Some colonial upstart ruined the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race by swimming out into the Thames to disrupt the race. He claims it is a political protest to draw attention to the continuing concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few throughout western societies, including the 'global' order they have created.
Now, I was rather disappointed with this particular response from the UK press:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ssism.html
Is this journalist stupid or is she deliberately trying to misrepresent the colonial uppstart?
The upstart wrote on his website the reasons he did what he did. But the journalist, Melaine Phillips can only attack his character by insinuating he is motivated by jealousy. Her article is the less inspired political commentary I have read for quite some time.
Is this low standard typical of contempory UK journalists or is she just spouting propoganda to support her perceived political interests?
It's the Daily Mail what do you expect? (If you're Americana it's our version of fox 'news')
I have mixed feelings about Trenton Oldfield on one hand what he did was incredibly selfish, on the other hand at least he stood up for what he believed in.
I'm not American, I'm another of those colonial upstarts. But there isn't a great deal of difference between the two anyway.
Ok, so the news paper is a waste of space. I'm relieve to here that this 'journalist' isn't typical of UK journalism in general. I am enjoying the process of destroying whatever credibility she has, so I'm continue with that.
So, she argues that Oldfield has no credibility sue to his socio-economic background. She follows through to tar Gilmore with the same brush. Is she correct in asserting that only someone from a disadvantaged socio-economic background can protest about the concentration of power in the hands of the few? Now, let's look at history and also anologous situations.
Is it impossible for a man to object to men's sexism toward women. Or can only women object to it? Can a white person object to white racism against a black person? Or can only black people object to it? Since males often make a fuss objecting to sexism against women these days, and plenty of white people object to racism against blacks (no doubt Melenie has done so herself) then I fail to see why it is not possible for a person from a rich background to object to the excesses of his class.
Ok, history. Now Karl Marx was an educated man. Few of the lower classes, the common people had much of an education at all in the mid 19th century. I guess Melenie, in her wisdom, would dismiss Karl Marx' sencerity in objecting to the plight of the industrial poor as inhumane. Of course Melenie, self styled poltical commentator at the daily mail, has such insight into these matters that we must accept old Karl was only looking for attention.
I reject complete her argument that Oldfield lacks creditiblity due to his background. Infact I would expect the spearhead of opposition to upper class excess to come from younger, idealistic members of that class who happen to also have a conscience. The commoners have neither the time nor the quality of education (in terms of critical thinking) to be likely to start the resistance. They do come on board if there is real issues preventing them from getting on with their lives without undue interference from the nobility.
I think that will do for the time being. I can say at this point Melanie's arguement is looking pretty weak. It is a emotive and poorly thought out attack on the character of the colonial upstart. She has completely failed to address a single one of his claims. If she was to debunk his political arguments one by one, then I might be able to take her a little more seriously. However I suspect she lacks the intellectual aptitude to do this.
It's seems quite reasonable to dismiss this man out of hand to me.
Plus I agree, it's just jealousy.
People are smarter than him. Better looking than him. More respected than him.
Richer than him. More powerful than him.
And rather than attempt to better himself, he chose to try and ruin other peoples efforts to better themselves.
He just wants to bring everyone down to his level. Plus get his 15 minutes of course.
A forgetable clown. Nothing more. Certainly not someone who's political "issues" I would be in a rush to take seriously, or indeed even find out about.
That's the thing about the Daily Mail, they may over sensationalise stories, they may take things out of context to put forward their own agendas to the point of being misrepresentative of the actual events they are reporting....
But ultimately, their agenda's are wholesome and decent. Which is why they sell so many newspapers. Because they know the difference between right and wrong and people out there want to hear the voice of commonly shared morality instead of all the constantly carping fringe mentalities who's extremism/radicalism gets them undue domination in the sensationalism seeking media.
Lets all ignore the opinions shared by the silent millions in favour of some freak who swam in the Thames in front of loads of TV crews.
All the whackos hate the voice of popularism. The opinion of the average man. OOO how they hate it.
OOO how it riles them. The Daily Mail! LMAO.
I think it because it reminds them that they are whack jobs and not regular humans with a commonly shared morality like the rest. You know.... jealous.
Last edited by Baff on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the article:
MELANIE PHILLIPS wrote:
The author clearly hasn't watched "Yes, Minister" nor knows a thing about Australian history.
Yes, the LSE is SO elitist compared to Oxford or Cambridge.
The same thing goes for a country founded on top of convicts.
The fight against meritocracy strikes yet again.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
A privileged brat disrupts other privileged brats, whoop-de-doo, tell me something interesting.
"We fight for and against not men and things as they are, but for and against the caricatures we make of them."
"What are these crazy questions that they're asking of me?"
See, the thing I find odd about your argument, Baff, and the argument of this 'journalist' is that there is an obvious contridiction in your reasoning.
One the one hand Melanie argures that idealistic youths from affulent backgrounds can't possibly be taken seriously when protesting the inequities of the sytem, but then, one the hand you both say such people are motivated by jealousy.
Given Oldfield and Gilmore enjoy such priviledged lives, exactly what are they jealous off? And what do you mean "bring down to his level". He's a rich kid. I think saying bringing people up to his leave might be a better account of his thinking.
You can't have it both ways. They can't be both elites and jealous of elites. That makes no sense.
I don't consider this swimming bloke to be a member of an elite. Is his daddy rich? Who cares? Not me.
I'm not intrested in this blokes political message at all. To me he's just a comedy twat.
I'm not intrested in how priviledged your life or anyone elses has been. Sorry.
That's not my personal bugbear.
I've had a priviledged upbringing myself and I'm proud of it.
Jealousy is jealousy. Steve Jobs was pretty priviledged but he was still jealous of Bill Gates. it doesn't matter who you are or where you come form in life, it doesn't even matter how much you have achieved. Someone is always doing better than you.
By bring down to his level, I mean to the level of a counterproductive, disruptive, antagonistic, malcontented, self centred twat.
There are as many different elites as their are groups of people. Not just one elite.
You can easily be a member of Elite A and be jealous of a member of Elite B.
I read though his well articulated rant and couldnt make much sense of it. Lines like the above are just annoying.
Elites will always exist and quite right too.
Who, Melanie the journalist, that's who. Did you read her article?
You both argue this fellow is motivated by sometihng other than what he claims to be his reasons. I take this as mearly an attempt to discredit someone with a message you'd rather people didn't hear.
Now, it is so that we tend to understand someone else's actions through our own way of thinking. So, were we jealous people, and lacked the capacity to see another way of thinking, then we might attribute Oldfield's actions to jealous, were we ourselves consumed and driven by such a state of mind. We might lack the insight to understand that someone else might be motivated by some other idea, like a moral conscience, or a concern for the welbeing of our fellow men. A man consumed by jealous would be quite incapable of understanding these more sociable states of mind.
You know, it just might be the case that Oldfield, and indeed Gilmore actually have ideals beyond mere material attainment, ideals of a more socially minded nature that they strive to achieve. Afterall not everyone in the elite is a small minded, self centred Ebenezer Scrooge.
No mate of course I didn't read her article. It was about that plum who jumped in front of the boats wasn't it?
I couldn't care less what this bloke claims.
I don't know who Oldfield is but Mr Gilmore junior is just some angsty teen having some rebellion.
A prat. Not some bloke with a serious political message.
His biggest mistake in life seems to have been having a famous father.
National & Regional Politics