Why are (Some) Socialists and Far Right so quick to Assume they know what you're saying.

Holding Libertarian views puts you in quite a unique position where you seem to spend your time being attacked from all sides (granted I do bring it on by getting involved in some emotionally charged topics) so in the average day I tend to have debates with the Right on topics such as Gay Marriage, Immigration, Equality and so on, whilst at the same time having debates with the Left on The NHS, Austerity and EU Membership to name just a few.  Personally I love having debates like this and I see them as a great way to understand other people’s views as well as challenge the validity of my own held views.

This double attack has lead me to see even more similarities between socialists and far right debaters. I first blogged about how I consider the Far Right and the Left to be the same ideology a few years ago. The latest similarity I have noticed is in their common response to a challenging view which I call the Assume – Anger – Attack response. I should stress that I am not saying that this response is constant and there are occasionally some well reasoned and well articulated debates with Socialists however the level of AAA responses seems to me to be massively higher in the Left and Far Right than in any other group I regularly debate with (Although Extreme Atheists come close) Essentially the AAA response goes along the lines of 

1)      Assume I understand what you are saying, allowing my own bias to cloud my judgement.

2)      Get Angry about what I assume you are saying, this prevents logic from entering the debate.

3)      Attack, Attack, Attack – I have assumed you are bad so must now attack first.

As an example, recently I commented on a facebook post, now I should say up front that I was almost definitely in the wrong as I hadn’t quite understood what the original post was about – To be honest it was something that was so far from my view of the world that it never really occurred to me. One of my more left leaning facebook friends then put on a comment that attacked me, accused me of taking an opinion that was actually at odds to my own and stated that my views were actually dangerous. I was obviously confused (This was after all completely at odds with what I was thinking.) so I queried it and was again met with more assumptions about what I was saying – Assumptions based on the bias of the commenter and quite likely the incorrect assumption that I hold Right Wing social views – I responded with trying to clarify what I had meant and for the first time it was pointed out that my view wasn’t aligned to the original post, it went on for a few more comments until I eventually realised what he thought I was saying and I confirmed that I must have misunderstood. A long conversation based solely on the fact that he had followed Assume – Anger – Attack rather than a model that seeks to understand the other side before responding.  I call this the EEE model, Explore – Empathise – Exchange, based solely on the fact that I wanted three words that started with the same letter.

1)      Explore, Does the other person see the world the same as you.

2)      Empathise, Is there an emotional reason they took this view, why do they feel this way.

3)      Exchange, Now that you understand where they are coming from you can exchange your ideas.

Maybe if we all followed this model we could get a lot more understanding and a little less confrontation.

Finally got around to watching Benefits Street - And now I am Angry

I blogged a few days back about Benefits Street in my post I admit that I had never seen it but couldn't find anything to substantiate the claim that it was Demonizing the Poor. Well I have now managed to catch up with the first four episodes and to be honest it has left me feeling pretty angry.

I am not in anyway angry with the residents of James Turner Street (Although I find "Black Dee" very annoying and in need of a bit of a reality check.) but the rest of them I feel sorry for as they struggle to escape the welfare trap they have been placed in. I feel angry at the left wing twitterati taking to social media to denounce every part of the show with the great assurance of an ostrich with it's head in the sand singing "there's no problem" over and over again.

Because you know what, There is a problem and these people need help, they may not fit in with your idealised "Worthy Poor" that you are so heavily invested in it blinds you from everything else, but these people need help, they need responsibility and to be treated as adults - and I believe that is what the upper class left don't want.

Far from demonizing the poor I saw a great deal of hope from the first four episodes of Benefits Street.
In the last episode we saw White Dee's daughter taking work experience where she was cleaning toilets as it was better to start somewhere rather than just live of the state.

Then there is the 50p man, Stephen Smith,  who creates a business from trying to help people who may not be able to afford the whole product, he spends his time driving round selling 50p portions of washing powder, soap, toilet rolls etc... and is actually a great role model for anyone of possible solutions to the welfare trap.

Even Fungi who at first glance looks like the worst of the worst is trying to sort his life out, even though his idea of a life coaching note is biro scribbled on the wall this is still showing that he has the desire to change and should therefore be helped to have the ability.

And that is what I think the real point of the welfare system should be and where we have massively missed the point, the welfare system should not be about Benefits and definitely not about unconditional benefits, it should be about helping people get into work, get sorted and lifting them above where they are regardless of limitations, not just handing them cash and going to the wine bar to meet your friends safe in the knowledge that you have done whatever you can for the "poor unfortunates." 

This is no better represented than by Mark and Becky, the young couple who struggle to look after two out of control children, at the first meeting they appear to be terrible parents without prospects for their children and seemingly unconcerned with parenting, and yet over the course of the shows we see a different story, a young couple who are struggling to do their best in a society that they don't think gives them any choice. Who, and this is the important bit, when given the skills they need are desperately trying to better themselves as parents, Mark who has never worked in his life even gets a job trying to sell charity subscriptions, he may not succeed in selling any, but for the first time in his life he tries to stand on his own two feet, and that is the first step to a life not just without benefits but with self respect and the feeling of pride that can only come by looking at what you have and knowing that you have earned it from your own hard work. This is what the Champagne Socialists want to prevent him from experiencing and this is why I am angry.

Andrew Marr Vs The Blogosphere

Andrew Marr - BBC Political Presenter (Has the AM Show on a Sunday) has today launched a stinging attack on the many contributors on the Blogosphere, speaking at the Cheltenham Literary Festival, Mr. Marr said that Bloggers (or Citizen Journalists) are mostly "socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting." Adding that "They are very angry people"

Now as you can imagine this has caused a bit of a backlash on the blogs as many bloggers feeling very offended have set out to attack Andrew for his views, personally it is not something I am about to do as despite Mr. Marr's assertions I am not single, living in my mother's basement or for that matter angry. There is a chance that this could be caused instead by the fact that I do not consider myself as a Citizen Journalist rather just someone who enjoys writing about stuff I care about and if someone wants to read it then that is great, but if not - oh well.

Anyway my view on this topic is that he is probably right in some of these cases, I have read a lot of blogs and many are very one sided and angry where the person has an axe to grind and they will grind it until they are left with just a stump, but on the other hand some blogs and bloggers are starting to invade the main stream Ian Dale springs to mind, this new type of journalism is responsive and exciting, blogs tend to break stories at a much greater speed than more conventional media and also operate outside many of the laws that hold our mainstream media firms back (Note I am not saying this is good, simply more exciting.) but again I agree with Mr. Marr when he states that these blogs are unlikely to replace older media companies as after all whilst blogs can be a great source, you still go to a recognised brand to get the facts.

Blogs are also often quite useful to a reporter on a deadline as I am sure most bloggers have has parts of their blogs used in print media as if they have given a quote directly to the press, it happened to me a few times whilst I was a local councillor, so I cannot help but wonder if the problem Andrew Marr has with blogs is due to a slightly embarrassing incident in which he lifted a story from a blog and finding it was less than true.