If it wasn't for UKIP........

[Captain Scumbag]

Regarding "One can identify Cox’s politics as a possible cause while simultaneously holding Mair entirely to blame"; thats somewhat missing the point. Victim blaming as a theory is only regarding the first part of that sentence, the second part is completely irrelevant (I disagree with it though, but it's beside the point).

I think Cox's politics were relevant insofar that I don't think she would have been targeted and murdered if her politics had been very different. That isn't to blame her. It's merely to point out that a conservative pro-Brexit version of Jo Cox wouldn't have fit Thomas Mair's conception of the treacherous MP or the enemy within or whatever. If she'd been a very different type of MP, he would have targeted someone else.

In a similar way, it's relevant that the rape victim walked home alone through a dimly lit park. After all, she wouldn't have been attacked if she'd gotten in a taxi or walked home with friends. It's relevant that the murdered cartoonist drew unflattering pictures of Muhammad. If he'd drawn pictures of anthropomorphised monkeys playing football, Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't have taken offence and shot him.

But these points only have validity if you're attempting some kind of strictly philosophical analysis, one geared towards identifying all the relevant elements in a complex chain of cause and effect. Doing this you can isolate certain things – a woman being drunk, a cartoonist choosing to draw a deity, an MP being pro-EU – and say [INSERT AWFUL THING] wouldn't have happened if only that aforementioned certain thing wouldn't have happened. And in a purely logical and/or metaphysical sense, you'd probably be right.

But political debate is never that studiously dispassionate. Thank goodness. Politics is largely about creating, sustaining or challenging a moral order. People discuss awful things with a view to avoiding or minimising reoccurrence. To that end it's obviously insufficient to just identify the relevant elements in the causal chain. There has to be some effort to identify which have the most relevance in a moral sense. Blame, guilt, culpability, criminal responsibility – these things matter. A pro-Brexit version of Jo Cox might not have been murdered, but how is knowing that helpful? What use can we make of it? What is the proposed solution? Should we advise all MPs to hide their pro-EU convictions lest some nutcase murders them? Obviously not.

This is getting a bit waffly, so I'll try to narrow it down to two points:

1. Though it's possible to identify 'causally relevant' elements without implying blame or culpability, this requires a kind of dry academic rigour that, for better or worse, is completely at odds with out political culture. In political debate, the identification of 'causally relevant' elements usually does imply blame. And when it isn't implied (e.g. I know Alty doesn't blame Jo Cox for her demise) it will almost certainly be inferred by others (in this case you). And not unreasonably.

2. While the above waffle all relates to victim blaming, most of the key points can be applied to 'third party blaming' too. Maybe some things relating to UKIP – e.g. their role in provoking the referendum or certain things Farage said/did on the campaign trial – have 'causal relevance'; but I struggle to understand how anyone could think they have the most relevance, especially in any moral/legal sense. Again, Thomas Mair represents a 1 in 45 million anomaly.

My first thought on Smat's comment was that it was a jokey cheap shot, so I took one back. I wasn't aware of his previous posts on this subject, but having now read them (and subsequent ones) it appears he was being sincere. Okay. If he thinks Jo Cox would still be alive if it weren't for the EU referendum and UKIP, that's his prerogative. But if he expresses that in a politics discussion forum, others are entitled to question his intentions because, again, in political debate the identification of 'causally relevant' elements usually does imply blame. And, again, what is the proposed solution here? That we shouldn't have referendums on issues of profound constitutional importance? That we shouldn't discuss socio-political issues that may arouse anger?

 

[smat]

I have now retired from the TFF politics forum, and also from political discussion generally. As part of this, any Brexit-related humour/jibes will be ignored.

I think Cox's politics were relevant insofar that I don't think she would have been targeted and murdered if her politics had been very different. That isn't to blame her. It's merely to point out that a conservative pro-Brexit version of Jo Cox wouldn't have fit Thomas Mair's conception of the treacherous MP or the enemy within or whatever. If she'd been a very different type of MP, he would have targeted someone else.

In a similar way, it's relevant that the rape victim walked home alone through a dimly lit park. After all, she wouldn't have been attacked if she'd gotten in a taxi or walked home with friends. It's relevant that the murdered cartoonist drew unflattering pictures of Muhammad. If he'd drawn pictures of anthropomorphised monkeys playing football, Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't have taken offence and shot him.

But these points only have validity if you're attempting some kind of strictly philosophical analysis, one geared towards identifying all the relevant elements in a complex chain of cause and effect. Doing this you can isolate certain things – a woman being drunk, a cartoonist choosing to draw a deity, an MP being pro-EU – and say [INSERT AWFUL THING] wouldn't have happened if only that aforementioned certain thing wouldn't have happened. And in a purely logical and/or metaphysical sense, you'd probably be right.

But political debate is never that studiously dispassionate. Thank goodness. Politics is largely about creating, sustaining or challenging a moral order. People discuss awful things with a view to avoiding or minimising reoccurrence. To that end it's obviously insufficient to just identify the relevant elements in the causal chain. There has to be some effort to identify which have the most relevance in a moral sense. Blame, guilt, culpability, criminal responsibility – these things matter. A pro-Brexit version of Jo Cox might not have been murdered, but how is knowing that helpful? What use can we make of it? What is the proposed solution? Should we advise all MPs to hide their pro-EU convictions lest some nutcase murders them? Obviously not.

This is getting a bit waffly, so I'll try to narrow it down to two points:

1. Though it's possible to identify 'causally relevant' elements without implying blame or culpability, this requires a kind of dry academic rigour that, for better or worse, is completely at odds with out political culture. In political debate, the identification of 'causally relevant' elements usually does imply blame. And when it isn't implied (e.g. I know Alty doesn't blame Jo Cox for her demise) it will almost certainly be inferred by others (in this case you). And not unreasonably.

2. While the above waffle all relates to victim blaming, most of the key points can be applied to 'third party blaming' too. Maybe some things relating to UKIP – e.g. their role in provoking the referendum or certain things Farage said/did on the campaign trial – have 'causal relevance'; but I struggle to understand how anyone could think they have the most relevance, especially in any moral/legal sense. Again, Thomas Mair represents a 1 in 45 million anomaly.

My first thought on Smat's comment was that it was a jokey cheap shot, so I took one back. I wasn't aware of his previous posts on this subject, but having now read them (and subsequent ones) it appears he was being sincere. Okay. If he thinks Jo Cox would still be alive if it weren't for the EU referendum and UKIP, that's his prerogative. But if he expresses that in a politics discussion forum, others are entitled to question his intentions because, again, in political debate the identification of 'causally relevant' elements usually does imply blame. And, again, what is the proposed solution here? That we shouldn't have referendums on issues of profound constitutional importance? That we shouldn't discuss socio-political issues that may arouse anger?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ Oh, come on! I've retired from the TFF/1FF politics forums about three dozen times now. It never lasts, and not least because I find it virtually impossible to ignore wiseacre mediocrities posting nonsense.

You need to decide if you're taking this seriously or not. If yes, there are substantive points there for you to engage with. Focusing on my latest false retirement is just deflection/avoidance and kinda pathetic.

 

[S74Blade]

So was it just a coincidence that Mair killed Jo Cox when the EU Referendum campaign was at full tilt ?

 

[DH84]

So was it just a coincidence that Mair killed Jo Cox when the EU Referendum campaign was at full tilt ?

Have you ever had an education?

 

[Abertawe]

Why even waste waste your time on smat. He's a messer. His whole existence is a messer, he's just lucky he's a posh boy so he can get away with it.

 

[Bilo]

And, again, what is the proposed solution here? That we shouldn't have referendums on issues of profound constitutional importance? That we shouldn't discuss socio-political issues that may arouse anger?

I read your post in full and you raise some good points, but I thought this was the thick of it and what I choose to reply to.

The problem is that right wing populism depends on people being afraid -- cementing a feeling that the world is going down the shitter. This mirrors the rhetoric, exaggerating problems beyond recognition to increase the fear and repress the trust. The whole point of right wing populism is literally to make people think less rationally regarding the current state of affairs. And therein lies a huge part of the problem.

In almost every European country right now, hate-crimes from the right are on the up. While I've had to cling to the "might" regarding Mair, there's no "might" regarding the correlation between right wing populism being more widely accepted and hate crimes becoming more frequent. Fear can rationalize the worst of actions, and if you start believing that the country is going down the shitter it really isn't hard to rationalize violence to stop it. I mean, it can easily be applied to oneself. We all have a certain point within us, or at least we all should have, where we are prepared to take arms to defend that which we believe to be right and completely non-negotiable.

So while violence isn't an end goal in itself for right wing populism; it's a painfully obvious consequence. Through fear and exaggeration they push people to the point where they can rationalize actions simply because they think their country has to be saved. And that has to stop, because if it doesn't, the hate crimes will keep on rising. More and more people will be pushed to their own point where they feel they have to take up arms.

So that's what has to stop, and it has to stop yesterday. You can be against multiculturalism and free movement without having to resort to outright lies about the current state of affairs (you're a fairly good example of that yourself). If it doesn't stop, more and more people will become afraid, and a small part of these will rationalize violence.

And while this is happening, while the hate crimes rise, UKIP's soul purpose is to make more people afraid. Make more people think the country is going down the shitter. That has to stop, and if it does, we've come a long way regarding Jo Cox being a tragic one time event, rather than the first example of many to follow.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Petition to change Captain Scumbag's "A fiend in human shape" to "The Terry Funk of Politics Forums".

 

[Bilo]

People seem to want to attack CS's person (much rather than his opinions) a lot here can I get some background on that what have I missed? Does he eat children or something?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Carel's post is a clever joke that only pro-wrestling fans will get. It's not nasty at all. And on the whole I'm treated fine here. If not, I can stick up for myself. I wouldn't worry if I were you.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

The problem is that right wing populism depends on people being afraid -- cementing a feeling that the world is going down the shitter. This mirrors the rhetoric, exaggerating problems beyond recognition to increase the fear and repress the trust. The whole point of right wing populism is literally to make people think less rationally regarding the current state of affairs. And therein lies a huge part of the problem.

I think most forms of politics rely on this, TBH. If you think scaremongering or other cheap appeals to non-rational emotionalism are the preserve of "right wing populism" (a very contentious term, BTW), then I don't know what to tell you. It reveals more about your preconceived biases than anything else. It's particularly amusing to read from someone who supported a Remain campaign responsible for some of the most egregious recent examples of what you're talking about.

On the subject of inflammatory/dangerous rhetoric and hate crime, I'm going to be incredibly lazy (sorry, but I'm half-cut and United vs. Liverpool kicks off in 10 minutes) and link you to an enjoyable exchange Ian_Wrexham and I had on this subject back in the summer (see here). I think it covers most of my thoughts on this subject. If you think I haven't addressed something adequately and/or wish me to clarify certain points, just ask.

 

[smat]

You need to decide if you're taking this seriously or not.

I've plumped for 'not', and you're going to have to come up with a mechanism for dealing with this. Maybe put me on ignore, you murderer.

 

[johnnytodd]

on topic please ta.

 

[smat]

on topic please ta.

If it wasn't for UKIP, Captain Scumbag wouldn't have put me on ignore.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

People seem to want to attack CS's person (much rather than his opinions) a lot here can I get some background on that what have I missed? Does he eat children or something?

What a ridiculous question. A reasonable, erudite gent he may be but Scumbag's still a dastardly Tory (when not flirting with that other mob). EVERYONE knows that children form a staple part of their diet.

 

[IanH]

What a ridiculous question. A reasonable, erudite gent he may be but Scumbag's still a dastardly Tory (when not flirting with that other mob). EVERYONE knows that children form a staple part of their diet.

I think what Bilo meant was does he actually eat them, out in the open* like your traditional old fascists, OR does he pop them up his arse in suppository form, making the dastard Toryness far more difficult to pick up on.

* Edit: added a comma between 'eat them out in', cos even the Tories aren't THAT vulgar.

 

[johnnytodd]

This thread has turned into shit.

 

[Abertawe]

This thread has turned into shit.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

This thread has turned into shit.

The 'progressive' libtards have completely ruined it, Johnny. It's the Flat Earth thread all over again.

 

[sl1k]

I think Cox's politics were relevant insofar that I don't think she would have been targeted and murdered if her politics had been very different. That isn't to blame her. It's merely to point out that a conservative pro-Brexit version of Jo Cox wouldn't have fit Thomas Mair's conception of the treacherous MP or the enemy within or whatever. If she'd been a very different type of MP, he would have targeted someone else.

Bit of mental gymnastics there, to bring what to focus exactly? He murdered someone he ideologically disagreed with. That's terrorism in my book.

In a similar way, it's relevant that the rape victim walked home alone through a dimly lit park. After all, she wouldn't have been attacked if she'd gotten in a taxi or walked home with friends. It's relevant that the murdered cartoonist drew unflattering pictures of Muhammad. If he'd drawn pictures of anthropomorphised monkeys playing football, Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't have taken offence and shot him.

You're cleverly directing fault at her brand of politics with that paragraph.

But these points only have validity if you're attempting some kind of strictly philosophical analysis, one geared towards identifying all the relevant elements in a complex chain of cause and effect. Doing this you can isolate certain things – a woman being drunk, a cartoonist choosing to draw a deity, an MP being pro-EU – and say [INSERT AWFUL THING] wouldn't have happened if only that aforementioned certain thing wouldn't have happened. And in a purely logical and/or metaphysical sense, you'd probably be right.

ok

But political debate is never that studiously dispassionate. Thank goodness. Politics is largely about creating, sustaining or challenging a moral order. People discuss awful things with a view to avoiding or minimising reoccurrence. To that end it's obviously insufficient to just identify the relevant elements in the causal chain. There has to be some effort to identify which have the most relevance in a moral sense. Blame, guilt, culpability, criminal responsibility – these things matter. A pro-Brexit version of Jo Cox might not have been murdered, but how is knowing that helpful? What use can we make of it? What is the proposed solution? Should we advise all MPs to hide their pro-EU convictions lest some nutcase murders them? Obviously not.

Obviously

This is getting a bit waffly, so I'll try to narrow it down to two points:
1. Though it's possible to identify 'causally relevant' elements without implying blame or culpability, this requires a kind of dry academic rigour that, for better or worse, is completely at odds with out political culture. In political debate, the identification of 'causally relevant' elements usually does imply blame. And when it isn't implied (e.g. I know Alty doesn't blame Jo Cox for her demise) it will almost certainly be inferred by others (in this case you). And not unreasonably.

2. While the above waffle all relates to victim blaming, most of the key points can be applied to 'third party blaming' too. Maybe some things relating to UKIP – e.g. their role in provoking the referendum or certain things Farage said/did on the campaign trial – have 'causal relevance'; but I struggle to understand how anyone could think they have the most relevance, especially in any moral/legal sense. Again, Thomas Mair represents a 1 in 45 million anomaly.

No offence and that, but you use a lot of words to state the bleeding obvious. I can see the wonderful engine through the transparent bonnet, but what's the bhp on the road. yo.

Edit: just to add, for the sake of articulating the overall point I wanted to drive home.

If I murdered one of ya'll cos Muslamically I found you disgusting, there are obviously loads of agents at play which bring me to the cause of committing. But fundamentally, how much weight should we apportion to these multiple agents? And ultimately, how much should that matter vs 'you shouldn't murder someone you disagree with, no matter how emotive the subject matter may be'.

It's interesting (just an observation in general) that as obvious as the answer may be (I hope), we do a switcheroo when deemed fit. Automatically, and irrationally - depending on our predispositions.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ I have ignored most of your previous post since the gist seems to be that you don't like my posting style, and frankly I don't care. I have replied to a few points, though.

You're cleverly directing fault at her brand of politics with that paragraph.

Nope. You alone have inferred that intention, but I don't think it's justified. It only works if you ignore the 'causally relevant' vs. 'blameworthy' distinction I was trying to make.

If I murdered one of ya'll cos Muslamically I found you disgusting, there are obviously loads of agents at play which bring me to the cause of committing. But fundamentally, how much weight should we apportion to these multiple agents? And ultimately, how much should that matter vs 'you shouldn't murder someone you disagree with, no matter how emotive the subject matter may be'.

The rational approach is to judge each case on its merits.

I don't have a well worked out moral philosophy, but if tasked with constructing one I'd start with this basic premise: people who freely and knowingly commit crimes should always be held primarily responsible. If you blew me to kingdom come for being a filthy kuffar (or, worse, a filthy kuffar with a prolix posting style!), you'd be primarily to blame. Ultimately it was your decision, your moral failing. You should be held primarily responsible and punished accordingly. Ditto if the roles were reversed.

But I think such cases – i.e. instances of severe violence with a clearly discernible religious and/or political motive – require a secondary analysis, one geared towards deciding whether a degree of culpability also lies elsewhere. This is when analysis of a killer's religion or politics becomes fair game. At the very least, there should be some attempt to understand how those religious or political convictions were formed. With whom did the killer associate? What was he told? What was he encouraged to do? Understanding that might help us avoid or minimise future events of a similar nature.

If people want to do that vis-à-vis Jo Cox and Thomas Mair, I have no objection. Some people on the right are instinctively uncomfortable with that sort of discourse, but I'm fine with it. I only get shitty when people associate Jo Cox's murder with UKIP (especially when that's their first/only point of association) because the known facts about Thomas Mair simply don't justify it. He wasn't in UKIP. He didn't associate with anyone in UKIP. He didn't attend any UKIP events. Judging by his reading materials, correspondence and various other indicators of his political inclinations, he was an uber-paranoid white supremacist whose politics were way to the right of UKIP.

I honestly don't think UKIP have much relevance, but some people's first thought/reaction was to point their accusatory finger in that direction. An understandable human tendency (see below), or dirty politics?

It's interesting (just an observation in general) that as obvious as the answer may be (I hope), we do a switcheroo when deemed fit. Automatically, and irrationally - depending on our predispositions.

Confirmation bias, innit?

People who have a strong intuitive dislike of muslims will tend to filter news stories through that preconception. If a muslim drives a lorry into a crowd yelling "Allahu Akbar!", it's just further confirmation that Islam is violent, intolerant and destructive. It might also be reported that the perpetrator was a paranoid schizophrenic who didn't engage in organised religion and who acted alone, but that information is filtered out. It doesn't fit the preconceived narrative. The ideology is pushed to the front. The perpetrator is pushed to the background.

It's scary stuff, but we all do this. I do it. You do it. Lefty-progressive types who really don't like Nigel Farage do it. It seems to be something very deep-rooted in human nature, so much so that I wonder if it's actually necessary in some way. I dunno. The best starting point is being aware of it, I guess.

 

[Abertawe]

The very fact UKIP have a number of non white members & candidates sort of rules out any link to Mair given his white supremacist views. That said I can't imagine 'that' poster did a great deal to diffuse his evil.

Stupid on so many levels but in all likelihood that poster probably pales into insignificance compared to the shite he would've been looking at or reading. Only a dumb person would implicate UKIP with the murder of Jo Cox given everything we know about Mair.

 

[sl1k]

^ I have ignored most of your previous post since the gist seems to be that you don't like my posting style, and frankly I don't care. I have replied to a few points, though.

Nope. You alone have inferred that intention, but I don't think it's justified. It only works if you ignore the 'causally relevant' vs. 'blameworthy' distinction I was trying to make.

The rational approach is to judge each case on its merits.

I don't have a well worked out moral philosophy, but if tasked with constructing one I'd start with this basic premise: people who freely and knowingly commit crimes should always be held primarily responsible. If you blew me to kingdom come for being a filthy kuffar (or, worse, a filthy kuffar with a prolix posting style!), you'd be primarily to blame. Ultimately it was your decision, your moral failing. You should be held primarily responsible and punished accordingly. Ditto if the roles were reversed.

But I think such cases – i.e. instances of severe violence with a clearly discernible religious and/or political motive – require a secondary analysis, one geared towards deciding whether a degree of culpability also lies elsewhere. This is when analysis of a killer's religion or politics becomes fair game. At the very least, there should be some attempt to understand how those religious or political convictions were formed. With whom did the killer associate? What was he told? What was he encouraged to do? Understanding that might help us avoid or minimise future events of a similar nature.

If people want to do that vis-à-vis Jo Cox and Thomas Mair, I have no objection. Some people on the right are instinctively uncomfortable with that sort of discourse, but I'm fine with it. I only get shitty when people associate Jo Cox's murder with UKIP (especially when that's their first/only point of association) because the known facts about Thomas Mair simply don't justify it. He wasn't in UKIP. He didn't associate with anyone in UKIP. He didn't attend any UKIP events. Judging by his reading materials, correspondence and various other indicators of his political inclinations, he was an uber-paranoid white supremacist whose politics were way to the right of UKIP.

I honestly don't think UKIP have much relevance, but some people's first thought/reaction was to point their accusatory finger in that direction. An understandable human tendency (see below), or dirty politics?

Confirmation bias, innit?

People who have a strong intuitive dislike of muslims will tend to filter news stories through that preconception. If a muslim drives a lorry into a crowd yelling "Allahu Akbar!", it's just further confirmation that Islam is violent, intolerant and destructive. It might also be reported that the perpetrator was a paranoid schizophrenic who didn't engage in organised religion and who acted alone, but that information is filtered out. It doesn't fit the preconceived narrative. The ideology is pushed to the front. The perpetrator is pushed to the background.

It's scary stuff, but we all do this. I do it. You do it. Lefty-progressive types who really don't like Nigel Farage do it. It seems to be something very deep-rooted in human nature, so much so that I wonder if it's actually necessary in some way. I dunno. The best starting point is being aware of it, I guess.

I actually like your posting style, fwiw. Think I was just annoyed with the double standards with mozlems and that.

Edit: brain fart. Wanna mention about the bit in bold, I just found it interesting that when making the point, the 'casually relevant' that was her politics, was sort of (unintentionally I'm sure, now) likened to:

"In a similar way, it's relevant that the rape victim walked home alone through a dimly lit park. After all, she wouldn't have been attacked if she'd gotten in a taxi or walked home with friends. It's relevant that the murdered cartoonist drew unflattering pictures of Muhammad. If he'd drawn pictures of anthropomorphised monkeys playing football, Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't have taken offence and shot him."

I wouldn't say it was like totally unjustified - what I initially inferred

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ With respect, I think you've misconstrued. My argument was that something can be factually or causally relevant and yet be completely irrelevant when it comes to attributing blame and/or moral responsibility. The two basic concepts – 'causal relevance' and 'moral relevance' – need to be decoupled.

A woman goes on a night out and gets shit-faced. She walks home alone and takes a shortcut through an unlit park. Someone follows her, drags her into the bushes and rapes her. It's causally relevant that she was pissed and walked home alone through the unlit park. After all, had she been sober and got a taxi home with friends, she wouldn't have been raped. In a moral sense, though, that doesn't matter. Not one iota. The most morally significant part in the chain of cause and effect is that someone decided to take advantage of her vulnerability and rape her.

In a similar way, Jo Cox's politics were casually but not morally relevant. They were causally relevant because someone espousing a very different political vision wouldn't have been targeted (does anyone think Mair would have gone after someone like Andrea Leadsom if she'd been his MP?). But her politics had no moral relevance. Only an imbecile would hold her in any way responsible for what happened. Obviously the most morally significant element is Thomas Mair thinking it's okay to viciously murder someone on the basis of a political disagreement.

Perhaps the analogies needlessly overcomplicated the point, but the intention absolutely wasn't to shift any blame to her. Hope that's clear now.

 

[johnnytodd]

^ With respect, I think you've misconstrued. My argument was that something can be factually or causally relevant and yet be completely irrelevant when it comes to attributing blame and/or moral responsibility. The two basic concepts – 'causal relevance' and 'moral relevance' – need to be decoupled.

A woman goes on a night out and gets shit-faced. She walks home alone and takes a shortcut through an unlit park. Someone follows her, drags her into the bushes and rapes her. It's causally relevant that she was pissed and walked home alone through the unlit park. After all, had she been sober and got a taxi home with friends, she wouldn't have been raped. In a moral sense, though, that doesn't matter. Not one iota. The most morally significant part in the chain of cause and effect is that someone decided to take advantage of her vulnerability and rape her.

In a similar way, Jo Cox's politics were casually but not morally relevant. They were causally relevant because someone espousing a very different political vision wouldn't have been targeted (does anyone think Mair would have gone after someone like Andrea Leadsom if she'd been his MP?). But her politics had no moral relevance. Only an imbecile would hold her in any way responsible for what happened. Obviously the most morally significant element is Thomas Mair thinking it's okay to viciously murder someone on the basis of a political disagreement.

Perhaps the analogies needlessly overcomplicated the point, but the intention absolutely wasn't to shift any blame to her. Hope that's clear now.

But it's ok for Labour Prime Ministers to murder 1000's innocent women and children in Iraq by spouting lies for their own political gain.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Do you ever consider just leaving the house and trying to meet women?

 

[Jockney]

^ With respect, I think you've misconstrued. My argument was that something can be factually or causally relevant and yet be completely irrelevant when it comes to attributing blame and/or moral responsibility. The two basic concepts – 'causal relevance' and 'moral relevance' – need to be decoupled.

A woman goes on a night out and gets shit-faced. She walks home alone and takes a shortcut through an unlit park. Someone follows her, drags her into the bushes and rapes her. It's causally relevant that she was pissed and walked home alone through the unlit park. After all, had she been sober and got a taxi home with friends, she wouldn't have been raped. In a moral sense, though, that doesn't matter. Not one iota. The most morally significant part in the chain of cause and effect is that someone decided to take advantage of her vulnerability and rape her.

In a similar way, Jo Cox's politics were casually but not morally relevant. They were causally relevant because someone espousing a very different political vision wouldn't have been targeted (does anyone think Mair would have gone after someone like Andrea Leadsom if she'd been his MP?). But her politics had no moral relevance. Only an imbecile would hold her in any way responsible for what happened. Obviously the most morally significant element is Thomas Mair thinking it's okay to viciously murder someone on the basis of a political disagreement.

Perhaps the analogies needlessly overcomplicated the point, but the intention absolutely wasn't to shift any blame to her. Hope that's clear now.

I don't agree with the arbitrary separation of politics and philosophy, or rather the turn towards a positivist politics and an abstract, mystified philosophy. It's folly to attempt separate the two, especially when we're dealing with an event that symbolically challenged a grand narrative that for the most part is still hegemonic, i.e. liberal democracy as an emancipatory force. The latter presents itself, as any dominant ideology does, as a common sense position, as something that is basic to the nature of human collectives, despite the fact that its construction and political application is underpinned by centuries of philosophical discourse.

So the political reaction to the Jo Cox murder doesn't locate its value position in the fundamental belief that "a person shouldn't commit murder", culpability existing solely in the autonomous actions of Mair; it identifies Mair as representative of a larger threat to its value system. Viewed in that way, it's difficult to absolve UKIP of any blame when they are part of a socio-political culture that seems intent on rolling back certain enlightenment values. Yeah, they might not invoke people to commit murder, but they help create the conditions for events like that.

 

[johnnytodd]

Do you ever consider just leaving the house and trying to meet women?

No need they come to me mate.

#topshagger

 

[shane]

To be fair, who isn't attracted to an unsuccessful internet forum troll?

 

[johnnytodd]

To be fair, who isn't attracted to an unsuccessful internet forum troll?

Abergas was hard work but he gave in the end.