Godwin’s law strikes again:
What is more worrying, however, is that an appendage of the state is now a matter of national pride. Daniel Hannan has been called a “traitor”. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what national socialism looks like.
Sara goes on to insist that by “national socialism” she was not, of course, referring to Nazism. Surely any rational person would assume she was referring to all the other ideologies that espouse national socialism. You know, the ones which we refer to as “neo-Nazis.” So, not invoking Godwin’s law at all then, clearly.
UPDATE: I should make it clear that I am referring to the author of the above referred to Liberal Vision article, Sara Scarlett and not Sara Bedford or indeed any other Sara.
Oh dear. Charlotte was right, you are a bully.
I was genuinely referring to the conflation of nationalism and socialism – something I think is a worrying prospect. But what do I know I’m not in a long term relationship with an appendage of the state.
That counts as bullying?!
And this coming from the person who redefined bullying and harrassment in an internal election?
No this doesn’t – your general attitude and aggression towards someone you’ve never met counts as bullying.
And you have no idea what happened in the LY elections but you’ve made up your mind on the fact that I’m on the “other side” it must have been me that’s to blame.
Considering when LV asked to debate SLF you guys said: no – it’s extremely petty for you to accuse me of killing debate don’t you think?
Just because I’ve never met anyone it doesn’t mean I can’t criticise them. Where’s the aggression?
I have a pretty fair idea what happened in the LY elections and from the outset was pretty open minded about who should win. Indeed, I was if anything biased against the incumbant. But you didn’t need to be biased to see what sort of campaign you were running.
Well no offense but you have come across as extremely aggressive – maybe you should watch your tone a bit more.
I have never run a campaign before and there were so many factors that were beyond my control. You didn’t see half of it.
I don’t have a tone when I type.
Well made point. Anybody who writes “this is what national socialism looks like” and then is astonished when people think they were referring to the Nazis is being disingenuous.
But what a most bizarre claim that patriotism can not be attached to appendages of the state without being “national sociialist” or quasi-fascist. What an odd reading of history.
That would seem to cover any Monarchy, and would make make both Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria socialists, but would surely also apply just as much to constitutional patriotism of the German Federal Republic or US republican varieties as to imperialist patriotisms. Out too with flags, anthems, armies, national sports teams which are publicly funded and historical varieties of patriotism which have taken many different conservative, liberal and social democratic forms as always either fascist (or socialist).
So this just sounds like a libertarian version of student Trot militantism, where ‘the state’ and ‘fascist’ become synonyms.
Rather than making that distinction, I would have thought libertarians would be better placed to oppose patriotism in general as irrational – ie preferring your country because it is yours. This could prove non-utility maximising for those who live in textbooks. I assume the libertarian utopia would have no flag, anthem or borders.
Ok – I’ve taken out the offending references, however, the conflation of national pride and a socialist appendage of the state still disgusts me and otherwise I stand by what I’ve written.
I genuinely thought people could distinguish but I have, indeed, been proven wrong. I was not being disingenuous at all – just naive.
Just remember that Liberal Vision can’t ever concede defeat if SLF never agree to debate.
Bloody hell. You’ve deleted all the references without a clear reference to the original offending words? What is this? Stalin’s Russia!???!
No, this is Stalin’s blog apparently…
If you think that was a comment “without tone” you are sadly mistaken.
Type doesn’t have a tone, whether you insist on it or not.
And I don’t airbrush the past. When I cock up, I acknowledge it instead of covering up.
But I have acknowledged it. I removed the statement that had caused offense – I’m writing this as an acknowledgment of such. If something is causing offense you don’t repeat it and cause more offense.
What you do is keep the original text and publish an update by way of explanation/apology. Optionally, you can strikethrough the offending text.
Deleting it means that you can later claim that you never made the mistake and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar. That is the sort of thing the BBC gets up to. It is sad that Liberal Vision has a similar editorial policy.
Is it me or is anyone else struggling to see how this is “bullying?” – sounds like somebody is desperate. Just apologise when you make a mistake, you dont need to go labelling people a “bully” first. All the writer was doing was pointing attention to your utterly offensive and, to put it bluntly, purely stupidity. I cannot think of a person who is interested in politics who is unaware of the birthplace of National Socialism and indeed what the connotations to referring to it are.
And Sara – everyone knows what happened in the LY election, after your utterly embarrassing stunt you pulled at Spring conference. Utterly, Utterly, pathetic. I hope people dont get the impression from her that this is what all young people are like in politics.
So, anybody who supports the NHS is a Nazi, Anybody that refuses to debate with you is killing debate and anybody who criticises your views is a bully?
Sara, you are an embarrassment.
On the contrary, Liberal Vision seeks to respond and react to people’s concerns. If something on the LV blog is causing offense then it is my solemn duty to remove it at once.
I would never claim that I had not written the offending sentence as that would be disingenuous although I will claim that it’s meaning has been misconstrued! As it clearly has been. And I can hardly deny it as it is posted valiantly on your blog, a beacon of transparency and openness, for all to see.
Keep up the good work James!! have a nice day ^_^
Sara, you just called James a bully on a public forum. Before you run away I think you owe him a full and frank apology.
On the subject of running away, please run away – in the direction of the Conservatives, Labour or one of the other lot. You are an absolute disgrace.
No, Martin, anyone who conflates the two ideologies of socialism and nationalism are socialist nationalists which is what my point originally was.
James accused me on twitter of “killing debate” which I found ironic since SLF refused point blank to debate with LV. And it was the tone with which James was criticising me was what I felt made him a bully but since type doesn’t have tone I am clearly mistaken. Oh well. Back to Libertarian land. ^_^
Poorly chosen words – nationalist socialism may be better.
So much of this is very nasty nationalism, even from normally non-nationalistic LibDems.
It is the natural outcome of any state socialism, even in the relatively low level we have in the UK.
I have had enough of these people and their lying claims to be not just “liberals” but the only true liberals. My gasket blew when I found one of them denouncing as evil socialism and a modern abandonment of what our 19th century forefathers stood for policies which – with a little investigation – I showed actually to be at the forefront of 19th century Liberal Party campaiging.
I have not wanted to take this line before, but now I seriously consider it. These people are wrecking our chances – we who want to push this party forward and build on the anger people are feeling now at how the money-men have taken control and so damaged true liberal democracy are constantly having to fight this rearguard battle against this well-funded fifth column within our party who are fighting for the money-men. If there is a clean way we can expel them, we should do so. They are clearly against what our party says it is for in the pre-amble of its constitution, that is sufficient grounds.
“No, Martin, anyone who conflates the two ideologies of socialism and nationalism are socialist nationalists which is what my point originally was.”
I suppose that socialist nationalists are not national socialists in the same way that Liberal Conservatives are not the same as Conservative Liberals then?
Sara
You say that if anything on the Liberal Vision blog causes offence it is your solemn duty to remove it. Well your personal attack on me causes offence. Some may say it is bullying. It certainly has no relevance to the stated aims of the organisation. So you had better perform your solemn duty.
P.S. How do you become ‘Director of Development’ for 3 fruit loops in a baked bean tin? It sounds a very impressive job title. Do you have any Executive Vice Presidents jobs going?