Brexit

The talks and negotiations.

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Brexit

#8041  Postby ronmcd » Jun 08, 2019 12:42 pm

Fiona Bruce: "Next question, are the SNP bad? Yes madam. No, not you with the sash, the woman next to you. No, not the Tory Councillor, the other side, the ex Tory MSP. Yes, you madam."
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12232

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#8042  Postby tuco » Jun 08, 2019 1:07 pm

minininja wrote:
tuco wrote:We are not informed? Respectively, those who want to be informed are not informed? That is nonsense. As I said pages ago, ideally there would be responsible voters who inform themselves. Nothing else can be done.

I'm privileged with a good education, good critical thinking and research skills, and plenty of free time and the ability to check things out across multiple sources of information online, and I have a significant interest in politics. I still have a really hard time cutting through all the bullshit and diversion to try and find out and focus on what's true and what matters.

Just the other day the BBC ran a puff piece on a young woman that had spoken up in the audience of Question Time along the lines of "ooh isn't this interesting, a young woman that likes to party and post bikini shots on instagram but who also holds conservative and pro-Brexit political views, let's hear what she has to say" - without any questioning or critical challenge as if it was just a vox pop. It was only after people pointed it out on twitter that they acknowledged she's working as a social media influencer for Turning Point UK (a right wing political propaganda organisation with undisclosed funding sources and links to the American far-right). But that will have been missed by most of the people that initially saw the piece.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect individuals to be able to "inform themselves" from within a swamp of big-money disinformation, and just leave it as "there's nothing to be done". Democracy requires that at least the majority of the electorate be educated and well informed, and the media must play a big part in that, to hold power to account. But at the moment most of the media and the wealthy and powerful are the same people. Their publications exist to sell themselves with attention grabbing headlines and simplistic narratives feeding people's confirmation bias, and to persuade the public to vote for politicians that they have in their pockets. There needs to be significant reform, and democratisation of the media, if this is to change.

One of the reasons Corbyn became so popular amongst those on the left who take an interest in politics, is that he is the first major party leader in decades to refuse to court the media barons. It's in Labour's manifesto to bring about media reform. But that is also why so much of the media will stop at nothing to criticise and smear him and prevent him getting into government.


So I went to invest 3.5 mins to see what she had to say. I learned that she went to Ibiza and was in bikini. I also learned she is "careful" how she looks in the public eye. Then there was a cut to Question Time where she said that Europairlament elections are proxy for second referendum .. OK .. then I learned that she has lots of followers on Twitter who encourage her to become MP, then how she likes night out and fun and how she think its compatible with liking politics .. at this point, 1:55, I skipped to the end .. where she presents thesis that having young people in politics would make young people interested in politics.

Why should I care about this? What is your point?

"ooh isn't this interesting, a young woman that likes to party and post bikini shots on instagram but who also holds conservative and pro-Brexit political views, let's hear what she has to say"


So what? Let her speak. She is entitled to an opinion. What is your problem with it? That she could have influenced someone?

How this proposal of yours:

minininja wrote:It shouldn't need to be criminal, it just needs to have consequences for their political careers. Ideally this would be through a media that would adequately inform the electorate and hold the liars and bastards to account.

Unfortunately this is where the old boys network does still hold sway. So much of the British media is owned and edited by the same wealth and power that exists in and over right wing politicians, that there's little accountability and a huge amount of disinformation and diversion to balance it out. And even as print and broadcast media has lost influence to social media, even more money has been pumped into disinformation with astroturfing, paid for social media influencers, and highly targeted political propaganda ads.

The only solution I can think of is to legislate to give individual journalists more power over the content from media organisations, and give real teeth to an independent regulatory body that can hold them to account about publishing bullshit. Of course Boris and his ilk would never allow such legislation to pass if they had any way to stop it. And so it continues.


addresses any of the Ibiza bikini girl?

The information in question, the one that started this debate, the 350mil/week was at the time readily available to anyone who cared to look it up.

Your solution to the problem that some people only follow media that publish bullshit is ... to legislate to give individual journalists more power over the content from media organisations, and give real teeth to an independent regulatory body that can hold them to account about publishing bullshit.. What does this even mean? To me, it sounds like a communist method to censor media. Would you care to present a more specific proposal? There would be some committee which would check media for facts or would this committee act when prompted by someone?

How about media not under the jurisdiction of the UK law? Perhaps go the Chinese way and restrict access to them from the UK?

To legislate to give individual journalists more power over the content from media organisations? You mean legislate employees to have power over their boss? How would such proposal look like?

Publish this story.
No.
You are fired.
No, you cant fire me I've been empowered over the content by the law.
Ok then, let's do it your way.


I could actually go sentence by sentence over your posts as its a collection of poorly thought out ideas and ideals .. but I have invested more than I wanted already so let me finish with this:

There needs to be significant reform, and democratisation of the media, if this is to change.


Yes, democratisation by censorship. That is again a communist method.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8043  Postby minininja » Jun 08, 2019 1:41 pm

Yeah, at no point have I mentioned censorship or anything like it. If that's what you take from the words "democratisation" and "power to individual journalists", I don't see the point in responding further.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1439

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8044  Postby tuco » Jun 08, 2019 1:46 pm

Of course, you have not used "censorship" because if you would, you'd realize how absurd and faulty your proposals are. You just don't realize that what your propose is censorship.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8045  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 08, 2019 2:05 pm

tuco wrote:
addresses any of the Ibiza bikini girl?


LOL, tuco. The post that you're responding to with that spitball precedes the post that mentions the bikini girl. Pay attention.

tuco wrote:[Yes, democratisation by censorship. That is again a communist method.


What do you actually support, tuco? Everyone running around naked and fucking in the park on our lunch breaks?
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 08, 2019 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28463
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8046  Postby minininja » Jun 08, 2019 2:07 pm

tuco wrote:Of course, you have not used "censorship" because if you would, you'd realize how absurd and faulty your proposals are. You just don't realize that what your propose is censorship.

At this point my proposals amount to couple of sentences which you have strawmanned to high heaven.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1439

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8047  Postby tuco » Jun 08, 2019 2:16 pm

You don't follow nor care about context much do you Cito di Pense ?

Of course, I am paying attention. Rarely does it happen I am not. minininja came up with an idea, #8037, to that I replied by #8039, to that minininja replied in #8040 addressing my point here:

I don't think it's reasonable to expect individuals to be able to "inform themselves" from within a swamp of big-money disinformation, and just leave it as "there's nothing to be done".


so my proposal is not reasonable while her/his is right? What does this refer to then?

Just the other day the BBC ran a puff piece on a young woman that had spoken up in the audience of Question Time along the lines of "ooh isn't this interesting, a young woman that likes to party and post bikini shots on instagram but who also holds conservative and pro-Brexit political views, let's hear what she has to say" - without any questioning or critical challenge as if it was just a vox pop. It was only after people pointed it out on twitter that they acknowledged she's working as a social media influencer for Turning Point UK (a right wing political propaganda organisation with undisclosed funding sources and links to the American far-right). But that will have been missed by most of the people that initially saw the piece.


I assume it's not just a random thought but to the point made in the post #8037, refuting post #8039 respectively.

Young bikini girls influences people and something has to be done about it, people need to be protected against their own idiocy and ignorance.

What kind of lie or misinformation she said? We were talking about 350mil/week lie. What does she has to do with anything? I dont pay attention .. sure.
Last edited by tuco on Jun 08, 2019 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#8048  Postby tuco » Jun 08, 2019 2:18 pm

minininja wrote:
tuco wrote:Of course, you have not used "censorship" because if you would, you'd realize how absurd and faulty your proposals are. You just don't realize that what your propose is censorship.

At this point my proposals amount to couple of sentences which you have strawmanned to high heaven.


Free to specify your proposals then. I know now that it will either be censorship or fall apart like a house of cards. Just like your proposal to what was it .. tax frequent fliers. Go ahead and expand a couple of sentences into a coherent realistic proposal. It will never happen, I know.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8049  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 2:23 pm

:levi:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8050  Postby minininja » Jun 08, 2019 2:52 pm

tuco wrote:Free to specify your proposals then. I know now that it will either be censorship or fall apart like a house of cards. Just like your proposal to what was it .. tax frequent fliers. Go ahead and expand a couple of sentences into a coherent realistic proposal. It will never happen, I know.

No, you're right tuco. I bow down to your infinite, infallible wisdom.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1439

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8051  Postby tuco » Jun 08, 2019 3:13 pm

Actually, it's not that intellectually demanding to figure out that what you propose is certainly not realistic.

The only solution I can think of is to legislate to give individual journalists more power over the content from media organisations, and give real teeth to an independent regulatory body that can hold them to account about publishing bullshit.


and its censorship by definition: hold media accountable for publishing bullshit.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/censorship

When I saw this:

minininja wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
For the last sentence, I am a little unsure what you mean - could you unpack the idea of an extremely progressive environmental impact tax?

Are you talking about what would amount to an allotment of miles or flights, beyond which the tax would grow exponentially?

Given the level of identification already required for people travelling by air it would not be difficult to link air travel records to individual tax records. You could create a tax that not only increased in relation to the environmental impact of successive flights over a given period, but that also increased in proportion to an individual's income or wealth, making it as prohibitively expensive to be a frequent flyer for the wealthy as it would be for the poor, and thereby avoiding the tax being regressive.


I was suspicious but gave you benefit of doubt. After what you produced here, I give you no more and tell you that your ideas smell totalitarian as fuck, and I know what I am talking about because I lived in it.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8052  Postby Thommo » Jun 08, 2019 3:54 pm

tuco wrote:So I went to invest 3.5 mins to see what she had to say.


You can save yourself a few minutes on future occasions. If anyone speaks on Question Time, whether audience or panellist, just assume they are a party activist or otherwise interested party and not an ordinary member of the public.

Funnily enough this does not just apply to people who speak against remain or the SNP and happens just as frequently in reverse and in all other directions.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26132

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8053  Postby zerne » Jun 08, 2019 8:25 pm

minininja wrote:According to this from the beeb, it looks like there's unlikely to be any progress with anything until late July. At which point we'll no doubt return to having no progress with Brexit until the end of October.

Image


I should be overjoyed. The Conservative Party are literally tearing themselves apart before my very eyes.
And yet... another two months of this bullshit.
Gove the cocaine monster.
Boris the Trump anointed.
there is no emoji for this
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 870
Age: 45
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8054  Postby ronmcd » Jun 08, 2019 9:17 pm

zerne wrote:
Gove the cocaine monster.
Boris the Trump anointed.
there is no emoji for this

McVey the actual monster.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12232

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8055  Postby zerne » Jun 08, 2019 9:35 pm

I must've missed that one, there's too many to keep track of right now. What did she say?
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 870
Age: 45
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#8056  Postby ronmcd » Jun 08, 2019 9:36 pm

zerne wrote:I must've missed that one, there's too many to keep track of right now. What did she say?

No, she's just an actual literal monster.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12232

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post


Re: Brexit

#8058  Postby BlackBart » Jun 08, 2019 9:54 pm

Sounds like a firm of solicitors;
Shipley, Filibuster and Cunt.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11687
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8059  Postby Matt_B » Jun 08, 2019 9:54 pm

I'd think that Esther McVile's period as Secretary of State for Work and PensionsStarving People to Death ought to have finished her career.

Still, it's amazing how re-inventing herself as a foaming-at-the-mouth Brexiteer has managed to endear herself to the people who probably ought to be most afraid of what she could do to them.
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4537
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#8060  Postby ronmcd » Jun 08, 2019 10:00 pm

BlackBart wrote:Sounds like a firm of solicitors;
Shipley, Filibuster and Cunt.


Shipley, Filibuster and Cunt. Solicitors to the Royal Family.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12232

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: minininja and 6 guests