Saw someone the other day saying Labour is the only party that will acknowledge that trade offs exist, but also that they keep picking the side of the trade off guaranteed to annoy their voters, which seemed like a pithy summary of politics.
EDIT: I see we’re once again failing the simple reading comprehension test.
You’re merely a conspicuously belligerent example of the problem.
I’m not the one writing opinion pieces in a national newspaper that in the headline generalise the entire left movement, and sums up it will achieve very little.
If you can’t see how that’s divisive and puts people off giving up their time to read then I don’t know what else to say.
No. It says a wealth tax will achieve little. Not that the left will achieve little. Please read… at all. The author is leftwing and obviously does not believe that the characterisation is insulting, or he would be insulting himself!
You are being over-sensitive by letting a generalisation upset you. And, yes, it is upsetting you, because your entire reaction to this has been to hurl insults and imagine ways to be offended. I am doing you a favour by assuming this is not how you behave when you’re not upset.
You can argue what you perceive the title to say all you want but I think the downvotes speak for themselves. Both to the post and your comments (and I haven’t downvoted your comments, only the post).
Without knowing the ins and outs of every author’s politics it’s impossible to judge their headline in the context that you’re trying to give. Are you perhaps Aditya? Is that why you’re defending this piece so much within the comments?
When you result to personal attacks that a headline is somehow upsetting me because I’m being oversensitive it’s perhaps time to do some reflection on the point you’re actually trying to get across. I’ve had a lovely day in the snow and just got home from a walk, I’m not upset.
This is just bad journalism that is being rejected by the community, a generally very left wing community.
I really didn’t think I’d have to defend the proposition ‘You should actually read things’ today, but here we are.
While procrastinating between studies I have now read it, and it’s as shit as the title implies.
“I know better than every leftist in the UK, from politicians of different flavours, to journalists, to unions, and they’re all gonna fuck it” was my takeaway.
What a hopeless energy vampire.
“Please! No! Don’t tax the lord billionaires! That won’t work. What about that granny whose house has quadrupled in value while she’s lived in it and made it her home? Let’s plunder her first! Forget that it’s not actually worth anything until it’s sold and is currently being used for its intended purpose of being a home. That’ll get the votes we need to raise funds for public services again. There’s absolutely no way this could backfire. You see, the poor billionaire capitalist class aren’t actually that rich and taxing them will raise nothing compared to taxing the wealthy working class!”
I feel I have to return to my earlier point that it would be beneficial to learn to read things, with which you disagree, without becoming upset.
I feel I have to return to my earlier point that if you have to resort to patronising ad hominem instead of the substance of what we’re discussing then you need to do some self reflection.
Perhaps start with reading the sidebar of your own instance.
Does it say ‘It is forbidden to advise people to read mild disagreements without getting upset’?