The Politics Thread 2020

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Didn’t extreme left regimes like Russia do plenty of book burning?

I found a link showing that the Russian government burned something like 50 books because they were alien to Russian ideology. The Nazi book burning targeted more than 50 authors, let alone 50 books. But yes, nobody is saying the Nazis are the only ones who did it. But they did sort of excel at it, and have become the gold standard in your book immolation experts.

[Archied]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

I found a link showing that the Russian government burned something like 50 books because they were alien to Russian ideology. The Nazi book burning targeted more than 50 authors, let alone 50 books. But yes, nobody is saying the Nazis are the only ones who did it. But they did sort of excel at it, and have become the gold standard in your book immolation experts.

I Must have it wrong then ,was under the impression that a hell of a lot of literature was banned / burned under early communist regime

[maxjam]

18 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Honestly @maxjam, are you saying you find it strange that right-wing medias weren't showing up in Google searches after the August 2019 shootings? 

Nope I'm saying that you are far more likely to be recommended a left wing source.  Both CNN and Fox cover the stories for example but you're far more likely to be recommended CNN on a whole range of subjects.  

This is further backed up by the hour long leaked video of Google leadership upset about Trumps election victory and discussing ways of never letting it happen again. 

 

32 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I'm not interested in been drawn into an another interminable debate about media bias.  You'll have to have it with someone else.  It just doesn't interest me that much.  Let me know when you want to talk US elections again ?

Yup I'm done, I've offered up numerous sources and studies into left wing social media bias but got nothing back other than personal opinion - which you are of course entitled to and I'm not going to change.  Maybe we'll talk about the US elections later in the year once they become relevant again after the coronavirus scare has (hopefully) passed ?

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Now ask yourself why that person felt the need to say that oppressive thing on Twitter in the first place? and so it goes around. It's unhelpful to try with the "well.. they started it" argument. As my Dad used to say "they need their heads banging together"

Maybe it was part of a discussion?  Similar to the one that gets thrown at Joe Rogan when he talks about men than have transitioned to women with regards to MMA fighting.  Its a perfectly valid opinion and one that should be open to discussion, especially with regards to transwomen beating up women.

The whole deplatforming thing is very scary imo, its bad enough when its online but it is becoming increasingly prevalent in universities.  Places where you were once taught how to think for yourself, not what to think.

[Stive Pesley]

9 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Maybe it was part of a discussion?  Similar to the one that gets thrown at Joe Rogan when he talks about men than have transitioned to women with regards to MMA fighting.  Its a perfectly valid opinion and one that should be open to discussion, especially with regards to transwomen beating up women.

The whole deplatforming thing is very scary imo, its bad enough when its online but it is becoming increasingly prevalent in universities.  Places where you were once taught how to think for yourself, not what to think.

Maybe it was part of a discussion, in which case people are idiots for thinking that they can have discussions on incredibly complex and nuanced subjects via a limited set of characters and with an audience of unknowns. As a wise man said with Twitter "perception always trumps intention"

Maybe the problem is as much with the platforms we've  built ourselves to communicate. They aren't healthy when used like this

The comment about the role of universities is not strictly true is it? As nice a soundbite as it may seem. ,Their purpose is not to teach you how to think for yourself. That comes from within. They are their to teach you to be skilled in the subject of your choosing. That's all

I mean really if want to consider themselves educated, then they should be able to grasp the concepts of decency and respect, and when it is and isn't appropriate to say certain things.

I assume you're not sticking up for these poor deplatformed souls?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/19/university-of-Derby-suspends-students-over-offensive-group-chat

 

 

[Anon]

56 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

How is that the far left "fuelling" things? That's the far left reacting in an extreme way to an extreme comment that they disagree with. Now ask yourself why that person felt the need to say that oppressive thing on Twitter in the first place? and so it goes around. It's unhelpful to try with the "well.. they started it" argument. As my Dad used to say "they need their heads banging together"

Men can't be women. That's not an extreme comment and is about as oppressive as saying that grass is green.

[maxjam]

20 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I assume you're not sticking up for these poor deplatformed souls?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/19/university-of-Derby-suspends-students-over-offensive-group-chat

Why do you always pick the most extreme example?

 

20 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

The comment about the role of universities is not strictly true is it? As nice a soundbite as it may seem. ,Their purpose is not to teach you how to think for yourself. That comes from within. They are their to teach you to be skilled in the subject of your choosing. That's all

From my days and uni I was always under the impression that we were being taught how to think for ourselves.  Constantly deplatforming people or retreating to safe spaces when faced with people and opinions we don't like is detrimental to everyone's future.  We need people thinking outside of the box to tackle climate change or invent covid-19 vaccines not people that are to scared to hear viewpoints they dislike.

https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nine-10-uk-universities-free-speech-restrict-rankings-joseph-rowntree-cardiff-ediburgh-newcastle-a7577381.html

 

20 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Maybe the problem is as much with the platforms we've  built ourselves to communicate. They aren't healthy when used like this

Thats my concern.  I have always been one for free speech and a free press but maybe there needs to be some regulation.  Legacy media has long since stopped being balanced and fair and is increasingly filled with articles from 'sources' and opinion pieces rather than traditional investigative journalism.  Why spend money researching a story when you regurgitate crap from twitter.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

[Stive Pesley]

11 minutes ago, Anon said:

Men can't be women. That's not an extreme comment and is about as oppressive as saying that grass is green.

We can be whoever or whatever we want to be. Who the hell does anyone think they are telling someone otherwise?

If you can't see how that may be considered oppressive by someone then I feel sorry for you

[1967Ram]

7 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Great article by MD in Private Eye this issue.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/news

Good article. This bit made me smile:

It could equally be that the virus has the last laugh. Remember, it exists only to replicate, and is even better at its job than Johnson. 

[Tamworthram]

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

We can be whoever or whatever we want to be. Who the hell does anyone think they are telling someone otherwise?

If you can't see how that may be considered oppressive by someone then I feel sorry for you

I think I'll be a llama and you can't stop me. ?

[maxjam]

15 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

We can be whoever or whatever we want to be. Who the hell does anyone think they are telling someone otherwise?

If you can't see how that may be considered oppressive by someone then I feel sorry for you

If you allow people to identify as what they want, that inevitably leads to people that identify as non human;

https://theweek.com/articles/552648/meet-peoplewho-dont-identify-human

A perfectly reasonable point of view has a grounding in science, genes and chromosomes.  Someone of a more scientific background might respect your right to live as a two-spirit penguin but not agree with it.  Its the modern day equivalent of The Church vs Science, the only difference being that the Church will finally accept scientifc facts whereas as you get banned from twitter/deplatformed for challenging the progressive transgender narrative ?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/14/sacked-silenced-academics-say-they-are-blocked-from-exploring-trans-issues

But thats both religion and gender in one post.  I'm outta here ?

[Highgate]

Just now, maxjam said:

Nope I'm saying that you are far more likely to be recommended a left wing source.  Both CNN and Fox cover the stories for example but you're far more likely to be recommended CNN on a whole range of subjects.  

This is further backed up by the hour long leaked video of Google leadership upset about Trumps election victory and discussing ways of never letting it happen again. 

Yup I'm done, I've offered up numerous sources and studies into left wing social media bias but got nothing back other than personal opinion - which you are of course entitled to and I'm not going to change.  Maybe we'll talk about the US elections later in the year once they become relevant again after the coronavirus scare has (hopefully) passed ?

After that particular atrocity, of course you would be, they were bound to be more plentiful.

Any reasonable human being should have been upset about Trump's victory.  If they were discussing ways in which to deliberately give their search results a left wing bias, then that's wrong.  If they were just discussing how awful they feel the election result was or how not to allow their search engine or company to be manipulated in future..then that's another thing entirely.

I understand you being dismissive of my lack of effort in sourcing data that supports my suggestion that right wing media bias is also very easy to find.  It's true I just can't be bothered and maybe I shouldn't engage in a discussion if I'm not prepared to follow through more energetically...but I still think my points are valid and I've no doubt you can find those sources yourself if you are interested. 

You are right, Covid-19 makes upcoming elections seem far less important these days. 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

If you allow people to identify as what they want, that inevitably leads to people that identify as non human;

https://theweek.com/articles/552648/meet-peoplewho-dont-identify-human

 

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Why do you always pick the most extreme example?

Well what can I say?

 

But in all seriousness - so what if some eccentric wants to identify as a black kettle? Does it harm you? No. So why would you present that as a problem. I have read enough about your politics to know that you're generally pro-freedom. So why not?

Maybe you chose your words badly, but if you read back the line "if you allow people..." then it's hard to argue that doesn't have a hint of oppression.

I'm generally all for letting people live their lives however they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. And recognising that, whether I agree with them or not - they are individuals who should be afforded the same right to freedom that I have. Therefore I have no business taking them to task for their choices

 

[i-Ram]

7 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

But in all seriousness - so what if some eccentric wants to identify as a black kettle? Does it harm you?

It depends whether the eccentric is PAT tested or not. If he/she has a valid certificate I would be personally comfortable. I suspect you might have issues with people being labelled.

[1967Ram]

I am hopeful that the political landscape in the UK could improve now that Keir Starmer is Labour leader. He has experience of working in the real world, not just the 'political bubble' and has always come across well when I have heard him speak.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

But in all seriousness - so what if some eccentric wants to identify as a black kettle? 

Exactly,  and then you will be able to defend them and say they are being oppressed by the white toaster.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I think I'll be a llama and you can't stop me. ?

I've contacted Fred, head of the LIPL (Llama Identity Protection League) and I'm afraid he wasn't overly impressed...

[Stive Pesley]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Exactly,  and then you will be able to defend them and say they are being oppressed by the white toaster.

Crumbs!

[maxjam]

16 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Maybe you chose your words badly, but if you read back the line "if you allow people..." then it's hard to argue that doesn't have a hint of oppression.

Poor choice of words I'll admit, the general gist of what I was trying to say was a similar to the #metoo movement and believe all women - you have to have boundaries otherwise it gets taken to the extreme and it devalues those that have legitimate claims.  If you 'allow' more than 2 genders, then you have to allow all genders;

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kz5bxa/eva-tiamat-medusa-dragon-lady-transgender

https://www.fempositive.com/trans-species-woman-says-shes-an-elf-and-shares-how-lifes-like-as-an-otherkin/

?

16 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

But in all seriousness - so what if some eccentric wants to identify as a black kettle? Does it harm you? No. So why would you present that as a problem. I have read enough about your politics to know that you're generally pro-freedom. So why not?

I've got no problem in letting people live their lives, the bit that concerns me is when the pro-freedom argument gets flipped and they insist on others living by their arbitary rules.  The pro-science argument is an alternative and perfectly valid opinion to hold imo and there is a big debate around feminism and hard fought female rights of which the transgender issue is eroding.  When only one side of the argument is allowed to speak, it sets a dangerous precedent. 

 

16 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I'm generally all for letting people live their lives however they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. And recognising that, whether I agree with them or not - they are individuals who should be afforded the same right to freedom that I have. Therefore I have no business taking them to task for their choices

Agree wholeheartedly with the first bit, the bit where we differ is that we can very easily flip the narrative and argue that a transgender persons right live as they choose shouldn't force others to believe something they don't or negatively effect women.  As a society there is a discussion to be had about where we draw the boundaries, unfortunately the discussion as is often the case, is being driven by the more extreme element, aided and abetted by social media removing anyone that dares to question the progressive narrative.

[Mick Brolly]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I think I'll be a llama and you can't stop me. ?

Please refrain from spitting during these difficult times.