Oh Twitter. Damn you *le sigh*
Jul. 22nd, 2010 08:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
askygoneonfireWhy oh why do I continue to get embroiled in online debates? In my defence, this time I genuinely thought my opponent was a reasonable political observer. Some backwards research on his twitter stream after the debate reveals him to be an obsessive of the 'Britain is not a democracy, we're all slaves' variety.
His twitter feed is here; Tony Lawrie
This is the tweet which prompted my first reply to him (advising he reread the BBC article as it clearly states the reason Nick Griffin's invitation to Buckingham Palace was revoked was because he politicised it; unlike all the other MEPs invited, including another BNP party member)
I eventually said I believed his 'Britain isn't a democracy' agenda had coloured his assessment of the event, he leaps on this turn of phrase and then keeps saying my opinions on the BNP coloured my opinions - having not expressed any opinions about the BNP of late on twitter, or passing any kind of negative comment on the BNP MEP who did attend the garden party I can only assume he decided the only person who could disagree with the crux of his argument must be anti-BNP. Which admittedly I am, but I never said I believed Nick Griffin should be turned away from the garden party because of his views - I don't believe that.
Some time ago, after repeating my points several times I decided nothing was to be gained by continuing I tweeted this;
Already stated BNP member attended, did not express any feelings about that. Your repeated choice to ignore my previous statements leads me to believe you are not considering, engaging with or even reading my comments so I will conclude this discussion now.
How many replies did I then receive from him? Seven. At which point I again became embroiled when he claimed he had answered my points and my dislike of the BNP did not allow me to recognise democracy was undermined. I responded with the following;
I have made no expression of dislike for the BNP. Their policies are not the crux of the issue. Furthermore, you have not engaged with my hugely valid point that another BNP MEP was admitted to the garden party with no queries. Finally, your choosing to ignore my statement this discussion was at an end is hardly respectful or necessary. We will not agree because you are not willing to abandon your no democracy agenda long enough to judge this event solely on the facts surrounding it.
His further replies again state democracy was undermined, the BNP MEP who attended was weak in agreeing to be gagged (which surely pre-empts content which the Palace wished to deny, absent given it wasn't a political engagement) etc etc.
I tire, no, I have long tired of hearing nonsense of that sort. Travelling the world gave me a glimpse of countries where democracy is either new or non existent. Passing through as a white British tourist obviously did not give me a real understanding of what it is like to *live* there but the fierceness with which Argentinians defend their democracy (PROTEST!) gives an good indication. Meeting fellow travellers from across the globe we often fell to discussing the differences and similarities of our respective countries and cultures. It would be fair to say that I have never so absolutely appreciated the liberties and freedoms so willingly given to me as a British citizen.
No, our democracy is not perfect. Show me a democracy which is. But to claim we are suffering through an authoritarian nightmare is not only wholly erroneous but positively insulting to those persons living under a dictatorship with few or none of the freedoms some would so gladly dismiss.
Update! I think Tony Lawrie's true political allegiances are showing through in his final desperate attempt to embroil me again;
Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how can you ever then season it? Don't agree with Nick Griffin or BNP particularly but at least Griffin still has 'salt'...so many politicians 2day don't anymore!
Hard enough to ignore that bizarre, presumably inaccurately recounted analogy but praising Griffin for being abrasive? (hard to guess what salt represents really) Not going to be the match point winning play.
His twitter feed is here; Tony Lawrie
This is the tweet which prompted my first reply to him (advising he reread the BBC article as it clearly states the reason Nick Griffin's invitation to Buckingham Palace was revoked was because he politicised it; unlike all the other MEPs invited, including another BNP party member)
I eventually said I believed his 'Britain isn't a democracy' agenda had coloured his assessment of the event, he leaps on this turn of phrase and then keeps saying my opinions on the BNP coloured my opinions - having not expressed any opinions about the BNP of late on twitter, or passing any kind of negative comment on the BNP MEP who did attend the garden party I can only assume he decided the only person who could disagree with the crux of his argument must be anti-BNP. Which admittedly I am, but I never said I believed Nick Griffin should be turned away from the garden party because of his views - I don't believe that.
Some time ago, after repeating my points several times I decided nothing was to be gained by continuing I tweeted this;
Already stated BNP member attended, did not express any feelings about that. Your repeated choice to ignore my previous statements leads me to believe you are not considering, engaging with or even reading my comments so I will conclude this discussion now.
How many replies did I then receive from him? Seven. At which point I again became embroiled when he claimed he had answered my points and my dislike of the BNP did not allow me to recognise democracy was undermined. I responded with the following;
I have made no expression of dislike for the BNP. Their policies are not the crux of the issue. Furthermore, you have not engaged with my hugely valid point that another BNP MEP was admitted to the garden party with no queries. Finally, your choosing to ignore my statement this discussion was at an end is hardly respectful or necessary. We will not agree because you are not willing to abandon your no democracy agenda long enough to judge this event solely on the facts surrounding it.
His further replies again state democracy was undermined, the BNP MEP who attended was weak in agreeing to be gagged (which surely pre-empts content which the Palace wished to deny, absent given it wasn't a political engagement) etc etc.
I tire, no, I have long tired of hearing nonsense of that sort. Travelling the world gave me a glimpse of countries where democracy is either new or non existent. Passing through as a white British tourist obviously did not give me a real understanding of what it is like to *live* there but the fierceness with which Argentinians defend their democracy (PROTEST!) gives an good indication. Meeting fellow travellers from across the globe we often fell to discussing the differences and similarities of our respective countries and cultures. It would be fair to say that I have never so absolutely appreciated the liberties and freedoms so willingly given to me as a British citizen.
No, our democracy is not perfect. Show me a democracy which is. But to claim we are suffering through an authoritarian nightmare is not only wholly erroneous but positively insulting to those persons living under a dictatorship with few or none of the freedoms some would so gladly dismiss.
Update! I think Tony Lawrie's true political allegiances are showing through in his final desperate attempt to embroil me again;
Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how can you ever then season it? Don't agree with Nick Griffin or BNP particularly but at least Griffin still has 'salt'...so many politicians 2day don't anymore!
Hard enough to ignore that bizarre, presumably inaccurately recounted analogy but praising Griffin for being abrasive? (hard to guess what salt represents really) Not going to be the match point winning play.
