You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Decade of the Red Pill
May 29 2020 8.55pm

Decade of the Red Pill

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 30 Dec 19 2.13pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I have always been Labour. Since Blair, I found it hard to support them. My personal ideas have come closer to the right in that I don't agree with unfettered immigration or the lack of integration within society. I believe it is a Western problem - not only Northern European. I am increasingly frustrated with people who have no intention of ever working or achieving anything being given housing, health care and education, over and above those who do work. Particularly those who just work to live. I suspect new political parties to emerge that reflect this.
So I'm still Labour in that I believe in rights for the working class. Shame Labour forgot all about that and went very much down the identity politics route.
I also find myself struggling to see how Islam fits into Western Society - particularly hard-line Islam. We have moved on from the crusades and no longer burn witches. I find it difficult to see why we accept such behaviour in our society. In fact we often champion people of different religion as somehow more diverse - when in reality we are looked down upon by them as decadent and indeed haram.

Check out Blue Labour. Maurice Glasman has some interesting ideas.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 30 Dec 19 3.33pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I have always been Labour. Since Blair, I found it hard to support them. My personal ideas have come closer to the right in that I don't agree with unfettered immigration or the lack of integration within society. I believe it is a Western problem - not only Northern European. I am increasingly frustrated with people who have no intention of ever working or achieving anything being given housing, health care and education, over and above those who do work. Particularly those who just work to live. I suspect new political parties to emerge that reflect this.
So I'm still Labour in that I believe in rights for the working class. Shame Labour forgot all about that and went very much down the identity politics route.
I also find myself struggling to see how Islam fits into Western Society - particularly hard-line Islam. We have moved on from the crusades and no longer burn witches. I find it difficult to see why we accept such behaviour in our society. In fact we often champion people of different religion as somehow more diverse - when in reality we are looked down upon by them as decadent and indeed haram.

All completely valid perspectives in my view.

I'd say that politics has always been 'identity politics' in so much as different parties represent different groups or demographics more than others....for example old Labour sort of represented the working class whereas this version represents minorities and the socially liberal in the middle class.

Perhaps what you mean by 'identity politics' is 'racial politics'.

Yes, that is on the march, taking its lead from the US and I'm afraid it's not going to change.....Get on board or lose long term....it'll be more your children that will really experience it. No one changes a successful tactic and the left are going to win on birth demographics.

Those who think they can hold their nose above it all should reflect on the fact that one side is passing to its own players while the other is passing to everyone.

Long term, It's obvious who wins that match.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Dec 2019 3.39pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 6.19pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

This by far not the first time I have read these kind of sentiments which, for me at least, are a sad reflection of our times. Here is my perspective on why these feelings now exist.

About 11 to 12 years ago I got to spend time with a bunch of American ex pats in SE Asia. Mostly ex military, many were ex Marines. All were NRA enthusiasts and it was from them that I first heard of the possibility of Trump eventually running, which was something they supported.

What also was new for me back then was the level of mistrust in the regular news channels and the absolute belief in a large number of conspiracy theories, the most widely held being that 9/11 was a US government sponsored event and not terrorism. They had all kinds of technical reasons as to why the towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft hitting them and that a series of explosions were responsible. These theories have all been debunked many times but back then they were totally convinced of them and got stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions, let alone laughed at them.

This was, of course, well before the growth of Facebook and the rest of social media. These theories were though being spread via the internet and, in my opinion, were the precursor to today's situation.

The commercial MSM have always spun stories to suit the agendas of their owners and their readership. They can and do distort the truth through the omission of facts and the over emphasis of others. However, what they cannot do without risking legal action is to publish out and out lies. That's why they have editors and lawyers checking their content before publication.

What the non commercial MSM, and in particular the much maligned BBC, do is quite different. Editorial control is very strong and standards rigorously applied. When both the left and the right complain, as they do, that the BBC is biased I tend to think that they are doing a good job.

That though hasn't stopped many people now trusting internet "news" sources much more than the MSM. Such sources have little or no editorial control and no real fear of being taken to court, as many are untraceable and anonymous. They are therefore opinion pieces emanating from whomsoever wishes to insert their opinions into the consciousness of their readers. With the ability to target their intended market now so much easier this has opened the door to all kinds of malelevant operators seeking to influence public opinion. Political operators at home, and those abroad seeking to sow division and discontent.


So if someone is already leaning one way a little bit of bias confirmation and poisoning the well of previously trusted sources can yield substantial political results.

When the President of the USA seeks to capitalise on such things by describing the MSM as "fake news" and owes his election, at least in part, to them we can see that the political consequences are very real.

The answer will only come if and when we find a way to introduce editorial controls over internet content. There are small glimmers of hope with a few efforts at removing obvious transgressions with the anticipated squeals about "freedom of speech" already being heard. Much, much more though is needed.

It's somewhat ironic that the perpetrators of at least some of this, Russia and China, are themselves now seeking to control what people can read in their own countries.

So should we actually trust the MSM and our governments? On balance I think we can and certainly 100% more than other sources. Why? Because nothing can be kept secret in these days of investigative journalism and whistleblower protections. If people do something wrong then we will find out.

Except of course Trump is trying to intimidate the whistleblower in the impeachment trial. Calling him a "spy" and saying that in another age a spy would suffer the death penalty must be intended to frighten others with potentially damaging information. So what else has he got to hide?

Conspiracy theory of my own? Of course, but one with a great deal of verifiable evidence to support it.

These are dark days in our political life.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 30 Dec 19 6.36pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

This by far not the first time I have read these kind of sentiments which, for me at least, are a sad reflection of our times. Here is my perspective on why these feelings now exist.

About 11 to 12 years ago I got to spend time with a bunch of American ex pats in SE Asia. Mostly ex military, many were ex Marines. All were NRA enthusiasts and it was from them that I first heard of the possibility of Trump eventually running, which was something they supported.

What also was new for me back then was the level of mistrust in the regular news channels and the absolute belief in a large number of conspiracy theories, the most widely held being that 9/11 was a US government sponsored event and not terrorism. They had all kinds of technical reasons as to why the towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft hitting them and that a series of explosions were responsible. These theories have all been debunked many times but back then they were totally convinced of them and got stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions, let alone laughed at them.

This was, of course, well before the growth of Facebook and the rest of social media. These theories were though being spread via the internet and, in my opinion, were the precursor to today's situation.

The commercial MSM have always spun stories to suit the agendas of their owners and their readership. They can and do distort the truth through the omission of facts and the over emphasis of others. However, what they cannot do without risking legal action is to publish out and out lies. That's why they have editors and lawyers checking their content before publication.

What the non commercial MSM, and in particular the much maligned BBC, do is quite different. Editorial control is very strong and standards rigorously applied. When both the left and the right complain, as they do, that the BBC is biased I tend to think that they are doing a good job.

That though hasn't stopped many people now trusting internet "news" sources much more than the MSM. Such sources have little or no editorial control and no real fear of being taken to court, as many are untraceable and anonymous. They are therefore opinion pieces emanating from whomsoever wishes to insert their opinions into the consciousness of their readers. With the ability to target their intended market now so much easier this has opened the door to all kinds of malelevant operators seeking to influence public opinion. Political operators at home, and those abroad seeking to sow division and discontent.


So if someone is already leaning one way a little bit of bias confirmation and poisoning the well of previously trusted sources can yield substantial political results.

When the President of the USA seeks to capitalise on such things by describing the MSM as "fake news" and owes his election, at least in part, to them we can see that the political consequences are very real.

The answer will only come if and when we find a way to introduce editorial controls over internet content. There are small glimmers of hope with a few efforts at removing obvious transgressions with the anticipated squeals about "freedom of speech" already being heard. Much, much more though is needed.

It's somewhat ironic that the perpetrators of at least some of this, Russia and China, are themselves now seeking to control what people can read in their own countries.

So should we actually trust the MSM and our governments? On balance I think we can and certainly 100% more than other sources. Why? Because nothing can be kept secret in these days of investigative journalism and whistleblower protections. If people do something wrong then we will find out.

Except of course Trump is trying to intimidate the whistleblower in the impeachment trial. Calling him a "spy" and saying that in another age a spy would suffer the death penalty must be intended to frighten others with potentially damaging information. So what else has he got to hide?

Conspiracy theory of my own? Of course, but one with a great deal of verifiable evidence to support it.

These are dark days in our political life.

This is one sided.
The left are past masters at propaganda. You mix truth with your own bias as per usual.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Online Flag Chatham 30 Dec 19 7.20pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

This by far not the first time I have read these kind of sentiments which, for me at least, are a sad reflection of our times. Here is my perspective on why these feelings now exist.

About 11 to 12 years ago I got to spend time with a bunch of American ex pats in SE Asia. Mostly ex military, many were ex Marines. All were NRA enthusiasts and it was from them that I first heard of the possibility of Trump eventually running, which was something they supported.

What also was new for me back then was the level of mistrust in the regular news channels and the absolute belief in a large number of conspiracy theories, the most widely held being that 9/11 was a US government sponsored event and not terrorism. They had all kinds of technical reasons as to why the towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft hitting them and that a series of explosions were responsible. These theories have all been debunked many times but back then they were totally convinced of them and got stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions, let alone laughed at them.

This was, of course, well before the growth of Facebook and the rest of social media. These theories were though being spread via the internet and, in my opinion, were the precursor to today's situation.

The commercial MSM have always spun stories to suit the agendas of their owners and their readership. They can and do distort the truth through the omission of facts and the over emphasis of others. However, what they cannot do without risking legal action is to publish out and out lies. That's why they have editors and lawyers checking their content before publication.

What the non commercial MSM, and in particular the much maligned BBC, do is quite different. Editorial control is very strong and standards rigorously applied. When both the left and the right complain, as they do, that the BBC is biased I tend to think that they are doing a good job.

That though hasn't stopped many people now trusting internet "news" sources much more than the MSM. Such sources have little or no editorial control and no real fear of being taken to court, as many are untraceable and anonymous. They are therefore opinion pieces emanating from whomsoever wishes to insert their opinions into the consciousness of their readers. With the ability to target their intended market now so much easier this has opened the door to all kinds of malelevant operators seeking to influence public opinion. Political operators at home, and those abroad seeking to sow division and discontent.


So if someone is already leaning one way a little bit of bias confirmation and poisoning the well of previously trusted sources can yield substantial political results.

When the President of the USA seeks to capitalise on such things by describing the MSM as "fake news" and owes his election, at least in part, to them we can see that the political consequences are very real.

The answer will only come if and when we find a way to introduce editorial controls over internet content. There are small glimmers of hope with a few efforts at removing obvious transgressions with the anticipated squeals about "freedom of speech" already being heard. Much, much more though is needed.

It's somewhat ironic that the perpetrators of at least some of this, Russia and China, are themselves now seeking to control what people can read in their own countries.

So should we actually trust the MSM and our governments? On balance I think we can and certainly 100% more than other sources. Why? Because nothing can be kept secret in these days of investigative journalism and whistleblower protections. If people do something wrong then we will find out.

Except of course Trump is trying to intimidate the whistleblower in the impeachment trial. Calling him a "spy" and saying that in another age a spy would suffer the death penalty must be intended to frighten others with potentially damaging information. So what else has he got to hide?

Conspiracy theory of my own? Of course, but one with a great deal of verifiable evidence to support it.

These are dark days in our political life.

Stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions. Mmmmm
A bit like challenging the theory about how bad brexit will be, how bad man made climate change is and the minimal failures of the nhs.
Hopefully some will not fall into that trap eh wissie!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 7.52pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This is one sided.
The left are past masters at propaganda. You mix truth with your own bias as per usual.

I was not addressing either right or left issues.

It is absolutely perfectly possible for the left to be deliberately misinformed. Just look at the Corbynistas for evidence of that.

I was just addressing issues about what we now regard as the truth and how we receive the information upon which we decide what is the truth.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 7.56pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions. Mmmmm
A bit like challenging the theory about how bad brexit will be, how bad man made climate change is and the minimal failures of the nhs.
Hopefully some will not fall into that trap eh wissie!

The difference ought to be obvious.

The conspiracy theories I was encountering were plainly nonsense and ought never to have been the subject of serious consideration by any sane person. I watched the twin towers fall. I saw the second plane hit the building live. That was real.

We can have opinions about Brexit. Less so about climate change. There will always be failures in an organisation as big as the NHS.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Online Flag Chatham 30 Dec 19 8.10pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The difference ought to be obvious.

The conspiracy theories I was encountering were plainly nonsense and ought never to have been the subject of serious consideration by any sane person. I watched the twin towers fall. I saw the second plane hit the building live. That was real.

We can have opinions about Brexit. Less so about climate change. There will always be failures in an organisation as big as the NHS.

Why less so about man made climate change

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 9.00pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Why less so about man made climate change

The vast majority of the world's experts in this area agree that man made climate change is real.

All of the world's responsible politicians take it seriously, whilst accepting the huge problems involved in taking the voting public with them.

Anyone that denies it needs to back their opinion up with some hard facts which I have not yet heard.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Online Flag Chatham 30 Dec 19 9.07pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The vast majority of the world's experts in this area agree that man made climate change is real.

All of the world's responsible politicians take it seriously, whilst accepting the huge problems involved in taking the voting public with them.

Anyone that denies it needs to back their opinion up with some hard facts which I have not yet heard.

At least you agree boris is a responsible politician at last.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 30 Dec 19 9.11pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

This by far not the first time I have read these kind of sentiments which, for me at least, are a sad reflection of our times. Here is my perspective on why these feelings now exist.

About 11 to 12 years ago I got to spend time with a bunch of American ex pats in SE Asia. Mostly ex military, many were ex Marines. All were NRA enthusiasts and it was from them that I first heard of the possibility of Trump eventually running, which was something they supported.

What also was new for me back then was the level of mistrust in the regular news channels and the absolute belief in a large number of conspiracy theories, the most widely held being that 9/11 was a US government sponsored event and not terrorism. They had all kinds of technical reasons as to why the towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft hitting them and that a series of explosions were responsible. These theories have all been debunked many times but back then they were totally convinced of them and got stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions, let alone laughed at them.

This was, of course, well before the growth of Facebook and the rest of social media. These theories were though being spread via the internet and, in my opinion, were the precursor to today's situation.

The commercial MSM have always spun stories to suit the agendas of their owners and their readership. They can and do distort the truth through the omission of facts and the over emphasis of others. However, what they cannot do without risking legal action is to publish out and out lies. That's why they have editors and lawyers checking their content before publication.

What the non commercial MSM, and in particular the much maligned BBC, do is quite different. Editorial control is very strong and standards rigorously applied. When both the left and the right complain, as they do, that the BBC is biased I tend to think that they are doing a good job.

That though hasn't stopped many people now trusting internet "news" sources much more than the MSM. Such sources have little or no editorial control and no real fear of being taken to court, as many are untraceable and anonymous. They are therefore opinion pieces emanating from whomsoever wishes to insert their opinions into the consciousness of their readers. With the ability to target their intended market now so much easier this has opened the door to all kinds of malelevant operators seeking to influence public opinion. Political operators at home, and those abroad seeking to sow division and discontent.


So if someone is already leaning one way a little bit of bias confirmation and poisoning the well of previously trusted sources can yield substantial political results.

When the President of the USA seeks to capitalise on such things by describing the MSM as "fake news" and owes his election, at least in part, to them we can see that the political consequences are very real.

The answer will only come if and when we find a way to introduce editorial controls over internet content. There are small glimmers of hope with a few efforts at removing obvious transgressions with the anticipated squeals about "freedom of speech" already being heard. Much, much more though is needed.

It's somewhat ironic that the perpetrators of at least some of this, Russia and China, are themselves now seeking to control what people can read in their own countries.

So should we actually trust the MSM and our governments? On balance I think we can and certainly 100% more than other sources. Why? Because nothing can be kept secret in these days of investigative journalism and whistleblower protections. If people do something wrong then we will find out.

Except of course Trump is trying to intimidate the whistleblower in the impeachment trial. Calling him a "spy" and saying that in another age a spy would suffer the death penalty must be intended to frighten others with potentially damaging information. So what else has he got to hide?

Conspiracy theory of my own? Of course, but one with a great deal of verifiable evidence to support it.

These are dark days in our political life.

Whether or not MSM news is biased is a matter of opinion.
What isn’t is the bias in almost all other of the media output. From advertising to sit-coms, drama to panel games, stand up to soap opera, Hollywood to music there is a relentless wave of social “progressiveness”. If you can’t see it then it may be because you are too busy with your other activities.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag bristol 30 Dec 19 9.20pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This is one sided.
The left are past masters at propaganda. You mix truth with your own bias as per usual.

And that was a knee jerk attack on anything WE writes without actually reading what he wrote. While the examples he cited were from the right his substantive opinions apply equally to populist uncontrolled internet outlets from both ends of the political spectrum.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Decade of the Red Pill