Nick Cohen doesn’t like to tolerate dissent does he?


by Sunny
22nd February, 2010 at 8:22 pm    

So much for Nick Cohen and Martin Bright’s willingness to debate and handle opposing points of view – they’ve thrown me off and banned me from the Facebook group supporting Gita Sahgal. My crime? I pointed out that Salman Rushdie had no right to speak of “moral bankruptcy” given his support of Polanski. My comment was deleted and I was banned. So much for toleration of dissent eh. I only ban people here who come merely to abuse me; I didn’t swear once on the FB group.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Humour






51 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: Nick Cohen doesn't like to tolerate dissent does he? http://bit.ly/8Z4U4z


  2. Neil Robertson

    The things grumpy old men do RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Nick Cohen doesn't like to tolerate dissent does he? http://bit.ly/8Z4U4z


  3. Mr Omneo

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Nick Cohen doesn't like to tolerate dissent does he? http://bit.ly/8Z4U4z


  4. Naadir Jeewa

    Nick Cohen bans @pickledpolitics frm FB group 4 stating Rushdie's hypocrisy in supporting Polanski & condemning Amnesty http://bit.ly/cUHxYV


  5. Luke McGee

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Nick Cohen doesn't like to tolerate dissent does he? http://bit.ly/8Z4U4z


  6. Mike Power

    Hundal gets a taste of his own, intolerant, medicine. http://bit.ly/bTMadR




  1. Oranjepan — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:33 pm  

    so let me add a dissenting view…

    …you prejudged Rushdie’s case according to a different matter and didn’t take the facts as they were presented.

    That is not conducive to a productive outcome. As is endless dissent.

    Dissent is only one part of the political process. If the debate does not move on from dissent then it spirals around endlessly and causes destruction wherever it goes.

    Which is why LC’s increasing polemicism is progressively isolating itself from the mainstream and losing you influence.

    Unfortunaely I don’t think you are capable of reconciling yourself to reality and you will therefore probably not accept this analysis.

    I think you need a break from the groupthink to help you reengage with what’s what.

  2. Dave Weeden — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:37 pm  

    I had noticed that you were a member of that group – or I deduced as much as I saw a comment by you (there can only be one Sunny). It did make me wonder if there were others who joined for the wrong reasons…

    I think one of the things Nick Cohen complains about (though he doesn’t name it as such) is a ‘reverse racism’ of the left. White lefties, according to NC, give Moazzam Begg a free pass because he’s black innit? Plucky Gita Sahgal is under no such illusions.

    However, you can’t criticise St Salman! He is above criticism. Likewise Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Strange how we often have the faults we see in others…

  3. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:39 pm  

    Which is why LC’s increasing polemicism is progressively isolating itself from the mainstream and losing you influence.

    On the contrary our readership is expanding massively.

    The right-wing blogs esp Guido have been aggressively partisan for years, why isn’t the same bizarre argument made of them?

    Thanks for your concern anyway.

    Added: Also, you clearly haven’t been reading the ‘mission series’ on LC where I explain what the site is about and who it is aimed at. That’s fine – I’m used to people calling the waambulance on how partisan LC is. But to try and pretend it’s losing readers is hilarious.

  4. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:42 pm  

    However, you can’t criticise St Salman! He is above criticism. Likewise Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    Ahh yes. If you criticise Hirsi Ali you’re obviously shacking up with the Taliban and endorsing FGM, don’t you know!

  5. septicisle — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:50 pm  

    lol facebook

  6. Shatterface — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:58 pm  

    You joined a Facegroup set up to support a feminist suspended from AI just to slag off her supporters – in a word, to troll – and you got chucked out.

    Start your own Facebook group and see what kind of people rally to your cause.

  7. MaidMarian — on 22nd February, 2010 at 9:23 pm  

    Is it just me or is the internet having a dumbing-down effect?

  8. swift — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:29 pm  

    You should be glad. There are some clubs Id be glad not to be a member of.

  9. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:45 pm  

    By that definition shatterface – I should have banned you from my blogs ages ago. Right?

    I wasn’t troll in fact – I merely posted links that challenged the consensus. I pointed out Salman Rushdie’s hypocrisy. It’s your mates who couldn’t even handle that.

  10. cnn — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:48 pm  

    “So much for Nick Cohen and Martin Bright’s willingness to debate and handle opposing points of view – they’ve thrown me off and banned me from the Facebook group supporting Gita Sahgal.”

    but you keep doing the exact same thing here, you just deleted my last comment, and I’m sure this one will vanish within minutes as you stare over the comments section with the wide eyes of a starved owl. lol

  11. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:52 pm  

    but you keep doing the exact same thing here,

    As I said if you come here to swear that’s what will happen to you. I wasn’t doing that at the FB group.

    And there’s no reason why I should pay for hosting your comments.

  12. cnn — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

    i didnt swear – and you have a track record of deleting perfectly decent comments just because they dismantle your arguments, I’ve seen it before. I am just pointing out the hypocricy of this post, that’s all. have the decency and intellectual honesty to allow that

  13. Andy Gilmour — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

    Guess it’s inevitable, but still a damn shame – here comes an election, the petty tribalisms get ramped-up on every side, and the cacophony of knee-jerking on so many issues drowns out the faint, far-off sounds of evidence-based, rational debate…

    *sigh*

    ach well, ’twas ever thus. Just much more so with internet opportunities.

    See y’all after the votes have been counted.

  14. cnn — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:55 pm  

    also Sunny, its you who uses shocking language on the comments thread – you often write f+ck and c@nt

  15. dawn — on 22nd February, 2010 at 10:59 pm  

    Sunny – you deleted my comments before. I asked you questions, instead of answering you deleted. I did not swear. Nor abuse you. I didn’t even criticize you. I posed questions. However, they were questions which challenged you. And you did not like it. So you deleted my comment. Right?

    So please don’t try and claim the moral high ground on this one. It makes you look hypocritical.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this comment got deleted as well.

  16. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2010 at 11:09 pm  

    I asked you questions, instead of answering you deleted. I did not swear. Nor abuse

    Rubbish. You were swearing all over the place. Too bad I empty out the trash or I’d have pointed out the different names you use etc.

  17. persephone — on 22nd February, 2010 at 11:13 pm  

    am surprised at the commenters who say their reasoned comments are deleted but they still return to comment?

  18. dawn — on 22nd February, 2010 at 11:14 pm  

    You have got to be kidding me. I am not even going to bother arguing with you Sunny. Its pointless as you clearly make stuff up.

  19. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2010 at 11:16 pm  

    Yeah, ok. I have people criticising me or asking me questions here every day. I purposely targeted you just for a laugh…

  20. Brownie — on 22nd February, 2010 at 11:16 pm  

    Why are you a member of a FB group supporting Sahgal? Do you want her to be reinstated?

  21. Dr Aisha Gill — on 22nd February, 2010 at 11:18 pm  
  22. soru — on 23rd February, 2010 at 1:00 am  

    Is it just me or is the internet having a dumbing-down effect?

    I think it is more a matter of revealing pre-existing stupidities.

  23. Shatterface — on 23rd February, 2010 at 1:22 am  

    ‘By that definition shatterface – I should have banned you from my blogs ages ago. Right?’

    I was mocking your usual ‘Who cares if I can’t play for shit, it’s my ball and you’re not playing bwah bwah’ style of argument.

    ‘I wasn’t troll in fact’

    Nope, you were trolling all right, by any meaningful definition. You were sat under a bridge, waiting for billy goats.

    ‘ – I merely posted links that challenged the consensus. I pointed out Salman Rushdie’s hypocrisy. It’s your mates who couldn’t even handle that.’

    You were indulging in blatant ‘whatabouttery’ – and believe it or not Rushdie and Cohen aren’t mates of mine. I know you like to think that everyone you disapprove of is ganging up on you but I’ve never met either of them, never communicated with either of them in any way and I doubt either of them are even aware of my existence. I certainly wouldn’t attempt to pass myself off as a friend of them just to continue a vendetta against someone else.

  24. Shatterface — on 23rd February, 2010 at 1:34 am  

    Oh, and have you started that Facebook group yet because I’m looking forward to seeing the kind of people who would join.

    We’ve seen the people you don’t like – uppity feminists and writers who have faced death from Islamist loons – so let’s see the friends your vendetta will attract.

  25. Tory — on 23rd February, 2010 at 1:43 am  

    Sunny is such a joker. It was only 2 days ago he wrote about his RIGHT to delete ‘trolls’ here. This is why he’s an amateur and will NEVER understand free speech.

  26. Sunny — on 23rd February, 2010 at 2:05 am  

    It was meant to be sarcastic shatterface – of course I’m aware they don’t know who the hell you are. You’re a troll.

    I was mocking your usual ‘Who cares if I can’t play for shit, it’s my ball and you’re not playing bwah bwah’ style of argument.

    Oh please; spare me the crap. I pointed out Salman Rushdie’s hypocrisy, and one of the regulars who agreed with Cohen et al on the issue actually posted a comment saying she agreed with me and had little authority on the matter. It seems people like you, and your mates Nick Cohen just don’t like it when something uncomfortable is pointed out. You were trying to smear me on LC the other day too and I had to correct you. When will you ever learn shatterface and do something constructive with your time instead of trolling blogs?

  27. Yakoub — on 23rd February, 2010 at 6:50 am  

    >>>>>‘reverse racism’ of the left

    Reminds me of the mindset of people with personality disorders — they think everyone else has a personality disorder. Similarly, many on the right are racists, justifying it to themselves using arguments that wouldn’t fool a 10 year old, and thus assume everyone else is, too. Nick and Martin should simply change the name of their FB group to “Send Begg back to Guantanamo and shut down Amnesty — let US Imperialism triumph”. At least that would be honest.

  28. Sarah AB — on 23rd February, 2010 at 8:17 am  

    I’m a member of the group and also signed the petition – but I didn’t care much for the Rushdie piece and I think the point you make about Polanski is fair enough!

  29. Arif — on 23rd February, 2010 at 8:29 am  

    Dr Aisha Gill’s link (#21) is worth reading for trying to put the argument into a broader context from a feminist perspective. Yakoub, I think you would find it confirms your suspicions about people trying to freeze Begg out of the human rights movement, but it will also show you how your post (#27) confirms Sahgal’s supporters suspicions about people who can’t see the problem and want us all to join a rainbow coalition.

    It is natural to have arguments within human rights movements, within feminist movements and within anti-imperialist movements. Despite this they continue and the movements themselves even often come together, both because people interested in joining one of them are often interested in joining the others too, and also because they have strategic common interests in overcoming hegemonic powers and ideologies which oppose their campaigns.

    The further complexity is when parts of those movements also become part of ruling coalitions in some way. It is interesting how quickly the solidarity sometimes breaks down. Campaigners have to work out how to interpret this: is it that power corrupts, or was the solidarity just a cover for power interests in the first place?

    Nick Cohen has one reaction to this complexity, Gita Sahgal another, and Moazzam Begg has another.

    In general, I think, feminism has developed the most profound critiques of mainstream ways of thinking – which are totalising, dualist, hierarchised etc – offering an alternative to mainstream power games.

    But few of us, least of all campaigners in the cut and thrust of struggles against oppressions, have the luxury of internalising anti-oppressive/pro-feminist ways of thinking and learning to act on that basis. And I think that the result is that we end up reproducing many of the problems we mean to overcome.

    Basically, we find it easier to point to people we disagree with, scapegoat them where we have the power to do so, and get on with our own concerns (which we subconsciously privilege over theirs), than it is to try to empathise and enter a dialogue with others to create space for all of us.

  30. Morrigan — on 23rd February, 2010 at 9:23 am  

    Erm… Sunny I think you complaining about harsh deletions and bans is a bit of the pot calling the kettle non-white.

  31. Trofim — on 23rd February, 2010 at 9:35 am  

    Yacoub @ 27.

    “Reminds me of the mindset of people with personality disorders — they think everyone else has a personality disorder”.

    Only in the Yacoub school of amateur psychiatry. See ICD-10.

  32. MiriamBinder — on 23rd February, 2010 at 9:48 am  

    I think that Arif may well have hit one particular nail very neatly on the head here when s/he posts “the luxury of internalising anti-oppressive/pro-feminist ways of thinking”. The notion that only pro-feminism and anti oppressive are necessarily mutually interchangeable is, from a human perspective, absurd; this becomes only more so when you add “and learning to act on that basis”.

    And before anyone jumps at my throat with the blood-thirsty snarling of a chihuahua, or a bull mastiff for that matter, on heat; no, I am not anti-feminist per se. There is room for specific category thinking. However when it comes to overriding concerns then ‘boxed-in’ thinking needs to give way.

    I cannot help but wonder what the reaction would have been had Begg been female.

  33. Morrigan — on 23rd February, 2010 at 10:04 am  

    Had Begg have been born female she would have had to shut up, cover up and marry her cousin.

    No extremism for her!

  34. MiriamBinder — on 23rd February, 2010 at 10:19 am  

    Nice one Morrigan … you didn’t even have to stop to engage the braincells!

  35. Morrigan — on 23rd February, 2010 at 10:26 am  

    Oh, straight to the ad hominems MB. Touche!

  36. Arif — on 23rd February, 2010 at 10:27 am  

    MiriamBinder – I used “pro-feminist” in my own way of understanding feminism (ie taking what I like from it and ignoring the rest!)

    I’d characterise pro-feminist thinking as being conscious of hierarchised dualisms in our thinking, and questioning the hierarchies.

    These hierarchised dualisms are related not only to gender, but to all kinds of distinctions between people – even those such as between pro-war/anti-war which has made it impossible for people to talk to each other without reducing their identities to simple counter-stories of good v evil.

    When you mention “boxed in” thinking, I interpret this as based on a different understanding of feminism (or focusing on a different kind of feminism), where the interests of women privileged over the interests of other groups. I would consider that as reproducing the hierarchised thinking – just swapping the positions.

    I’m advocating a refusal to play this game. I don’t think that feminist thinking is absurd, but I do think it is difficult, because it goes against what we normally think of as political discussion.

    I understand that not all feminists will agree with my characterisation of feminist thinking, it is a particular “poststructuralist” type of feminism. But I think it is a good one!

  37. Paul Moloney — on 23rd February, 2010 at 10:28 am  

    Jesus Christ, this is the longest hissy fit in history.

    P.

  38. MiriamBinder — on 23rd February, 2010 at 11:26 am  

    Arif, we probably see “pro-feminist” in very similar ways; and I agree with you that hierarchised dualisms are not confined to gender.

    I think that the trouble with any form of hierarchised thinking, pro-feminism being but one aspect of many, is that it is precisely that, hierarchised. Because of that it is only a useful tool in limited and precise situations; though in those situations it is extremely effective.

    I am neither pro- nor anti-feminism … I am pro humanity and in that sense have refused to play the game as you suggest for many a year.

  39. MiriamBinder — on 23rd February, 2010 at 11:29 am  

    @ Morrigan # 35 – If you are going to use specific terms, it helps to know what they mean: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

  40. Cath Elliott — on 23rd February, 2010 at 11:30 am  

    Shatterface

    We’ve seen the people you don’t like – uppity feminists…

    That’s news to me – Sunny, fess up, have you just been pretending to me all these years?

    Thanks for the link Aisha, really interesting piece.

  41. Morrigan — on 23rd February, 2010 at 11:34 am  

    MB, I haven’t looked at your link, sorry.

    Ad hominem refers to playing the wo/man not the ball, which is what you did above. If you had a decent riposte to my Begg comment we’d have heard it by now.

  42. Sunny — on 23rd February, 2010 at 12:19 pm  

    That’s news to me – Sunny, fess up, have you just been pretending to me all these years?

    Cath – shatterface knows me better than I do. Oh the powers of the interwebs! It’s amazing what is possible here…

  43. MiriamBinder — on 23rd February, 2010 at 12:25 pm  

    Morrigan … I’m not surprised. That you haven’t looked at the link that is …

    As I have stated previously, I am not going to be drawn into the Gita Sahgal vis a vis Amnesty International debate.

  44. Blanco — on 27th February, 2010 at 5:24 pm  

    Shatterface tries his best to defecate all over LC and PP threads, but all he does when he pulls down his trousers is expose what a small piece he possesses. Can’t he just be blocked?

  45. Kismet Hardy — on 17th May, 2010 at 3:26 pm  

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.