• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

People You Wish You Weren't On The Same Side Of An Argument As You

Status
Not open for further replies.

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,184
Location
Reston City Centre
In a lot of debates, there's someone on "your" side who's so terrible that you wish there wasn't - they present such a bad impression of what "your" side are like that you wish they weren't

For example, whilst I'd be in favour of a number of "pro-animal" things, I find PETA ("People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals") to be so antagonistic/ cringeworthy that I think they do a lot more harm than good (spending a lot more time annoying "opponents" by being provocative to keep their core supporters happy)

I'm pro-EU but find some of the "Remain" campaigners who get represented on the news (Femi Oluwole etc) to almost be designed to play into the "Leavers" view of what they think all "Remainers" are like - it's embarrassing to watch them as representatives

I'm left of centre but found a lot of the Corbynites arguments in favour of left wing policies to be almost designed to trigger Tory voters into getting out and voting Conservative (which is probably why 42.4% of voters backed May and 43.6% backed Johnson - more than had voted Tory in previous elections)

Sometimes on debates here, you'll find a person arguing on the same side as you to be making such a bad job of it that you think they should shut up (oops, maybe I've been that guy...)

So who is there who you find yourself broadly agreeing with on issues but you wish that they'd shut up because they are letting the side down?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Scotrail12

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2014
Messages
667
Being a lockdown skeptic, it is frustrating to share a few views with far-right (e.g. Katie Hopkins) or conspiracy theorists (e.g. Piers Corbyn).
 

Intercity 225

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2014
Messages
302
Even though I agreed with his core sentiment I couldn’t stand that imbecile in the blue bowler hat who interrupted interviews by shouting all the time when people were discussing Brexit on the news.

His extremely uncouth personality and behaviour did nothing but damage the remain cause.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
24,037
Location
Redcar
As a Remainer it has proven somewhat odd to find myself in lock step agreement with Steven Baker recently when he argued that the £20pw increase to Universal Credit should not be withdrawn at the end of September.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
2,980
Location
Up the creek
Just occasionally, though only occasionally, over recent months I have found myself agreeing with Piers Morgan. It is an unpleasant feeling, but more recently he has reverted to his normal behaviour and I have been able to return to my usual feeling of intense dislike for him.
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
4,387
Location
Tokyo-3
Having cyclists on the side of public transport really annoys me. Another thing is being a Brexiteer, I absolutely despise jim ratcliffe and I can't wait for the day ineos is removed from the silver arrows, and hopefully the F1 grid with it - and that's just the repeatable stuff.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
4,140
Location
Cardiff
Just occasionally, though only occasionally, over recent months I have found myself agreeing with Piers Morgan. It is an unpleasant feeling, but more recently he has reverted to his normal behaviour and I have been able to return to my usual feeling of intense dislike for him.
Interesting, as I find myself agreeing with most things he says, and believe many of those mouthing off about him to have somewhat "wokie" views.
Personally, I don't like it when I realise I agree with Kier Starmer. I'm not overly political, but I don't particularly like him (or the labour party...)
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
11,014
I'm very happy to report that whatever Ann Widdecombe agrees with I oppose, and am wholly in favour of anything she's against, except on the subject of fox hunting. She's not alone in that, the late reprobate MP and Minister Alan Clark was also totally opposed to the practice.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,184
Location
Reston City Centre
Even though I agreed with his core sentiment I couldn’t stand that imbecile in the blue bowler hat who interrupted interviews by shouting all the time when people were discussing Brexit on the news.

His extremely uncouth personality and behaviour did nothing but damage the remain cause.

Yeah, there was a complete lack of self awareness there - he must have enjoyed antagonising people but really didn't help the "cause"

Just occasionally, though only occasionally, over recent months I have found myself agreeing with Piers Morgan. It is an unpleasant feeling, but more recently he has reverted to his normal behaviour and I have been able to return to my usual feeling of intense dislike for him.

Morgan is a funny one - he's obviously built his career on having strong opinions on whatever subject comes along - e.g. this week it's "there's no point celebrating silver/gold medals at the Olympics, if you're second best in the world then that makes you a loser" - the kind of simplistic binary opinions designed to force people to be on one side of the fence or the other and comment/ watch/ read to find just what he'll come up with next.

Sometimes I've been in agreement with him (e.g. his anti-guns thing when he was still on American telly), often I've been on the other side of the debate (and many times I really don't care enough to have much of an opinion on stories like Meghan Markle)

What I am mildly curious about is whether...

(a) he actually believes any of this stuff
(b) he tosses a coin whenever the next big story comes along (e.g. he was quick to jump to one side of the fence over Covid)
(c) there's some calculated process behind the "madness" and he's careful to ensure that he isn't too much on one side of the overall "culture war" (his schtick wouldn't work if he was always on the side of the "Woke" or always on the side of the "Gammon" - he needs to stay edgy and contrary at the same time as always trying to be controversial) - it's more lucrative to be Morgan than someone like Owen Jones/ Julia Hartley Brewer who will be predictable in the things they are outraged about - so he presumably needs to zig-zag a bit to stop getting stale?

(Or am I overthinking hit and he's just a blowhard attention seeker, albeit an inconsistent one?)
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
No, Piers just says an outlandish opinion to garner a reaction and attention (and thus money). It's not really what he thinks in most cases.

Although it is curious that his views on (let's say) the Duke and Duchess of Sussex sort of contradict his very pro-lockdown stance**. He says whatever makes him popular.

**Not that that stops him flying to Antigua when it suits him, obviously.


I'd say similar about Katie Hopkins. Say awful things if it will make you some money.
 

Scotrail12

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2014
Messages
667
Regarding Piers, I like that he brings something different to the table as opposed to being yet another bland cookie cutter BBC presenter that just reads off an autocue. Some of his opinions and interviews are fascinating. Having said that, having a platform like that comes with a responsibility and I do believe he has abused his platform a number of times - his stance on mental health is quite worrying and following from that, he's one of the main culprits for terrorising the nation into fear during the pandemic and I just can't forgive that. I can imagine a lot of his viewers became scared of their own shadow because of his antics every morning.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
1,993
For Piers Morgan, he doesn’t care about his opinion, he cares about the size of the reaction it generates
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
4,882
Location
Northern England
As someone for whom the primary mode of short-distance transport is a bicycle, I simply cannot stand cyclists who have no regard for common sense. The ones who jump red lights, barrel down pavements far too fast, don't hold the handlebars, don't use lights at night etc. and cause accidents.

They give all of us a bad name, and lead people to advocate things like age restrictions and licensing requirements for cyclists in the same way as for car drivers, which to anyone who thinks about it for two seconds is entirely nonsensical and would never solve the problem anyway.

In several years of cycling I have had only one experience involving another vehicle that you could even come close to calling an accident. Even that was extremely minor , resulting in no injuries - in fact the only damage of any kind was a slight scratch to my bike, which I don't particularly care about. I am not an amazingly skilled road user, nor have I had any formal training beyond the basic cycle proficiency stuff from school - all it takes is caution, common sense and observation of the applicable rules on the part of every road user, including myself.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,286
Location
Leafy Suburbia
@py_megapixel
BoJo is a keen cyclist, not sure about his politics.

Other cyclists are indeed troubling, one of those flip-flop fixie* riders undertook me although there was loads of room on the offside.

* I saw him freewheeling cheating, grr
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,703
Location
Glasgow
Personally, I don't like it when I realise I agree with Kier Starmer. I'm not overly political, but I don't particularly like him (or the labour party...)
You say you're "not overly political", but haven't you previously stated here that you're a member of the Conservative Party? If that's still the case then you're one of the approximately 993,000 people who are members of the seven largest political parties in the UK - which makes you, at the very minimum, more "political" than 98.51% of the British public.

No, Piers just says an outlandish opinion to garner a reaction and attention (and thus money). It's not really what he thinks in most cases.
He didn't help himself by being such a hypocrite in reacting to criticism, either.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
2,056
Location
Kent
As a Remainer it has proven somewhat odd to find myself in lock step agreement with Steven Baker recently when he argued that the £20pw increase to Universal Credit should not be withdrawn at the end of September.
Ah, but Baker has seen the light:

Politicians need to level with the public about the scale of change needed in our lives so we don’t have another political fiasco like Brexit
(from his twitter account @SteveBakerHW). Its had 1.3k likes so far as well!

(OK, I know he probably means its implementation but you have to take every crumb of comfort.)
 

Smokey Joe

Member
Joined
21 May 2021
Messages
334
Location
Grimsby, England
I'm anti-unionist, that is I believe the United Kingdom is deeply unfair for England, and it would be more democratic if England had no interference from the MPs in the other nations, who have the same issues devolved hence English MPs can't mess with them, who elect MPs with less votes, and are allotted more than their fair share of funds by the Barnett Formula (which even it's creator regrets), then the MPs elected are ever increasingly ones that are anti-English. I also believe Scotland and Wales would be better off too without the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will always be a political mess in my opinion.

But unlike Scottish nationalists, anyone who calls themselves an English nationalist is immediately called racist or far-right, and as a result only the English Democrats are known as a party supporting this issue very close to my heart, and they are very unsavoury in what they publish and say, they twist everything into anti-muslim propaganda.
The English Democrats need to shut up with their hatred, and a positive voice for England needs to arrive. Sadly all the big parties I can vote for are unionist, my vote can't speak the way I want it to.
 

75A

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2021
Messages
358
Location
Midlands (ex Brighton 75A)
I'm anti-unionist, that is I believe the United Kingdom is deeply unfair for England, and it would be more democratic if England had no interference from the MPs in the other nations, who have the same issues devolved hence English MPs can't mess with them, who elect MPs with less votes, and are allotted more than their fair share of funds by the Barnett Formula (which even it's creator regrets), then the MPs elected are ever increasingly ones that are anti-English. I also believe Scotland and Wales would be better off too without the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will always be a political mess in my opinion.

But unlike Scottish nationalists, anyone who calls themselves an English nationalist is immediately called racist or far-right, and as a result only the English Democrats are known as a party supporting this issue very close to my heart, and they are very unsavoury in what they publish and say, they twist everything into anti-muslim propaganda.
The English Democrats need to shut up with their hatred, and a positive voice for England needs to arrive.
I agree 100%
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
3,701
Location
Maidstone
As a Remainer it has proven somewhat odd to find myself in lock step agreement with Steven Baker recently when he argued that the £20pw increase to Universal Credit should not be withdrawn at the end of September.
Ah, but Baker has seen the light:

(from his twitter account @SteveBakerHW). Its had 1.3k likes so far as well!

(OK, I know he probably means its implementation but you have to take every crumb of comfort.)
Baker is coming round to the reality he might lose his seat at the next election, and Wycombe is not doing well for food poverty (and I imagine poverty in general), so he's trying to look as though he's fighting the issue for the good of his constituents, regardless of whether or not he follows through with action (such as in Commons' votes).

Richard Branson and David Cameron supporting remain before the referendum; the former is loathed as a blatant tax-avoider who's also sued the NHS, the latter led to a chunk of leave support simply to throw spite at him.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
8,653
(oops, maybe I've been that guy...)

Not that I'm aware of, and I know we agree on some things and disagree on others (Okehampton being one where we disagree), I would suggest that's because we both just say our points and don't get personal.

I suspect that most people dislike those who make it personal. For instance those in Twitter who say that if you support HS2 you must have been paid by them, or those who make personal attacks on those on the other side so as to prove that they are right.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
1,685
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
I'm anti-unionist, that is I believe the United Kingdom is deeply unfair for England, and it would be more democratic if England had no interference from the MPs in the other nations, who have the same issues devolved hence English MPs can't mess with them, who elect MPs with less votes, and are allotted more than their fair share of funds by the Barnett Formula (which even it's creator regrets), then the MPs elected are ever increasingly ones that are anti-English. I also believe Scotland and Wales would be better off too without the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will always be a political mess in my opinion.
Isn't the answer devolved government for English regions, as in Germany, rather than breaking up the union? Then the Westminster parliament would be genuinely pan-UK rather than trying uncomfortably to be both a UK and English government and the Scottish and Welsh assemblies would be seen as what they are, regional parliaments. I know that the Blair government's plan to do just that was sunk by the Tory press, but times have changed. I think Scotland and Wales bring a lot to the Union and their presence moderates the jingoistic, xenophobic element in the English national character. Of course that's not just an English characteristic, but close association with other countries does make people realise that all foreigners aren't crooked or daft!
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,205
As someone for whom the primary mode of short-distance transport is a bicycle, I simply cannot stand cyclists who have no regard for common sense. The ones who jump red lights, barrel down pavements far too fast, don't hold the handlebars, don't use lights at night etc. and cause accidents.

They give all of us a bad name, and lead people to advocate things like age restrictions and licensing requirements for cyclists in the same way as for car drivers, which to anyone who thinks about it for two seconds is entirely nonsensical and would never solve the problem anyway.
I have a real problem with this attitude.

There are plenty of feet-on-the-seats, phone-speaker-on, fare-dodging train travellers. Do I worry about being tagged with the same brush because I too travel by train? Of course not.

There are literally millions of speeding, unsafe, dangerous drivers on the road. You just have to stand by any speed limit entrance sign to a town or village and count the proportion of them. Unlike the train travellers or the cyclists, these guys are in charge of big heavy metal boxes that can, and do, kill people: about 1,750 a year in the UK. Do I worry about being tagged with the same brush every time I drive a car? Nope.

So why, whenever I ride a bike, should I suddenly be classed the same way as people who jump red lights and don't use lights? It's an absolutely nonsensical attitude. My answer to anyone who says "you all jump red lights" is basically "clearly you're an idiot"... I don't see any point in entertaining it at all.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,887
Location
Yorks
Isn't the answer devolved government for English regions, as in Germany, rather than breaking up the union? Then the Westminster parliament would be genuinely pan-UK rather than trying uncomfortably to be both a UK and English government and the Scottish and Welsh assemblies would be seen as what they are, regional parliaments. I know that the Blair government's plan to do just that was sunk by the Tory press, but times have changed. I think Scotland and Wales bring a lot to the Union and their presence moderates the jingoistic, xenophobic element in the English national character. Of course that's not just an English characteristic, but close association with other countries does make people realise that all foreigners aren't crooked or daft!

I agree entirely with this post.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
1,234
Isn't the answer devolved government for English regions, as in Germany, rather than breaking up the union? Then the Westminster parliament would be genuinely pan-UK rather than trying uncomfortably to be both a UK and English government and the Scottish and Welsh assemblies would be seen as what they are, regional parliaments. I know that the Blair government's plan to do just that was sunk by the Tory press, but times have changed. I think Scotland and Wales bring a lot to the Union and their presence moderates the jingoistic, xenophobic element in the English national character. Of course that's not just an English characteristic, but close association with other countries does make people realise that all foreigners aren't crooked or daft!

Although that seems superficially the answer, I'm still not convinced it would work. Germany was formed from the union of those states so they were there already, rather than being imposed. It would be seen as imposing another layer of government on people (or would you abolish one of the lower tiers at the same time?).
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are (or at least see themselves as) countries. They want to be at the level of England, not the South-West, even though demographically that's where they may be equivalent.
Finally, is it likely to prevent the break-up anyway? First devolution was supposed to answer the calls of the nations for self-government. Then additional powers were given to the parliaments. But the nationalists will never be satisfied with anything but independence.
Unionism needs to demonstrate that actually we're more alike than we are different and that setting policy at a UK level benefits all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top