Melanie Phillips -Sane? « Singletrack Forum

Chat Forum

[closed]

Melanie Phillips -Sane?

37 posts & 17 voices | Started 2 years ago by Aristotle | Latest reply from ransos

Tags:

No tags yet.

Pages: 12 Next »

Aristotle - Member

Whenever I've seen her appear on Question Time before, I've disagreed with what she said, but last night she appeared to have lost the plot entirely
-not only on her total misunderstanding/complete denial of the possibility of the climate changing(man-made or otherwise)

By all means have a view on issues, but at least have a rational viewpoint, rather than just shouting out ignorant, patronising bits of information. I presume that I wouldn't like her Daily Mail column.

Why is it that some people see themselves as 'right-wing' (or left) and, therefore, appear to subscribe to all 'right-wing' views rather than taking a balanced view of each issue?

Posted 2 years ago #
ernie_lynch - Member

Melanie Phillips is a hysterical right-wing Zionist who is intensely Islamophobic and homophobic. And she doesn't like Christians and liberal Jews much more either. She supports the teaching of creationism in schools and believes that Barack Obama is a revolutionary Marxist with a pro-Iranian Islamic agenda (no contradiction there then)

And you expect her to be "rational" ?

I stopped watching QT many years ago precisely because people like her appear on the programme - I quite frankly can't be arsed to waste my time listening to the likes of Melanie Phillips and Anne Lesley spouting their illiterate nonsense and lies.

BTW, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with someone being consistently 'right-wing', I am myself after all, consistently 'left-wing'. I do however insist that they apply some sort of rationality to their argument and that they don't insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe any old crap they care to spout. For example. By all means tell me why you disagree/don't support Barack Obama. But don't come out with some bollox that he is a "revolutionary Marxist Islamist"

Posted 2 years ago #
ton - Member

ernie, always calling someone a 'ist'.........

Posted 2 years ago #
chakaping - Member

I presume that I wouldn't like her Daily Mail column

I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

I saw a bit of that last night, but she made me turn over to Newsnight instead.

Perhaps she's jealous that Jan Moir is more hated than her now and is trying to regain some ground?

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

I don't generally watch Question Time, but I listen to the Moral Maze a lot on which Melanie Phillips is a regular, and to be honest I find I agree with much (though not all) of what she says. I'm afraid Ernie, that I don't agree at all with how you see her. Each to their own I guess though.

Posted 2 years ago #
HeathenWoods - Member

Melanie 'Crazy Horse' Phillips is a dangerous lnatic and should be locked up. I'm not that sure about kennyp now...

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

If I believed what is written about her on her Wiki page I'd probably hate her too, but that's not what I hear on the radio. She's certainly pro-family and believes the best way of bringing up kids is to have a married mother and father, but believing that doesn't therefore mean you hate gay folk.

Posted 2 years ago #
chakaping - Member

So if she's pro-family, who's anti-family?

Just wondering.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

She's pro "what is considered the traditional" family.

Posted 2 years ago #
chakaping - Member

Yeah, so who's anti "what is considered the traditional" family?

The point I'm trying to make is that certain right-wing columnists earn a good living by foaming at the mouth about perceived threats to traditional British values which don't really exist.

I mean the threats don;t really exist, not the values - that's another debate.

Posted 2 years ago #
trailmonkey - Member

She's not even worth worrying about. Anyone who comes up with this sort of nonsense is obviously an idiot.

Posted 2 years ago #
backhander - Member

taking a balanced view of each issue?

I dunno why so few (left or right) can manage this.
It's **** nuts, the stoner thread where he was condemned as far right because he didn't believe in socialism was just breathtakingly stupid.
It is entirely possible and (I believe balanced) to have views on either side of the divide.
BTW, she sounds like a proper horror.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

The point I'm trying to make is that certain right-wing columnists earn a good living by foaming at the mouth about perceived threats to traditional British values which don't really exist.

Fair point, but there are also plenty left wing columnists who also make a good living by foaming at the mouth about the threat they see "traditional British values" posing to their view of how the world should be.

Posted 2 years ago #
grumm - Member

Fair point, but there are also plenty left wing columnists who also make a good living by foaming at the mouth

The difference is that the left wing columnists 'foaming at the mouth' aren't stirring up hatred and intolerance.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

Here are some of the phrases used about Melanie Phillips on this thread alone:-

Dangerous
Islamaphobic
Homophobic
Idiot
Should be locked up
Illiterate nonsense
Lies
Lost the plot
Hysterical
Zionist

It would seem that hatred and intolerance are as much left wing traits as right wing ones.

Posted 2 years ago #
grumm - Member

Yeah that'll be why you get all those violent left wing attacks on heterosexuals and people who don't believe in climate change.

Posted 2 years ago #
mikertroid - Member

Grumm;

you're right; just look at the loony left and what damage they have done to society. Far more impact than a few right wing extremists. El Gordo and his communist cronies need a good shooing for all our sakes.

Posted 2 years ago #
grumm - Member

In what possible aspect is Gordon Brown a communist? I wish he was a bit more of a communist - the banking crisis would probably never have happened.

New Labour are a centre-right party.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

There are tiny minorities of both extreme right and left wing people who support using violence to further their aims. Thankfully in both cases the percentage is very small.

If anyone would care to point me in the direction of anything Melanie Phillips has ever said or written that supports violent attacks on gay people then I'll be happy to stop defending her.

Posted 2 years ago #
Aristotle - Member

If people read my original post, they'll see that I included both left and right-wingers in what I was saying.

I just find people behaving in the way that Melanie Phillips did on QT unpleasant. I too have heard her on the Moral Maze.

Having such a blinkered, conspiracy-theorist view with a constant right/left-wing (as if these things were clearly defined)agenda, often fuelled by loathing (if not actual hatred)seems, to me at least, totally irrational.

Melanie Phillips' blog

I'm also confused by the frequent references to anti-semitism. Who, other than very fervent, serious jews, even thinks about Judaism? It's not a subject that come up very frequently. In my case, as a non-believing gentile I am indifferent to their faith.

-'Muslims' certainly get a much harder time these days, from what I can see.

Posted 2 years ago #
grumm - Member

If anyone would care to point me in the direction of anything Melanie Phillips has ever said or written that supports violent attacks on gay people then I'll be happy to stop defending her.

The blatant nasty homophobia and islamaphobia of her and papers like the Express/Daily Mail/Sun legitimizes and encourages prejudice and hatred - would have thought that much is pretty obvious. Unless of course you are also a bigot.

Posted 2 years ago #
ScottChegg - Member

That looks like a desperate broad-brush 'impression', rather than an answer.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

Unless of course you are also a bigot.

Like I said before, intolerance is a fault that can be found in both right and left wing views.

I rarely read any of the papers mentioned, but on the occasions I have I've never seen any blatant nasty homophobia and islamaphobia . There are views in them that I agree with and views I disagree with, same as any paper. I've read stuff in the left wing Guardian that is as intolerant of views they disagree with as anything I've ever seen in right wing papers.

Posted 2 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

point me in the direction of anything Melanie Phillips has ever said or written that supports violent attacks on gay people

Yeah, I doubt you are so naive that you actually believe someone has to openly support violence to incite it. Hitler didn't write articles supporting violence against Jews and the building of extermination camps. Accusing all Jews of being part of a Bolshevik conspiracy to "destroy Western society" was sufficient to get his message across to the masses.

Melanie Phillips has accused gay rights activists along with 'cultural Marxists', of being part of a conspiracy which attacks the traditional family, because according to her they have, quote : "grasped that this was the surest way to destroy Western society".

The surest way to destroy Western society

Evil or nutter ? ..........you decide.......nutter I'm hoping.

BTW kennyp, since when has recognising that someone is a Zionist amounted to "hatred and intolerance" ?

I think the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland might have something to say on that.

http://www.zionist.org.uk/

In what possible aspect is Gordon Brown a communist?

I think you'll find that is an example of "illiterate nonsense and lies". I wouldn't seek a rational and intelligent answer.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

Yeah, I doubt you are so naive that you actually believe someone has to openly support violence to incite it.

No, someone doesn't. But equally, the fact that some people engage in violent hateful acts is no reason to stop other people expressing their views. All that is doing is excusing the offenders.

Anyway, I'm off now to join some other right wing bigots like myself watching some mindless violent thuggery, in other words I'm off to Murrayfield.

Have a fun afternoon, regardless of what your politics are folks.

Posted 2 years ago #
ScottChegg - Member

grizzlygus gets the Godwin's Law award for this thread.

Posted 2 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

grizzlygus gets the Godwin's Law award

And it didn't take long for someone to start bleating about 'Godwin's Law' (actually about 15mins longer than I expected)

'Godwin's Law' was introduced to stop people using the Nazis as an inappropriate example. The argument being that it watered-down the effect of a comparison when used appropriately - the intention was not to stop an appropriate comparison, on the contrary, it was to encourage it. Can you figure that out - or is it too complicated ?

When talking about inciting hatred and conspiracies to destroy 'Western society', I can't think of a more appropriate example than Hitler. Can you ?

Posted 2 years ago #
grumm - Member

Nothing inflammatory about headlines like that eh? And nothing wrong with the Jan Moir article about Stephen Gateley.

It's just the same as when the Guardian writes something criticizing attempts to tackle climate change, or the US' human rights record.

Try reading some of this - http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

Posted 2 years ago #
Mrs Toast - Member

This has very little to do with the original topic, but it makes me laugh.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Posted 2 years ago #
El-bent - Member

you're right; just look at the loony left and what damage they have done to society. Far more impact than a few right wing extremists. El Gordo and his communist cronies need a good shooing for all our sakes.

Anyone who thinks Brown and Co are left or communist must have a portrait of GW Bush on their wall.

There are views in them that I agree with and views I disagree with, same as any paper. I've read stuff in the left wing Guardian that is as intolerant of views they disagree with as anything I've ever seen in right wing papers.

But it's the context in which the intolerance is used. Is it intolerant of Racists, homophobe's etc? To be honest, nowadays it's those who appear to be on the right hand side of the political spectrum that seem the most intolerant of anything that isn't them.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

But it's the context in which the intolerance is used. Is it intolerant of Racists, homophobe's etc? To be honest, nowadays it's those who appear to be on the right hand side of the political spectrum that seem the most intolerant of anything that isn't them.

If that were the case it would be fair enough. Sadly however it's generally intolerance of anyone adopting a viewpoint that doesn't fit in with their view of the world. Intolerance of outright racism is one thing; branding someone a racist or a bigot because they (for example) print something saying immigration should be severely restricted is altogether different. The trouble with a lot of left wing people/papers is that as soon as they see/hear something that isn't PC their instinctive response is to brand the person a racist or a homophobe or whatever, essentially trying to prevent any debate.

Posted 2 years ago #
nostoc - Member

I'd have thought that a genuine right-winger would be supportive of immigration and of the economic rights of the individual to sell their labour. Also of individual freedom of sexuality without the interference of the state. I'm sure there are a lot of people like that but the ones that aren't tend to appear like they are bigots hiding behind a convenient ideology.

Posted 2 years ago #
grumm - Member

Anyway, I'm off now to join some other right wing bigots like myself watching some mindless violent thuggery, in other words I'm off to Murrayfield.

branding someone a racist or a bigot because they (for example) print something saying immigration should be severely restricted is altogether different.

If the Daily Mail etc printed measured, non-inflammatory articles suggesting the restricting of immigration that would be one thing.

Here's some moderated comments from the Daily Mail's readers, about someone who died trying to smuggle themselves into the country - certainly no hatred or bigotry reflected or stirred up there right?

Posted 2 years ago #
grizzlygus - Member

The trouble with a lot of left wing people/papers is that as soon as they see/hear something that isn't PC their instinctive response is to brand the person a racist or a homophobe or whatever, essentially trying to prevent any debate

Because of course as everyone knows, there aren't actually in reality, any racists or homophobes around
...... it's all just in the imagination of 'lefties'

And btw, it isn't a case of 'preventing any debate'. It is much more of a case of it being quite impossible to have a serious debate with someone who claims that "gay rights activists want to destroy Western society" or that "Barack Obama is a revolutionary Marxist". Or for that matter, someone who claims that Gordon Brown is a communist. I draw the line with attempting to have any sort of serious debate with someone who spouts illiterate nonsense and lies.

Posted 2 years ago #
kennyp - Member

Because of course as everyone knows, there aren't actually in reality, any racists or homophobes around
...... it's all just in the imagination of 'lefties'

Of course they are about. The point I was trying to make though is that (and these are just examples) either wanting immigration reduced or believing that marriage is the best way to bring up kids doesn't actually make you either of those things.

You're right about being unable to have a serious debate with folk who make extreme statements, but again I'd say that applies equally to right and left.

I'd have thought that a genuine right-winger would be supportive of immigration and of the economic rights of the individual to sell their labour. Also of individual freedom of sexuality without the interference of the state.

The reason I want to see immigration hugely reduced is simply because I think the country is overcrowded. It really is that simple. Call me selfish if you want, but not a bigot. Overall I think the vast bulk of folk who have come here have been a great addition to our society, I just think we now have enough thanks. In fact I'd say the world in general is hugely over-populated.

As for gay folk, I couldn't care less what they do. It's not my thing, but I've met plenty gay folk over the years and the "good guy / bad guy" ratio is pretty much the same as it is for any cross-section of society. And you're right, the state shouldn't interfere with their sexual choices. Equally though, I still believe married couples are the best folk to bring up children.

Oh, and as for the "Ha ha" thing about Murrayfield, well okay, I'll concede to you on that point. It was a bit grim, but then the week before was more than enough compensation!

Posted 2 years ago #