Ordinary Gweilo

about

Hatred, sarcasm and moral relativity

Jul 21, 2006

Amusing to see that Simon Patkin seems to be rather upset with me and Mr Fumier. Having previously accused me (wrongly) of ad hominem attacks on his character, can you guess what he does? Yes, that’s right:

Hong Kong’s less reputable bloggers…anonymous authors…live their lives in the gutter…a stream of hatred, sarcasm and moral relativity.

Splendid stuff. OK, so I have been known to employ sarcasm, but hatred? I think not.

After Simon posted a comment here I tried to send him an email, but his over-zealous email filter bounced it, and I have tried commenting on his blog – but that is apparently not allowed. Odd that someone who is so keen to tell us what he thinks should be so reluctant to let anyone else join in the discussion.

It’s a strange world.

Posted in Rants

15 responses to “Hatred, sarcasm and moral relativity”

dave

Jul 22, 2006

It might be a strange world, but I think it’s more likely just a strange Simon.
I can’t post to his blog either, and he appears to have deleted all the comments that Fumier and I (among others) made during the WTO protests.
For someone who claims to want a totally free market, he certainly won’t allow free discussion on his own blog.
Even his own brother doesn’t understand his point of view.

LikeLike

Reply
HKMacs

Jul 22, 2006

I think he might also be living under his own “Lion Rock”, because he’s posted the “BBC interviews cabbie” story which we all know was false as the “guy” in question (Guy Goma as it happens) was there for a job interview.
He’s also about three months late. Maybe he gets his internets through tubes or something!

LikeLike

Reply
Chris

Jul 22, 2006

Dave – I think you misunderstand Simon somewhat. He seems to believe that companies are always right and customers/users are always wrong. Hence he doesn’t want uppity customers putting pressure on companies, and in the same way he doesn’t want those who disagree with him to be allowed to post to his blog. Originally he didn’t allow comments, now he allows them in theory but in reality he doesn’t allow them unless they agree with his point of view.
What’s the point of a blog without feedback? He just doesn’t get it, does he.
HKMacs – Funnily enough, I pointed out Simon’s error about the “cabbie” in the comments, but of course he didn’t allow that to be published. He’s not 3 months late, it’s just that he just didn’t publish anything for the last couple of months.

LikeLike

Reply
dave

Jul 22, 2006

Chris, you’re right: he’s not so much a capitalist as a corporatist. (Although Corporatist has some unpleasant Fascist connotations.)
I’d still like to know if someone is actually paying his think-tank for its output.

LikeLike

Reply
fumier

Jul 22, 2006

Is SP off on that moral relativity thing again? It’s a very handy tool for avoiding inconvenient arguments, such as those that don’t fit in with your own views.
It’s curious that SP’s Latin seems to be better than his English. (Whoops! Was that an ad hominem attack?) He must have had a classical education.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris

Jul 22, 2006

To be honest, I haven’t the slightest idea what the “moral relativity” jibe is supposed to mean. I imagine that the when Objectivists get together it’s probably the worst insult they can imagine, but I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
He also accused me of copying and pasting stuff in my blog. Isn’t that exactly what blogs were designed for?

LikeLike

Reply
dgnyhk

Jul 22, 2006

What a charmer. The good news is in comparison, the rest of us look downright intellectual. Howzat?!?
I’d quite enjoy watching Ayn react to his writing.

LikeLike

Reply
Argleblaster

Jul 22, 2006

It’s his think-tank, and he’s not going to open up to just anyone who knocks on the hatch.

LikeLike

Reply
fumier

Jul 24, 2006

As I understand it, moral relativity is where someone finds someone else’s arguments irrefutable by any means other than simply dismissing them out of hand; ‘moral relativity’ is the label (not an argument) used to do this.
For example, Mr. X (from Planet X, of course) might say that capitalism, because it helped produce furniture and pharmaceuticals, thereby improving and prolonging life in one go, is wonderful. If Mr. Y then says “But it also produced armaments and hard drugs, which sometimes shorten lives or make them unhappy, and therefore it is not 100% an unmitigated good thing”, Mr. X, rather than saying something like, “Yes, but on balance it is still a good thing, and that is what I really mean”, or even coming up with a decent counter argument, might instead say, “Tish, you old moral relativist, you, be gone. I will simply have no truck with your argument because I cannot find any logical fault with it and I don’t want to admit it”.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris

Jul 24, 2006

I am thinking that Mr X from Planet X is arguing that we have to choose between capitalism and communism (or living in a cave with Osama Bin Laden), and that anyone who finds fault with capitalism should just head for the hills or stop carping. Far be it for a dullard such as myself to suggest that maybe this is a false choice.
Incidentally, my Google search suggested that the Pope is a big fan of this approach, and I bet that if L Ron Hubbard were still around he’d go for it as well. Mr X is in excellent company.

LikeLike

Reply
dave

Jul 25, 2006

According to his latest update, I’m apparently one of Chris’ lackeys. How disappointing — I always fancied myself as more of the henchman type. Possibly even a sidekick, but definitely not a lackey.
For the record, the post I attempted to make was:

On the contrary, these bloggers have been attempting to engage you in a discussion of your ideas.

Time after time you refuse to engage in discussion of your points, preferring instead to claim some percieved moral superiority even as everyone else is sniggering at you.

You have beliefs which are outside the current mainstream. You must be prepared to defend those beliefs with substantive discussion if you want to convince others of the correctness of your beliefs.

If you can’t do this, you come across as someone with *received* beliefs who has never thought them through.

Why should anyone accept your point of view if you can’t explain to them why it’s the rational and correct choice?

Not the greatest writing, but it was about 2AM at the time… If someone can tell me how this is so offensive as to be banned, I’d be grateful.
I’m torn between thinking that he’s either slightly Autistic (Maybe Asperger’s Syndrome) or a complete pillock.

LikeLike

Reply
dave’s wibblings

Jul 25, 2006

Do Randroids dream of a crottled greep?

There’s a fine discussion of Simon Patkin over at Ordinary Gweilo. The thread is here. Currently, the Ordinary Gweilo thread is only the third result on a google search for “Simon Patkin”, which I’m sure Mr Patkin will accept as…

LikeLike

Reply
Tree Hugger

Jul 25, 2006

I also tried to post a coment – a mild one – and was rejected twice. He can post on my blog anytime without any authorisation.

LikeLike

Reply
Cupcake

Jul 25, 2006

Oh well, the thought of censorship on the internet was so intriguing that I just had to try to post my comment on his blog. So I tried posting this – “But if you don’t allow them to post their comments on your blog, they will only take their comments elsewhere. Resistance must be futile, no? What’s the point of preserving your blog as pristine as it is, and having the comments appear elsewhere? Perhaps you would rethink your strategy.”
I wonder if I’ll be rejected. Probably.
🙂
Cupcake

LikeLike

Reply
fumier

Jul 25, 2006

Dave – I think he’s still miffed at your Ayn Rand jokes.

LikeLike

Reply