April 15, 2010
Been writing nasty things? Don’t go into politics then.
In the past I have said dumb things and people have called me out on them. I’ve written daft things on various websites, and been promptly ridiculed in comments threads and blogs. It hurts at the time, but I usually deserved it at some level. However, I try to learn from such experiences and to improve myself and my writing.
One thing I’ve learned is that if you go around simply saying what you think and not about how you say it, then very often people will quote that back in your face at awkward moments – when simply saying what you thought seemed like a very bad idea indeed. As a private citizen, in my case this leads to nothing more than personal embarrassment. If I were the leader of a political party with aspirations and pretensions to power, things would be different.
Step forward, Chris Mounsey aka Devil’s Kitchen, leader of the UK Libertarian Party. Mounsey yesterday appeared on Andrew Neil’s The Daily Politics - and was promptly eviscerated. Some bloggers have claimed that Neil was unfair in focusing initially on the smallness of LPUK. Maybe. But then again, a membership of 450 and fielding one candidate does mean a party has tadpole-stature, and viewers ought to know that. More commentators have focused upon Neil quizzing Mounsey over his – let’s not mince words here – highly offensive and frequently deliberately outrageous blog posts.
Chris Dillow – I must say, surprisingly – thinks that this is indicative of the media shutting down debate and allowing only the big 3 to get a look in. But that’s ridiculous, at least as far as this example goes. The views expressed at Devil’s Kitchen are heinously offensive, and wilfully so. But it’s a brute fact of politics that personalities matter. If Mounsey wants people to vote for him and his party, people will have an interest in knowing what kind of people form LPUK. A natural place to look is the party leader’s blog. And if journalists go there and find lengthy rants of personalised, pornographic, narcissistic, grievously offensive invective and vitriol – well they are going to report on that. And rightly so, because before people vote for LPUK, they should know what sorts of people they’re dealing with. And one of the media’s jobs is to convey information to the electorate.
So I’m afraid Dillow gets it wrong. His first commenter is rather more on the mark:
“Oh come on, your general point – the oppressiveness of the media – is surely utterly undercut by the ridiculousness of your central example: Chris Mounsey just got an old fashioned and very well deserved kebabing. The Devil’s Kitchen has always been full of vile invective that has continually ratcheted up the level of demonisation of any half way civilised discussion of public life.
He hasn’t been taken out behind the bike sheds and beaten up or sent to a Gulag, he’s just been called to task for suggesting he’d like to see someone die slowly and painfully. If you give it out you have to take it.”
If you want to be a politician, then you have to accept the rules of politics as they are. And those rules clearly state that if you write heinously offensive – and sometimes disturbing – things about everyone and anyone who comes into your eyeline, that will quickly be used against you. And rightly so.
I’ve no sympathy for Mounsey. He gives it out, and so he must accept that he has to take it. And I suppose his half-recognition of this fact is to his credit. (And I appreciate that a man has his pride and can only back down so far). But please, Devil’s Kitchen persecuted by the nasty media? Pull the other one. Mounsey dropped himself in it by writing a lot of nasty vitriolic crap. That’s all there is to see here.
–
UPDATE: The blog post referred to by Andrew Neil – of which he could repeat only a couple of words – has been found! It is here. And I quote:
“Go fuck yourself, Chris Keates: I hope that the massive black dildo — with which you while away the hours between raping babies and destroying the dreams of the young — ruptures you and you bleed to death out of your disgusting, filthy, piebald cunt.”
Delightful. Why is it that so many Libertarians are nasty? Perhaps it’s that nasty views attract nasty people, and vice versa.
Pickled Politics » The fall of the Libertarian party leader said,
April 15, 2010 at 3:47 pm
[...] commentary by: Paul Sagar, Tim Fenton and Tory Landlord. Disagree with Chris Dillow [...]
Guy Aitchison said,
April 15, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Well said. It’s ridiculous to try and turn this into an issue of free speech when it’s nothing of the sort. I was surprised to see otherwise sensible bloggers like Mark Reckons taking this line. Yes, the media will ridicule and try and shut out any but the two main parties (three during elections) but this clearly isn’t an instance of that. My view is that you shouldn’t spout vile crap on your blog that you aren’t prepared to defend in real life, whether you’re a party leader or not. Give it out and you should be able to take it back. He couldn’t take a fraction of it back and capitulated on screen. Good. Perhaps now he’ll grow up.
senusert said,
April 15, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I favour broadly similar views, as does Jamie Whyte, yet neither of us is that nasty…..
Paul Sagar said,
April 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm
“I favour broadly similar views, as does Jamie Whyte, yet neither of us is that nasty…..”
Sure.
But I was referring to the Brian Barry review of Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia that includes a line that goes something like “if Nozick finds that he ends up in nasty company, he should consider that this is because he holds nasty views”, or something along those lines.
Consider yourself Nozick, if you like.
Mark said,
April 15, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Yes… the problem was Mr. Mounsey’s body language rather than the line of questioning. Completely understandable given the pressures, but he should be able to stand up to it if he expects to be taken seriously on television.
Have to say that I don’t think the original post was particularly bad though. Bit robust perhaps, but given the medium…
senusert said,
April 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I won’t consider myself anything!
Guthrum said,
April 15, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Bless ! two illegal wars, thousands dead and the left are a little precious about bad lanuage
Paul Sagar said,
April 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Oh Mark, of course, the original post was just fine. All a fuss about nothing. Let’s just recap DK’s non-indiscretion:
“Go fuck yourself, Chris Keates: I hope that the massive black dildo — with which you while away the hours between raping babies and destroying the dreams of the young — ruptures you and you bleed to death out of your disgusting, filthy, piebald cunt.”
Yes, that’s the sort of language we hear all the time in mainstream politics.
Paul Sagar said,
April 15, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Ah Guthrum of LPUK no less.
Nice piece of whataboutery there. Still doesn’t change the fact your Exalted Leader just made a monumental arse of himself.
senusert said,
April 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Of course, being nice has it’s virtues; and poor language is inexcusable. I don’t have much sympathy for Moundsey.
Richard Garner said,
April 15, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Paul, I would just like to point out that you are wrong: The LP is not just fielding one candidate. It is fielding two. This is the first general election in the party’s history, it having only existed for three years or so, which means that not having many candidates is not actually that unreasonable. So, you got one fact wrong to start with.
Then you pick up on Andre neil’s jibes about the size of the party. Remember that the slot on the program is supposed to be to give a voice to minor parties, in the interest of fairness, so that the big three don’t dominate the public arena. Now, with this in mind, it is bizarre that you should treat jokes about the size of the party as appropriate. It is not a “one man band” or a “five man band” and what the hell is the point in inviting a SMALL party on, to give time to let SMALL parties put their views across, and then mocking them for being SMALL?! So, the first thing Andrew Neil did with his slot to let minor parties get a voice was to mock that party and its leader for being small! Is that impartiality and fairness in broadcasting? Of course not.
Lets not, of course, forget that whilst the LP only has 450 members, its membership is growing, whilst the Lib Dem membership has fallen some 25% in the last 16 years, Tory membership has dropped a third in the same period, and Labour membership has more than halved. This, of course, means that people view the LP as a party worth joining and the three main parties as parties worth leaving.
The same lack of impartiality continued when Andrew Neil passed on to looking at Chris Mounsey’s blogging. Andrew Neil asked “do you think that if you want to be a proper party…” The Libertarian party IS a proper party, legally constituted and registered as such, with as much right to be treated as a proper party as any other.
And finally, whilst you probably are correct that Chris Mounsey’s past as a “swear blogger” was bound to come up, I am shocked that you should you should not even comment on the fact that Andrew Neil’s “interview” did not even involve any discussion of party policies, what the LP actually stands for, etc. etc. This was supposed to be a political discussion about the alternatives that smaller parties may provide, and it was used to bash a blogger about comments he made long before he became a party leader, and not to actually discuss politics at all.
I wonder whether you actually care about impartiality when politics is discussed on the BBC – a broadcaster that people will be punished under the law if they don’t pay for – or whether you just prefer your sour grapes
KB Player said,
April 15, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I’ve often wondered about the tendency of libertarians to pornographic insults. They’re like the BNP in that. The Left has its own line in diatribes, but doesn’t usually include dildos and graphically sexual insults.
I wonder if it’s possible to get a grant to research this strangely neglected subject?
“Have to say that I don’t think the original post was particularly bad though. Bit robust perhaps, but given the medium…”
Could you please produce a “particularly bad” example so we can compare it to the original? I’m scratching my head about how you could come up with worse language, but I may be underestimating the imagination of a libertarian, with its rich resources of violent pornography.
Mark said,
April 16, 2010 at 1:39 am
Well… whether language is appropriate depends entirely on the context in which it is being used. Mounsey is using a medium which is less personal than a face-to-face chat or a letter – with different standards of politeness than a newspaper or sensible political debate.
For me, the passage quoted is rather like the writers of spitting image having Margaret Thatcher chatting to Hitler, some radical comic imagining Gordon Brown having a chicken stuffed up his ass or something from Chris Morris.
Yes, it’s entirely valid for the interviewer to bring up and criticise past work, but Mounsey should have been able to defend it on the grounds of poetic license.
Obviously swearblogging of this kind isn’t going to be to everyone’s taste (can’t say I’m a big fan) but neither do I find it particularly affecting.
Liberal Conspiracy » Friday 16th April said,
April 16, 2010 at 7:03 am
[...] Paul Sagar at Bad Conscience: Been writing nasty things? Don’t go into politics then [...]
chris said,
April 16, 2010 at 8:48 am
It might be just me, but I’ve always thought that people who project distinct personae are just conning us. I always thought Mounsey’s vitriol and swearing was a mere put on – like Vinnie Jones’ hard man act in the 80s or Cameron’s man of the people shtick now.
I wasn’t defending Chris’s (old) style at all, which I thought detracted from his blog. My complaint was that Neil focused solely upon that style, and made no effort to engage with his ideas. You’ve drawn the equation, “nasty ideas=(often) nasty people”. But Neil didn’t.
If you were to be interviewed by Neil, don’t you think he’d do a similar thing – sneering at your (unjustifiably) low traffic, or taking you up on that “All Tories are evil” remark, rather than debating the key ideas?
Gregory Lewis said,
April 16, 2010 at 9:28 am
‘All tories are evil’, although surely wrong, doesn’t seem so bad to me (Nye Bevan got away with something similar).
I don’t know what Chris Yates did, but unless he cheated with the guys wife or something that language is outrageous. I don’t buy that you need to amp up your language just because it’s the internet: the worst I’ve ever called someone is probably ‘retarded bigot’, and that’s because he said homosexuality was a disease/disgusting perversion/etc.
If the Libertarians want to be taken seriously in politics, they need to stop giving the impression they’re angry barely-post-pubescent rich kids who have just discovered how funny swear words are.
Paul Sagar said,
April 16, 2010 at 9:56 am
Chris D,
1. I’d expect the treatment if I were going up against Old Brillo
2. I’d have my answers prepared and if hold my ground – I wouldn’t crumple like tracing paper. And I’d aim to use my answer as a lead in to proper policy talk.
Of course, those options weren’t open to CM cos his blog writings are indefensible. Though I’m not sure talking about Libertarian policy would really have helped him – in a country where only 5% support abolishing the NHS, coming out and declaring that state healthcare should be ended is hardly likely to be a winner.
Peter said,
April 16, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Fuck me! TWO candidates! Stop the presses, we’ll be in Libertopia soon.
I’m incredibly amused by some of the reaction to this. Firstly, some libertarians are pissed off that an employer can exert influence over what you do when you’re not in work. This is amusing, given that their philosophy has absolutely nothing to say that this is a bad thing – they can’t have a reason for saying “you married a black woman, therefore you’re fired” ought be prohibited (let alone things like “you say silly things on the internet, therefore you’re fired”). Secondly, some of the hiliarious overreactions. According to Guthrum in the comments thread over at DK’s, we’re in the DDR!
Hahahahaha!
The Double Demon Maneouvre « Bad Conscience said,
April 16, 2010 at 8:10 pm
[...] yesterday a first class example was provided by none other than Bella Gerens, proud apologist for Internet-nasty/Real-world-wuss Chris Mounsey (aka Devil’s Kitchen). Gerens seems to be afflicted by both gender and historical confusions [...]
On blue-arsed flies and post-Keynesian insights on money supply « Though Cowards Flinch said,
April 16, 2010 at 10:53 pm
[...] also finish a post, which I started before Paul’s and Giles’ recent attack on libertarian numpties, about the said numpties’ and its seemingly strange [...]
SOCIALIST UNITY » FAR RIGHT BLOGGER'S HYPOCRISY said,
April 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm
[...] more on this from Paul Sagar of Bad Conscience [...]
John Sullivan said,
August 21, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Politician? He’s an overgrown schoolboy prentending to be different because it won’t make any difference to him anyway. Spineless litte runt who’s never been man enough to work for anything in his pampered life and then pontificates about the state? The state that has ensured scumbags like him have enjoyed privilege for centuries. Stop playing at politics wee man and piss off to your daddy’s club.
Fish, Barrel « Bad Conscience said,
August 25, 2010 at 6:58 pm
[...] will recall that Mounsey was recently humiliated on national television when Andrew Neill quizzed him about the slanderous and obscene nonsense that [...]
Perverts in the Fashion Industry and Cannabis Law Reform | SarahMcCulloch.com | Activism, spirituality and opinion said,
January 4, 2012 at 10:38 am
[...] published an anonymous article on his personal blog calling for someone to be stabbed to death he was humiliated on national television when Andrew Neil asked him about it. In fact, I think that one commenter’s take on that [...]