Hall Of Fame
Is it the jelly bit between the meat and the crust of UK politics?Originally Posted by Elite_Pie
Sorry that’s aspic.
Hall Of Fame
Latest from Joe Biden on (apologies to Driller) Twitter;
‘We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit.
Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.’
First Team
Elite, I don't recall asking you the question, but if you dont understand do your research and educate yourself.
BFP all your answer seems to indicate you make it up as you go along sticking to the same old stuck record. One thing I will agree with you on is the Billionaire media, but much of your narrative seems to peddle out the liberal left wing patter the same billionaire owned crap espouses.
Hall Of Fame
So you don't know.
Nor do I, but I was hoping you would tell me and others what the real aspect of UK politics is.
I do know it's not the jelly bit between the meat and the crust if that helps.
Hall Of Fame
No need to apologise, you can say his name (no pun intended). I'm sure he's a perfectly nice guy.
I'm just worried that his refusal to speak rationally about, and distance himself from, certain events will present the US electorate with a choice between crazy-you-know and crazy-you-don't, leading to the chance of another four years of Trump.
Hall Of Fame
Sounds about right to me. I suppose the other alternative is to build a wall.
Hall Of Fame
Tbh I was referring to my use of Twitter rather than anything to do with Biden. I get the impression that you’re not a fan.
As for Biden himself, yeah it’s disappointing that the Democrats couldn’t come up with a more inspirational, spritely figure, though obviously I don’t agree with you regarding his stance on BLM. The US have a poor choice in November. We had a poor choice last December. The world’s f00ked.
Hall Of Fame
Ah right, I missed that. Well I still think that Twitter encourages people to talk about politics by posting one-line passive aggressive 'zingers' at each other as well as links and memes that lead to a partial and one-sided examination of issues. Not to mention the fact that social media algorithms only show you content that gets the most extreme reactions, so will either confirm your biases or wind you up, so that you're more likely to interact with it.
I think it's fairly clear what's happened to politics since people started using social media for it, and it's not good. Nothing I see on this board persuades me otherwise.
Re Biden it's not just the fact that he's old. If they had a younger candidate who was even more scared of the lunatic fringes on the left the problem would be even worse. We could get into it but I think we both know where we stand so probably not much point.
Hall Of Fame
There’s no doubt that social meejah has polarised politics. I’m not on Facebook but we all know it uses the algorithms you’re talking about and it promotes content that you’ll either agree with or makes you angry.
To me though Twitter is great because you can literally follow people who do what the BBC is supposed to do and either inform, educate, or entertain. Experts in their field. It’s even got round to kicking some of the extremists off. 280 characters obviously isn’t ideal, but then you can follow the links to articles that may elaborate.
I do try and follow people who I don’t normally agree with, but Christ it’s hard at times. People on the right and far left often come from a position of ignorance and Jesus wept aren’t we all suffering now.
Hall Of Fame
I don't know what counts as right and left anymore because their meanings from some years ago (taxation and redistribution) have largely been replaced by adherence to or rejection of identity politics, but there are people outside of what could be described as the trendy (Guardian, NY Times) left who are worth listening to.
My information diet is reading the news from the Guardian but in terms of YouTube and podcasts I go for IDW type people, which I think gives me two different perspectives. I don't know if it's me getting old, or whether the Guardian has gone downhill since Rusbridger was replaced as editor, or because I'm getting a more balanced perspective now (maybe a mix of all three) but I honestly find the Guardian becoming less and less trustworthy as it seems to be more involved in activism than accurately reporting what is happening in the world.
I used to read it thinking it was fairly accurate reporting with a political slant especially in the opinion pieces, which I could adjust for. Now I'm finding factual errors, some through laziness, and what is worse, I think some are deliberate.
If we leave the terms left and right and look for people who are 'progressives', meaning they want to improve society but don't have a blind loyalty to Labour/Democratic parties, and aren't afraid of discussing taboo subjects, then look for James Lindsay, Brett Weinstein, Sam Harris.
They are all extremely intelligent, all have PhDs (mathematics, biology, neuroscience) and are extremely eloquent. I find their rational, logical arguments much more convincing than those of the average metropolitan-left journalist, whose arguments mostly boil down to what is acceptable to say at dinner parties in polite society, and pointing at and mocking those who say anything that might be considered unfashionable.
Last edited by drillerpie; 18-09-2020 at 07:48 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote