G20 Protests

[DACrowe]

Just because Leftsoc, SD students and their activist cohorts have a bee in their bonnet about something does not lead to them representing everyone!

Sabbs, union representatives and such attending stuff doesn't mean they're acting in a 'The Union Supports this!'

But these points run together. There must be a 'question of hats' style separation, which a lot of... er... 'left leaning' individuals often fail to recognise. In order that students representatives are freely able to engage in political activity when they aren't working in a representative capacity, when they are working in a representative capacity they need to make a distinction between their political views (anti-globalisation whatever) and their representative remit. I'm fed up with being told that it's always legitimate that someone who has a platform use that platform to express their views, even if their views are unrelated to the nature of the platform they happen to have. It isn't; there are hats, dammit! Hats!

Could we bring up the Kate Kennedy business again? Naturally I think it's fair to say the desire to see charitably inclined exclusive rich folk taking a beating is something everyone can enjoy, but as I understand it the fight now persists in some parts of the students association. While it does fall within the remit of the SA, is it properly consistent with the goals of the SA to be hounding a student organisation merely because it isn't constituted in the manner in which we might like it to be?

[Daniel]

That's the job of debating societies.

It may be a bit late to inform you of this now, but UDS is a subcommittee of the SSC. But don't let that minor issue get in the way of your rant, now.

If it's an e-mail list used to advertise other things then it's fine. If it's for internal messages only then he shouldn't be doing it, unless the G20 thing was supported by the SA, but then they probably shouldn't have been doing that.

If I recall correctly, Sustainability Committee voted to support (by way of publicity) all G20 events that were happening last weekend.

Could we bring up the Kate Kennedy business again?

No, no and no!

Daniel

[DACrowe]

That's the job of debating societies.

It may be a bit late to inform you of this now, but UDS is a subcommittee of the SSC. But don't let that minor issue get in the way of your rant, now.

I'm well aware of that. But so is star radio. Are you saying that the job of students unions qua students unions is to provide quality student radio broadcasting? Besides, if you think the UDS is there as a SA run service for promulgating debate amongst the student body, why don't you suggest to Owen that he run a globalisation debate next term rather than supporting in direct action. Unless you think UDS isn't organising enough protests. I could check our constitution to see whether we're supposed to, if you like.

If it's an e-mail list used to advertise other things then it's fine. If it's for internal messages only then he shouldn't be doing it, unless the G20 thing was supported by the SA, but then they probably shouldn't have been doing that.

If I recall correctly, Sustainability Committee voted to support (by way of publicity) all G20 events that were happening last weekend.

Fair enough. Not a decision I agree with, or one that I think falls within the remit of the SA sustainability committee (university light bulbs yes; fair trade products on sale yes; international trade policy no). But at the level of 'should the RA have done it' the answer is 'yes'.

Could we bring up the Kate Kennedy business again?

No, no and no!

It's a related topic, I would say. Some people say the SA should petition the government to change its trade policy (or whatever the G20 protests are about), some people say it shouldn't go out its way to attack a particular student organisation.

[Jono]

the old truism: "If you're under 30 and conservative you have no heart, if you're over 30 and liberal you have no brain."

A truism is, by definition, true. That quote is not.

A Truism is something that is widely held to be true, irrespective of the actualité.

I have apparently read a version that was incorrectly quoted. I believe a more accurate reflection would be that the young can afford to be more uncompromising and ideological, simply because they have less to lose from the wholesale reform of society. You're still young and (relatively) fit. Fuck it! Whereas the older chap has a vested interest in the status quo. After all, 10, 20, 30 years of pension and NI contributions are of bugger all use once all the investment bankers and unionised nurses have been lined up against the wall!

A lot of student leftists (who ARENT LEADERS, HONEST!) seem to regard themselves as the next Lenin or Trotsky; the gatekeepers of a new, better age (individual lack of charisma, intelligence and general competance at anything other than fucking media studies notwithstanding). On the other side, young Tories are just as tiresomely ideological. Just as vocal in their opposition to criminal charters, indolent, scrounging benefit cheats and all the other symptoms of "Broken Britain" brought on by the Labour government. I should point out that I recently joined the Tory party, after consciously avoiding it in University for this very reason!

Statistically, British Universities are (and, largely, always have been) predominantly politically conservative (little c).

That's an interesting claim. Might we see these statistics? Because I'm calling to mind a political map of the UK and noticing that the top three Universities all vote Liberal (big L). "University students are right wing" certainly isn't perceived wisdom down my way.

Statistically was the wrong word. Actually would be a better one! I'm sure I could find statistics if I Still had the university library on hand. If you disbelieve me, you can read DeGroot. Or go find him in St Katherine's lodge and ask him.

The young have always been predominatly conservative (Although not necessarily right-wing). Its just that the Left Wingers have always been louder, and (in the case of the NUS) better at promoting their narrative (a polite phrase for lying and exaggeration), to the exclusion of their opponents. In the 1960's that haven of New-Left, this was still the case. At that time, The SDS were being refused permits for town halls. In contrast the YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) were booking, and filling Madison Square Gardens! 1968; dawn of the revolution, saw left wing protests in the following British Universities: LSE... And that's it! This, in case you were wondering, is why the St Andrews protests of the last year are barely generating enough "boots on the ground" to fill a Coach. Luckily, bussing in graduates and creative photography are making up for that shortcoming!

I think you're confusing political and social liberalism! From a social perspective, I reckon most of us are probably liberal. And if we're not, the DoES might want to reconsider the format of the BOP. But from a political perspective, you only have to look at the membership figures, and general activity for the main political societies. Speaking from when I was doing this, the Conservative society had an enormous active membership, involved itself in a plethora of activities throughout the year, and even produced an annual journal. In contrast, the Lib Dem society membership was paltry. Their AGM was barely well enough attended to make it quorate. Labour Society is a tough one to measure, insofar as it was off the radar for a fair number of years.

I recall speaking to the Rector about this. At the time, he seemed suprised that so many class reps were defensive against change to class formats. I pointed out that we've all got a vested interest in this university maintaining a rigorous degree standard, else we all look like we graduated from the University of Idiot. If that's not a conservative stance, I don't know what is!

[guest]

You guys might be interested in checking out the Saint's Youtube channel to see footage of the protests. The address is http://www.youtube.com/thesaintonline. They're pretty short videos, but they give a good overview of what went on.

[munchingfoo]

the old truism: "If you're under 30 and conservative you have no heart, if you're over 30 and liberal you have no brain."

A truism is, by definition, true. That quote is not.

A Truism is something that is widely held to be true, irrespective of the actualité.

I ignore your point, and any further points, and I take no sides in saying, you are utterly wrong. A truism is a saying that is so obviously true that it requires no proof. It is similar to a corollary.

Your statement is not a truism.

[RedCelt69]

A Truism is something that is widely held to be true, irrespective of the actualité.

Munchingfoo has already corrected you on this - your definition of a truism is false; a falsism, if you will.

The liberal's liberal, John Stuart Mill published On Liberty at the age of 53. If you believe that he had no brain, then (to borrow a saying from the playground) you smelt it, you dealt it.

the young can afford to be more uncompromising and ideological, simply because they have less to lose from the wholesale reform of society. You're still young and (relatively) fit. Fuck it! Whereas the older chap has a vested interest in the status quo. After all, 10, 20, 30 years of pension and NI contributions are of bugger all use once all the investment bankers and unionised nurses have been lined up against the wall!

There's an element of truth in what you say, but the reasons for a general-inclination towards political conservatism as we grow older has other, more pressing, drives.

The key component is property, a necessary step for nest-building. We settle down with a partner, we buy (or rent) a home, we are committed to paying a mortgage (or rent). At that point, idealism starts to become less attractive. So we settle down to the 9-5 grind, doing our bit to pay the bills, keep our partners contented and providing for our children. At which point, many people get lulled into a false sense of the value of stuff; our self-esteem becomes inexorably connected to the accumulation of possessions - the old "keeping up with the Joneses". At which point, we buy into the social mobility delusion. Working class want to become lower-middle class, lower-middle class want to become middle-middle class and middle-middle class want to become upper-middle class.

As we "climb" these imaginary social steps, we become more conservative and less liberal.

So, whilst there is a tendency - those who don't follow that tendency don't necessarily do so because of a lack of intelligence. It is a matter of perception.

Those who do buy into it… well, they tell themselves that they haven't sold out their ideals - they're just smarter now than they were when they were young. And they come up with conscience-salving sayings (such as your falsism).

Edit: None of which brings into account the natural death of idealism. As we grow older, cynicism kills-off idealism as we realise that the world does not evolve linearly from worse to better. Some things stay the same; others get worse. It takes the passage of time to realise that.

Re-Edit: Now here's someone who hasn't been lulled into a false sense of the value of stuff - Academic pledges to give away £1m

he was happy with his life and did not mind missing out on material wealth in the future.

He's 30 years old.

The young have always been predominatly conservative (Although not necessarily right-wing).

And now, you're simply projecting. Your experiences are not necessarily universal.

[Frank]

In an unexpected move, might I jump in and clear up a misunderstanding? Despite Jono's defence of 'truism', surely it makes a bit more sense as part of a less contentious argument to consider that he mean a maxim, eh?

The other stuff, such as young folks being largely conservative? I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for that, best see a doctor.

[Lukey2]

Although I have no real desire to ignite a "he said, she said" argument, it's worth pointing out that DeGroot is notorious for being so conservative. Again, this is not really an argument, but Mario Aguilar has reportedly called him a fascist. No one is really objective, but it isn't all that surprising that a deeply conservative academic would draw deeply conservative conclusions about student politics.

[jollytiddlywink]

Although I have no real desire to ignite a "he said, she said" argument, it's worth pointing out that DeGroot is notorious for being so conservative. Again, this is not really an argument, but Mario Aguilar has reportedly called him a fascist. No one is really objective, but it isn't all that surprising that a deeply conservative academic would draw deeply conservative conclusions about student politics.

Sorry? DeGroot is notorious for being conservative? I can only surmise that you haven't met him, or taken any of his courses. Wherever I might be inclined to peg him on a political spectrum, it would not be conservative, and it certainly would not be anywhere near fascist.

And before all the far-out fringe people of left and right begin to jump in, may I point out that just because he argues that the student/counter-culture revolution of the sixties (a left-wing phenomenon, mostly among the young) was less influential and important than many people think, DOES NOT mean he had a bias towards student conservatism, or that he attributed the diminished impact of the movement to a previously underestimated student conservatism. All it indicates is greater student apathy than previously thought.

And let's please pause to think before starting to hurl words like 'fascist' around, or indeed Nazi or Commie, etc. Despite the mud-flinging which is popular in politics these days, it is very difficult to find people who are genuinely fascists, regardless of how far right they may be. The same goes for legitimate use of the word 'Nazi', and also, for those on the far left end of the spectrum, for legitimate use of the word Communist. None of these words are simply place-marks on the spectrum of left to right, but are rather labels that identify particular sets of beliefs, practices and methods of organisation, which do not sit easily, if at all, on the conventional left-right span.

[DACrowe]

Statistically was the wrong word. Actually would be a better one! I'm sure I could find statistics if I Still had the university library on hand. If you disbelieve me, you can read DeGroot. Or go find him in St Katherine's lodge and ask him.

Oh well, if DeGroot says it then that's enough for me to completely forgo my own judgment on the matter, thanks.

The young have always been predominatly conservative (Although not necessarily right-wing). Its just that the Left Wingers have always been louder, and (in the case of the NUS) better at promoting their narrative (a polite phrase for lying and exaggeration), to the exclusion of their opponents.

So the argument is 'lefties are a minority, therefore the majority of students are conservative'. I'm afraid I don't accept your 'paradigm'. By which I mean, your bisection is bollocks.

I think you're confusing political and social liberalism!

Funny, I thought you were confusing everything which isn't on the far left-wing with 'conservative'.

From a social perspective, I reckon most of us are probably liberal. And if we're not, the DoES might want to reconsider the format of the BOP.

I think you're confusing 'liberal from a social perspective' and 'social liberalism'.

But from a political perspective, you only have to look at the membership figures, and general activity for the main political societies.

Alright. A: I think this is a stupid way of settling the matter but B: As of this year, the student Liberal Democrats are the largest of the four party political societies. So I guess you're wrong then. As far as activity goes, kudos for producing a journal and all that. The Lib Dems run the Council and have had their candidates returned as MSP and MP for the constituency. But a journal... hey.

I recall speaking to the Rector about this. At the time, he seemed suprised that so many class reps were defensive against change to class formats. I pointed out that we've all got a vested interest in this university maintaining a rigorous degree standard, else we all look like we graduated from the University of Idiot. If that's not a conservative stance, I don't know what is!

If you think that's necessarily a politically conservative stance, then the perceived idiocy of your alma matter should be the least of your worries.

[DACrowe]

In an unexpected move, might I jump in and clear up a misunderstanding? Despite Jono's defence of 'truism', surely it makes a bit more sense as part of a less contentious argument to consider that he mean a maxim, eh?

So we're to treat him as we would someone incapable of using the English language correctly; someone who uses words without any real attention being paid to their meanings? Setting the bar a bit low aren't we?

Even if it were a 'maxim', a 'rule of thumb', an 'aphorism', a 'dictum' or a 'proverb', as has been pointed out there are sufficient salient counterexamples for it not to be very highly regarded. It is more likely it was used, as has been said, by various people across history to justify to themselves their political swinging to the right. Compare; 'third way'.

[DACrowe]

Re-Edit: Now here's someone who hasn't been lulled into a false sense of the value of stuff - Academic pledges to give away £1m

he was happy with his life and did not mind missing out on material wealth in the future.

He's 30 years old.

I remember reading Toby's blog back when he was doing his BPhil. Seems a nice guy taking utilitarianism a bit too far (no one expects philosophers to put their money where their mouths are; that's why you get books like If You're An Egalitarian, Why Are You So Rich (RIP)). He's been doing this 'giving vast sums of money away to charity' gig for years.

[RedCelt69]

no one expects philosophers to put their money where their mouths are

Oooo! I do. I live by mine.

So did Kant. He acknowledged that it wasn't easy, but he fully expected people to live by his philosophy. As far as I'm aware, he lived by his own philosophy. Then again, he lived a dull and (relatively) solitary existence (outside of his day job). A Kantian existence isn't particularly conducive to friendship. Imagine a friend that never told a lie - not even a white lie.

[wild_quinine]

You know, somebody could make an awesome buddy movie with Kant in it. It would be like The Sure Thing, only the Nicollette Sheridan character would have to represent, I don't know, let's say Epicureanism.

[RedCelt69]

You know, somebody could make an awesome buddy movie with Kant in it. It would be like The Sure Thing, only the Nicollette Sheridan character would have to represent, I don't know, let's say Epicureanism.

It would make for a tricky Road Movie. Kant never left his hometown. More like The Truman Show than Thelma & Louise.

Kant & Hume (easier to recreate than an ancient like Epicurus) go on a voyage of discovery... to the local park.

[Frank]

In an unexpected move, might I jump in and clear up a misunderstanding? Despite Jono's defence of 'truism', surely it makes a bit more sense as part of a less contentious argument to consider that he mean a maxim, eh?

So we're to treat him as we would someone incapable of using the English language correctly; someone who uses words without any real attention being paid to their meanings? Setting the bar a bit low aren't we?

Frankly, yes. I think we should. We do it every day. The whole process of contextualising and interpreting conversations, sayings, edicts, decrees and orders is a fascinating bit of human life.

Which is to say: If you accept (and by his defense it looks likely) that he meant something more like maxim then his argument is even more easily dissected by himself. It's not to say he believes the maxim to be true, but simply brings it up as a point.

I'd personally avoid doing that. Much like comparing apples and oranges. I'd more often presume stupidity than malice, to that end. Or rather more loosely: I'd rather presume that someone's argument isn't exactly formatted than take umbridge at its possible implications.

And I'd go further: I think that's the mark of someone thinking about an argument rather than getting uppity about it. But then I would need to ask for some help here, as I could find some difficulty in getting down from this particular high horse.

Even if it were a 'maxim', a 'rule of thumb', an 'aphorism', a 'dictum' or a 'proverb', as has been pointed out there are sufficient salient counterexamples for it not to be very highly regarded. It is more likely it was used, as has been said, by various people across history to justify to themselves their political swinging to the right. Compare; 'third way'.

Quite. But that doesn't mean presuming a person's laxity in word choice is also supposing the person to be a complete idiot. I don't pick words with exacting attention, I'm sure few people do. Rather I've likely been trained to pick ones reasonably the first time round, and then to understand and correct quickly if I picked the wrong one.

[DACrowe]

So did Kant. He acknowledged that it wasn't easy, but he fully expected people to live by his philosophy. As far as I'm aware, he lived by his own philosophy. Then again, he lived a dull and (relatively) solitary existence (outside of his day job). A Kantian existence isn't particularly conducive to friendship. Imagine a friend that never told a lie - not even a white lie.

Kant had friends. I remember reading that he was generally regarded as a warm and friendly guy; gave excellent dinner parties.

But that doesn't mean presuming a person's laxity in word choice is also supposing the person to be a complete idiot.

Alright, alright. I guess I was just rubbed up the wrong way by being schooled on political taxonomy by someone who doesn't know the difference between toleration and social liberalism. After a week of marking philosophy essays, you'd better believe I'm taking off marks for the misuse and abuse of terms of art.

[RedCelt69]

Kant had friends. I remember reading that he was generally regarded as a warm and friendly guy; gave excellent dinner parties.

Really? Gosh. I never use the word "gosh" but it seemed somehow appropriate. The image I have of Kant is a man of routine who went about his daily activities ("you could set your clock by him") by rote. Friends have a tendency to disrupt such fastidiousness in time-keeping, unless they are similarly punctual.

I'm intrigued to know how he kept friendships alive if he never lied. Although, having said that, I believe he did allow for avoiding the truth.

After a week of marking philosophy essays

Really? Which module?

[Frank]

Really? Gosh. I never use the word "gosh" but it seemed somehow appropriate.

I'd normally opt for a 'crikey'. Not aussie style, but simply said it words nicely. Try it out for size.

DACrowe: Fair enough. By the same measure, folks can be very wrong on many topics, Jono's reasoning could be well off the mark there too, I wouldn't know. But regarding the truism, I'd say it's not useful ammo for pursuing other mistakes.

As for philosopher buddy-movies; I'm sure you could probably make a quite remarkable run of TV specials...