Comments on: Down with This Sort of Thing

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:22:19 +0000

I believe in discriminationA – saying that different people have different capacities. No-one could fail to agree with that. It’s not the sort of thing where one has to lay one’s beliefs on the table, sonce there’s only one possible belief about this matter.

I don’t believe in discriminationB, treating people worse, or in a derogatory way, because of their shortcomings (or even mere differences) in a particular area. Again, there is only one possible stance here. No-one can fail to believe in A; and no-one should believe in B.

Surely your swearing undermines your intellectual claims?? If youre trying to show that another guy is stupid, it’s not the best strategy??

By: tom p

tom p — Mon, 30 May 2005 15:52:18 +0000

What you’ve written makes it clear that you do agree with intellectual discrimination. Unless this is yet another case where you’re using Shell’s Dictionary Of Made-up Definitions, Understood By Only One Man to define discrimination.
There’s nothing wrong with being discriminating, it’s just when the discrimination is based on inappropriate grounds for the subject, such as skin colour or gender determining the right to vote.
Anyway, my point is that Beyer is, the vast majority of the time, merely pontificating without having done the proper research. If he were an intelligent, well-informed man who didn’t spout mindless bollocks on anything even vaguely related to the content of TV programmes, then no doubt he wouldn’t be focussed on by mediawatchwatch. Indeed, this site would probably have a totally different name. However, he’s a half-witted gobshite constantly providing ill-informed copy for lazy hacks on right-wing rags, who consistently refuse to honestly cover most stories. It’s people like him that make people like you seem foolish, doc, and the sooner you realise that, the better

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 27 May 2005 14:10:32 +0000

I suppose we are meaning different things by ‘discrimination’. I didnt think that there could be any question that different ppl have different intellectual abilities. To say this is not to be discriminatory, but to state a fact. Those who know more about a topic should obviously be the ones to adjudicate about that topic.
But we should also encourage ppl to make the most of whatever level of ability they have, great, medium, or small. (Incidentally, the way to do so is usually to engage in the necessary research rather than to pontificate in a taxi-driver manner!!!)

By: tom p

tom p — Thu, 26 May 2005 12:34:27 +0000

“More research, less gut reaction is a good rule of thumb”
Exactly. Unfortunately, Beyer seems to believe that it’s better the other way round, which would explain why he’s always firing his mouth off unnecessarily with ill-thought through phrases that betray his idiocy.
Frankly the world could do with fewer ignorant bogmouths like Beyer, or at least fewer of his comments.
I thought you were a meritocrat. Surely that position is precisely aligned with one of intellectual discrimination

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 26 May 2005 09:40:25 +0000

(a) I dont agree with intellectual discrimination – I think ppl should do the best they can with the intellectual tools at their disposal, and am grateful when they do. More research, less gut reaction is a good rule of thumb. Few of us always keep to it.
(b) In fact, I tend to agree with at least 70% of what he writes.

By: tom p

tom p — Wed, 25 May 2005 17:17:25 +0000

You cited his dress sense as an indication of his lacking guile and not being worldy wise, in order to defend him from my charges of being a cynical liar, a hypocrite and asensationalist.
I have merely pointed out that this argument doesn’t hold water.
I have a feeling that it’s not easy being you, because you seem offended at a vast number of every day things and you are too trusting of liars who call themselves christians.
All I’m trying to do is to get you to agree that you reckon Beyer’s an idiot who does more harm than good to your cause.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 25 May 2005 12:19:01 +0000

ok – but ultimately should we be reading too much into the fact that he is wearing a suit and tie? Loads of people wear a suit and tie. He would probably be criticised more if he didnt (the last time I saw him was by the Cenotaph – memories of Michael Foot & the donkey jacket). Personally I couldnt care less what he looks like. But anyway, of all the things to over-analyse!…
Censorious – not the right word. I prefer to point out facts, and leave others to draw the implications (including implications that possibly the status quo has been wrong, and change may be needed) for themselves.
The way you are speaking one would think I was a follower of the guy – whom Ive never really met (I guess we have spoken on the phone – possibly even in real life exchanged a couple of words? I cant remember.) I am strongly linked to him, as I am to others, in one way – we agree that there are certain things that demand activism – and we agree on what many of those things are. I have no idea about any of the rest of his life or attitudes.
Why isnt it easy being me? I dont find it too difficult. Is the implication that it is easy to follow the crowd, and hard not to? If so, I disagree in my own case (since I have always found both equally easy) – but agree in the case of many others, since peer pressure is indeed powerful.
But in that case we are agreeing that ppl are often influenced by peer pressure and/or just follow the crowd. Isnt that what Ive been saying all along? People often hold views for reasons of convention, nationality, culture, etc.. None of which is a good reason for holding a view.

By: tom p

tom p — Wed, 25 May 2005 09:12:12 +0000

re above: Oh Christopher, I do try to be nice and understanding towards you. I know it can’t be easy being you. I try not to use perjorative terms like gullibles, but then you go and put your faith and trust in men like John Beyer. A man who looks like a cross between John Reginald Christie and a dodgy estate agent, a man who feels it is his solemn duty to pontificate uninformedly and unintelligently on anything at all even vaguely connected with the media, even if it happens to be union action at the bbc, which is clearly way off his organisations’s self-declared remit.
I understand that you share a number of his views, especially the censorious ones, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t recognise him for what he is: a charlatan and an idiot, who makes those of you who defend him look fooish with almost his every spittle-flecked outburst. C’mon, doc, renounce the false prophet John of Beyer, for his way leads down a path of mockery and intellectual backwardness.

By: tom p

tom p — Wed, 25 May 2005 08:53:53 +0000

Now who’s pretending to have access to his inner feelings and motives?
Busybodies have been recognised in all forms of communities, whether close or disparate. In fact, I’d suggest that these close communities are more likely to have people interfering in others’ business and being busybodies, however they also have the benefits you cite – they’re just different sides of the same coin.
…
Earlier (comment 22, and again in comment 24) you cited Beyer’s dress sense as a reason for trusting the man. In his pictures on the meejahwatch website he’s always pictured wearing a shirt and tie, often also a suit jacket. Have you never seen what politicians wear? Or lawyers? Or accountants? Or con men? Clothes may not maketh the man, but I find anyone who wears a coloured shirt with a white collar to be an untrustworthy spivvy sort of character, city wideboy style. Those shirts are not particularly old-fashioned, they are just bad and are a good sign that the wearer is vain, venal and stupid.
Also, he doesn’t dress “without guile”, indeed, by wearing a business shirt and tie for his picture (albeit in terrible taste), he’s deliberately trying to convey an image of respectability and a businesslike manner, as though he’s official and competent, rather than officious and incompetent.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 24 May 2005 09:06:25 +0000

I suppose he comes from a background of close communities where the term ‘busybody’ is not recognised, but rather it is taken for granted that ppl will seek one another’s wellbeing. And close communities are a higher development of civilisation than the anarchy of everybody minding his or her own business – not to mention being a less dull or gloomy lifestyle.