More From Mr Woolford

Things have been quiet here due to my busy life. However, there has been another exchange over at the FSU, so before I resume normal operations, I thought I’d share. If I had any lingering charitable thoughts regarding Mr Woolford, this exchange expunges them completely. The man is an authoritarian who would impose upon us a government mandated dystopia and as such is an unforgivable cretin. The discussion was about Liz Truss’ comments on the online safety bill. Now, let’s be clear here, there is no need for any such thing. Online safety is a nonsense. If someone says something that you don’t like, well, argue your case. If you find it tedious, shut the computer and walk away. You can block or ignore people who attempt to troll or spam you. I’ve spent the last decade and a half or so doing just that. Mr Woolford is one of those simple minded people who thinks that this is the government’s job and that the government can be trusted to do it competently and without malice.

It would be nice to simply point out that such ideas are born of naiveite but we have enough real world evidence that tells us where this leads. No one has any excuse for believing this risible nonsense. Besides, given that forums and places like Facebook or even Twitter are merely places where people exchange thoughts and opinions there is no need. People do not need to be held accountable for having opinions that go against the orthodoxy. However, we live in a world where pointing out objective truth – such as you cannot change sex – will get the mob piling onto your employer and getting you sacked. Anonymity – or as I use here, pseudonymity – is a useful device to separate the online persona and the one out in the real world. It is a useful tool to enable debate without it spilling over where it isn’t needed. I don’t for example – or at least didn’t when I was employed – engage in political discussions at work. I save that for here and other suitable venues.

Anyway another person came in with the claim that the IP address is a giveaway… It surprises me sometimes just how little people know.

Anyway, Woolford came back to this.

Again we get the logical fallacies. He had ignored my comment about whistle-blowers. He also demonstrates a massive lack of understanding. Free speech is free. It does not have to be transparent or truthful or honest, just free. So he got one of my more robust responses. It was said to me once that I don’t suffer fools gladly. This is not entirely true – I don’t suffer them. No gladly about it. Mr Woolford is a fool and it shows. Mr Woolford’s ideas would be a direct line to shutting down dissent. Idiot.

As it turned out, Mr Woolford didn’t like my use of the word ‘bollocks.’ He thought I was being rude and insulting. Humph. Clearly he moves in rarefied circles where stupid arguments are treated with the same reverence as sensible ones. However, as well as the two I have mentioned, I could have added more recent examples such as Kathleen Stock, Maya Forestater, Allison Bailey and Gillian Phillip, all of whom were cancelled by their employers or publishers for merely stating objective facts, for going against the narrative. This, according to Woolford is ‘being held accountable.’ This is why I hold him in such contempt. That and his repeated logical fallacies – the underlying one being an appeal to emotion that runs like a dark sewer throughout his whole argument.

This is one of those facepalm moments. Free speech is free. It’s a really simple concept. Anything goes. That’s it. There really isn’t much to understand. I get it, he doesn’t. His point of view is neither here nor there as he is objectively wrong. I mentioned people who had fallen foul of employers who bowed to the mob. Some of them have been vindicated in the courts, but that takes time and money. In the meantime Gillian Phillip is driving trucks to make ends meet, her career as an author destroyed while she awaits the outcome of action against her publisher. Woolford in his ivory tower, disconnected from the reality of the situation simply dismisses it as holding the employer accountable. What a vile individual. The process is the punishment and anonymity protects ordinary people from that, allowing them to speak freely.

This is largely irrelevant and I made no such claim about rights to be online. Although, of course he touches on the issues that do surround the online platforms – are they private entities or common carriers? At present they seem to be treading a line between the two – claiming common carrier status while happily censoring inconvenient voices as if they are a private blog such as this. I responded to this point:

I then took up his other point.

One of the problems I come across in discussion such as these, is that all too often, people do not get objectivity. They are stuck in their own emotive arguments, so project this onto me, whereas I am being entirely logical. I don’t use emotion when arguing – okay, a little contempt might creep through if they push me… Ahem. This then comes across as rude and insulting to those who simply cannot argue objectively. So, no, I am not interested in his ‘pov’ because it is not objective, it is subjective, so of no consequence. The reality is that what he is arguing for would see ordinary people self censor for fear of cancellation if they had to go online and argue unpopular ideas under their own name. That’s an objective outcome for which we already have plenty of real world evidence. We have seen how this one plays out. His ideas will result in a restricted speech, not remotely free speech. This is not an opinion, it is fact. We can see how he thinks regarding this as we did before in his subsequent response. He sees himself as some sort of reasonable intellectual who is entitled to discuss freely while the hoi polloi are prevented from doing so because they use naughty words such as ‘bollocks.’ The entitled pseudointellectualism is palpable. Also, he isn’t as intelligent as he likes to think he is. Anyway, he took offence.

He really does see himself as a bit special, doesn’t he? Bear in mind that he responded as rapidly as I did, so a pointless accusation. I set this blog up eighteen years ago in response to precisely the kind of reasoning that this idiot is spouting. I’ve had eighteen years of arguing with totalitarian morons. I’ve heard every tired and stupid argument and Woolford trotted them all out with dreary predictability. I don’t need to spend time considering a response, I’ve got them all stored in my head after nearly two decades of practice and I’ve practiced on significantly more intelligent people than Andy Woolford. He is the one who is tedious to debate, because he trots out all the same dreary talking points that have been debunked time and time again by objective reality.

However, I took him at his word and got the last word in.

Andy Woolford is typical of the hard-of-thinking drone that we have to deal with. People who are so divorced from reality that they cannot see the dangers their ideas pose despite the evidence of their eyes. Which is why I do this. Hopefully more people will take notice and reject these facile arguments. We can hope…