ad hominin attacks which don't lead to good discussion and so when it's the Mod who's leading those attacks I'm not sure why there would be any expectation that others shouldn't follow that lead. You had the opportunity back there to explain why my views are 'appalling', and I had to badger you to do it, and that happens pretty much every time. Yes I would expect better. 
 

[mormont]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Well this could have its own topic, but actually yeah I do think you have a level of responsibility to set the tone of discussion and act like the adult in the room. As a mod that is your job. This place is pretty prone to personal ad hominin attacks which don't lead to good discussion and so when it's the Mod who's leading those attacks I'm not sure why there would be any expectation that others shouldn't follow that lead. You had the opportunity back there to explain why my views are 'appalling', and I had to badger you to do it, and that happens pretty much every time. Yes I would expect better.

The request was to desist, not double down.

Your definition of a 'personal attack' appears to be 'anything that is said about me that I don't like'. You're not alone in that, but that's not how that works.

Nor is anyone 'leading' anything. Your views get criticised by me, and by lots of other people, and each speaks for themselves. That's fine. Moderators are not asked to remain neutral. We're not Switzerland, as Ran always says.

As an example, let's examine the claim that you had to 'badger' me to explain why I think your view on this issue is appalling. First, as noted, nobody owes or is owed such an explanation. Second, you yourself frequently dismiss others' views offhand and refuse to explain why. Which is fine, but the idea that the mods should be held to a different standard (when they criticise you) is self serving. But then you got the explanation anyway, and yet here you are still complaining.

Let's be clear: you're entitled to expect nothing from moderators. They volunteer their time to take care of, mostly, routine and dull tasks that need to be done, and sometimes to try and deal with flareups that occur. In the last analysis, it's up to users to take responsibility for the standards of behaviour on the board, not moderators. We are all the adults in this room. If you want to see better, be better.