8 ms·

It's not an ad hominem attack to suggest someone is a member of Momentum, if they are proud of being so. The author certainly thinks extremely highly of Corbyn

by jpz 9y ago

It's not an ad hominem attack to suggest someone is a member of Momentum, if they are proud of being so. The author certainly thinks extremely highly of Corbyn and McDonnell, and very lowly of Cameron, Thatcher, Tories, as well as "so-called New Labour" (to quote them.) Thus my entirely reasonable guess they have a rather specific political affiliation.

contravariant 9y ago
Rather than simply noting that the author has a political opinion, perhaps you can try to explain why you think the author's opinion is wrong?
- jpz 9y ago
  I didn't feel the author's opinion was wrong, I felt the article was far-left poppycock. The very subheading "The catastrophic fire that killed at least 80 in London was the inevitable byproduct of an ideology that vilified the poor" is so extravagant, that I felt the best criticism of it was that it was clearly political writing, and not reportage. The causes of Grenfell, as other commenters note in this article, are complex: 1) dated fire regulations poorly applied 2) some errors in judgement of perceived risk I would posit - just the same as there is lowered perceived risk of ruin in financial bubbles - there has clearly been cognitive errors in the understanding of the risk of this cladding and general understanding of fire risk. For instance, it's the case this cladding has also been widely applied in Australia, and post-Grenfell they are hurrying to take it down. I don't conclude Australia is in the grip of "an ideology that villified the poor" in using this cladding, rather, cognitive errors in the perception of risk have occurred. 3) the council's economic behaviour - they were squeezing costs on refurbishment costs, a cost control exercise was also participated in by the housing body for the building, many of whom are not Tories, and some of which were nominees from the resident's association Thus, saying it is "the byproduct of an ideology which vilified the poor", and then quoting housing policy of the last 20 years, referencing modern affordability issues (irrelevant to the history of construction and maintenance of Grenfell), throwing in "Cameron", "Thatcher", "New Labour" - all of whom post-date the shoddy and cheap construction of this one-tower-well building - just appears to be the far-left grinding their same-old axes. Rather than debate the article point by point, which other commenters do, it strikes me that the more interesting observation to make is that the author speaks with an underlying voice. While my comment may appear to be an appeal to ridicule, to me, Stalinists are hopeless to debate, as are most people with fixed ideological positions. McDonnell and Corbyn whom are the only politicians paid respect in this article, whom were very vocal supporters of Chavez and Maduro for tearing down the state, and also have a long history with Stalin.

by jpz 9y ago

contravariant 9y ago

Rather than simply noting that the author has a political opinion, perhaps you can try to explain why you think the author's opinion is wrong?

jpz 9y ago
I didn't feel the author's opinion was wrong, I felt the article was far-left poppycock. The very subheading "The catastrophic fire that killed at least 80 in London was the inevitable byproduct of an ideology that vilified the poor" is so extravagant, that I felt the best criticism of it was that it was clearly political writing, and not reportage. The causes of Grenfell, as other commenters note in this article, are complex: 1) dated fire regulations poorly applied 2) some errors in judgement of perceived risk I would posit - just the same as there is lowered perceived risk of ruin in financial bubbles - there has clearly been cognitive errors in the understanding of the risk of this cladding and general understanding of fire risk. For instance, it's the case this cladding has also been widely applied in Australia, and post-Grenfell they are hurrying to take it down. I don't conclude Australia is in the grip of "an ideology that villified the poor" in using this cladding, rather, cognitive errors in the perception of risk have occurred. 3) the council's economic behaviour - they were squeezing costs on refurbishment costs, a cost control exercise was also participated in by the housing body for the building, many of whom are not Tories, and some of which were nominees from the resident's association Thus, saying it is "the byproduct of an ideology which vilified the poor", and then quoting housing policy of the last 20 years, referencing modern affordability issues (irrelevant to the history of construction and maintenance of Grenfell), throwing in "Cameron", "Thatcher", "New Labour" - all of whom post-date the shoddy and cheap construction of this one-tower-well building - just appears to be the far-left grinding their same-old axes. Rather than debate the article point by point, which other commenters do, it strikes me that the more interesting observation to make is that the author speaks with an underlying voice. While my comment may appear to be an appeal to ridicule, to me, Stalinists are hopeless to debate, as are most people with fixed ideological positions. McDonnell and Corbyn whom are the only politicians paid respect in this article, whom were very vocal supporters of Chavez and Maduro for tearing down the state, and also have a long history with Stalin.