It just seems that you have a lot of angst and anger within yourself and you use forums like this as an outlet to vent your feelings.
And what exactly is wrong with that? Thatcher directly fucked over a lot of people and pissed on ideals that many hold dear. That people are still angry is evidence of how much harm she did.
But she's dead so her power to act is gone. Now it's all about her significance as an emotional and intellectual symbol. You might argue that getting emotional about things amplifies division, but in this case the division is already present - a long festering wound - that needs to be acknowledged before it can be healed.
And then you come along and taunt us for loosing our cool, and wonder why we get emotional back at you.
What should we do? If you want a debate then start one. If you can't bring yourself to argue for thatcher, how about telling us what was bad about what she stood against? Or what was good about the values of her enemies' enemies? Or argue for the good her supporters at the time thought she was achieving? I think there are probably positive things to be said about individual freedom versus rigid collectivism, and markets versus top-down planning, and maybe even the value of strong leadership. Be the change you want to see in this thread.
And what exactly is wrong with that? Thatcher directly fucked over a lot of people and pissed on ideals that many hold dear. That people are still angry is evidence of how much harm she did.
But she's dead so her power to act is gone. Now it's all about her significance as an emotional and intellectual symbol. You might argue that getting emotional about things amplifies division, but in this case the division is already present - a long festering wound - that needs to be acknowledged before it can be healed.
And then you come along and taunt us for loosing our cool, and wonder why we get emotional back at you.
What should we do? If you want a debate then start one. If you can't bring yourself to argue for thatcher, how about telling us what was bad about what she stood against? Or what was good about the values of her enemies' enemies? Or argue for the good her supporters at the time thought she was achieving? I think there are probably positive things to be said about individual freedom versus rigid collectivism, and markets versus top-down planning, and maybe even the value of strong leadership. Be the change you want to see in this thread.