Political Banter and Debate Thread

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:00

Is a soft coup akin to a slow phase out whereas a hard coup is 'we need to talk?'.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:01

Hate to say it DavPaz, but the go-to, default response of many on the Left (and CyberNats as well) is "TROLL!" in response to any criticism, hence the development of insular, exclusive, polarised echo-chambers entirely disinterested with inconvenient facts and truths.

That doesn't happen here because people here are generally too lovely and intelligent - and we're only a small group etc., but this doesn't appear to be the norm. Not that I'm on Twitter of anything like it, in fact here is the only place I am _at all_. (Soz

)

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:01

Kern wrote:

Is a soft coup akin to a slow phase out whereas a hard coup is 'we need to talk?'.

A soft coup is where they use padded pitchforks with corks on the tines.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:03

Cavey wrote:

Kern wrote:

Is a soft coup akin to a slow phase out whereas a hard coup is 'we need to talk?'.

A soft coup is where they use padded pitchforks with corks on the tines.

And the flaming torches are actually just blowing air through a red and yellow cloth.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:03

myp · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:05

Soft coup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WODlEU9djak

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:06

Giphy "soft coup":
http://media4.giphy.com/media/sLzODLIWeGQXm/giphy-loop.mp4

Giphy "hard coup":
http://media0.giphy.com/media/12Bsb5qIn08f3G/giphy-loop.mp4

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 15:08

Most excellent satire there, Giphy.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 17:01

... Even The Guardian are taking the piss now...

Quote:

How can you tell the difference between a determined troll and someone who just disagrees with you? If they’re a troll, you’ll find they’ve sent other “tweets that seek to undermine Jeremy Corbyn”.

Gosh. It’s so sinister. I know.

Do say: McDonnell himself seems to be experiencing some disunity.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sh ... ell-labour

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

To be honest it's a pattern I have experienced.

i.e in my personal life - first they are nice and polite to you at first and then they throw things at you like "No you can't sleep with other women" and "Just pick the fucking towel up for once in your fucking life"

#domesticcoup

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 17:17

To be fair I got the whole pick-up-the-towel thing way before suggesting sleeping with interested third parties.

MaliA · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 17:20

Cavey wrote:

:D

To be fair I got the whole pick-up-the-towel thing way before suggesting sleeping with interested third parties.

MrsA gets annoyed with my doing that and has decided it was because when i was a teenager I'd "gotten used to having a houseboy in Oman to do that stuff for me". Which i disagree with.

myp · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 17:20

Oh man.

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 17:21

...We're on fire today, on fire I tells thee!

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

MaliA wrote:

Cavey wrote:

:D

To be fair I got the whole pick-up-the-towel thing way before suggesting sleeping with interested third parties.

MrsA gets annoyed with my doing that and has decided it was because when i was a teenager I'd "gotten used to having a houseboy in Oman to do that stuff for me". Which i disagree with.

You had a houseboy to sleep with interested third parties for you?

MaliA · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2017 17:27

MrChris wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Cavey wrote:

:D

To be fair I got the whole pick-up-the-towel thing way before suggesting sleeping with interested third parties.

MrsA gets annoyed with my doing that and has decided it was because when i was a teenager I'd "gotten used to having a houseboy in Oman to do that stuff for me". Which i disagree with.

You had a houseboy to sleep with interested third parties for you?

No, just the cleaning, ironing, and whatnot.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Cavey wrote:

:D

To be fair I got the whole pick-up-the-towel thing way before suggesting sleeping with interested third parties.

I get it in the neck for leaving it on our bed

We have a bathroom downstairs which I prefer to use, but all my clothes are upstairs so I go wondering up there after a shower to get socks etc and usually leave the towel on the bed.

All the bathrooms are getting replaced starting next week, my wife insisted on a draw unit in the one downstairs so I can keep socks and boxers down there and reduce my towel on the bed crimes!

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

You see though you've all reached an element of compromise - your standards are below theirs but you raise yours and they lower their expectations to arrive at a reasonably happy compromise.

Currently in politics if your opinion differs from someone else you either make shit up, invent a conspiracy or just say "Well yes but at least I'm not PETER SUTCLIFFE". Compromise just seems further away than it ever did.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:56

Our Foreign Secretary made a speech yesterday. Somewhere within it is an argument for the benefits of free trade, but were it not published on GOV.UK I'd be convinced it was a parody.

Quote:

And I am sure you all ate fruit for breakfast. Can you cast your mind back to breakfast? You’re all so young and thrusting that you probably don’t remember the time that I do, when pineapples came only in a tin with a gloopy syrup. And pineapples were thought so generally exotic 100 years ago that architects would place them as finials on the top of the top of railings or pillars or other architectural features

devilman · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:20

Kern wrote:

Our Foreign Secretary made a speech yesterday. Somewhere within it is an argument for the benefits of free trade, but were it not published on GOV.UK I'd be convinced it was a parody.

Quote:

And I am sure you all ate fruit for breakfast. Can you cast your mind back to breakfast? You’re all so young and thrusting that you probably don’t remember the time that I do, when pineapples came only in a tin with a gloopy syrup. And pineapples were thought so generally exotic 100 years ago that architects would place them as finials on the top of the top of railings or pillars or other architectural features

Skimming over the text of the speech, he does seem rather pineapple-obsessed. The bit on J K Rowling and the Punjab is a bit odd too -

Quote:

I was in the classroom, I asked the girls, I said who’s your favourite author? And what do you think they said? That’s right. Congratulations to the front row for paying attention. They all as one virtually shouted out J.K. Rowling. I then asked them various other questions to which I’m sure you all know the answers about who is the headmaster and so on and so forth, and they all knew that stuff. I hope I’m not being vulgar if I say that more sales of Harry Potter worldwide mean more business for UK publishing. Don’t they? And I hope it’s not too crude to say that means more jobs for people in this city, indeed more probably for all I know, more publishers lunches in Soho. I’m not saying that you can draw a straight line from an overflowing classroom in the Punjab to an overflowing restaurant in Dean Street, but the connection is there.

myp · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:24

His writing style reminds me of Mali

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:26

Lonewolves wrote:

His writing style reminds me of Mali

Zephaniah 3:17

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:33

Kern wrote:

Our Foreign Secretary made a speech yesterday. Somewhere within it is an argument for the benefits of free trade, but were it not published on GOV.UK I'd be convinced it was a parody.

Quote:

And I am sure you all ate fruit for breakfast. Can you cast your mind back to breakfast? You’re all so young and thrusting that you probably don’t remember the time that I do, when pineapples came only in a tin with a gloopy syrup. And pineapples were thought so generally exotic 100 years ago that architects would place them as finials on the top of the top of railings or pillars or other architectural features

I mean, it's certainly true that they were used in architecture, but I'm not sure about as recently as 100 years ago.

There's one on top of St. Paul's Cathedral, though:

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:36

I didn't know that about St Paul's! I'm now going to add 'pineapple' to my private list of details on buildings to look for.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:50

Trousers wrote:

Currently in politics if your opinion differs from someone else you either make shit up, invent a conspiracy or just say "Well yes but at least I'm not PETER SUTCLIFFE". Compromise just seems further away than it ever did.

I've thought long and hard as to why this should be, but haven't really come up with an answer. I can't really believe people these days are inherently more conceited and less able to absorb empirical facts and realities than they were (as individuals), say, 10 or 20 years ago; it surely has to be something to do with the changing ways of interacting with like-minded, and therefore polarised groups.

Plus, let's face it, these days to be seen to compromise and/or concede points in an argument (especially an internet argument) is construed as weakness, by default.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:09

Grim... wrote:

Kern wrote:

Our Foreign Secretary made a speech yesterday. Somewhere within it is an argument for the benefits of free trade, but were it not published on GOV.UK I'd be convinced it was a parody.

Quote:

And I am sure you all ate fruit for breakfast. Can you cast your mind back to breakfast? You’re all so young and thrusting that you probably don’t remember the time that I do, when pineapples came only in a tin with a gloopy syrup. And pineapples were thought so generally exotic 100 years ago that architects would place them as finials on the top of the top of railings or pillars or other architectural features

I mean, it's certainly true that they were used in architecture, but I'm not sure about as recently as 100 years ago.

There's one on top of St. Paul's Cathedral, though:

Looks more like a strawberry than a pineapple to me.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Cavey wrote:

Trousers wrote:

Currently in politics if your opinion differs from someone else you either make shit up, invent a conspiracy or just say "Well yes but at least I'm not PETER SUTCLIFFE". Compromise just seems further away than it ever did.

I've thought long and hard as to why this should be, but haven't really come up with an answer. I can't really believe people these days are inherently more conceited and less able to absorb empirical facts and realities than they were (as individuals), say, 10 or 20 years ago; it surely has to be something to do with the changing ways of interacting with like-minded, and therefore polarised groups.

Plus, let's face it, these days to be seen to compromise and/or concede points in an argument (especially an internet argument) is construed as weakness, by default.

The modern way of doing politics appears to be fear. Give someone something to fear, and push the message of that threat at every opportunity.

Fear for your safety
Fear for your job
Fear for your healthcare coverage

Politicians do it. The media does it, and it's incredibly polarising. Once you engage a sense of fear in people, their ability to rationalise and compromise recedes. And it clearly works.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:30

I agree with that, but you're talking about the way politicians conduct themselves (i.e. the "practitioners" as it were). I'm talking about the way "followers" behave.

I think your average internet politico has far too much vested pride in what is, for many, seemingly a modern-day belief-system? I mean really, can anyone of us imagine guys like, say, Billy Bragg, Owen Jones (or even our erstwhile webmaster, remember that whole changing laws of physics thing?), if confronted with compelling - or even absolutely conclusive evidence contrary to their precious beliefs - confronting their lifelong held dear political fundamentals and (publicly and fundamentally) revising their positions? I just can't see it myself.

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:34

Well, they have the fear.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:41

Credit where credit's due. According to the Guardian, the government's accepted an amendment to the Children & Social Work bill making sex education an obligatory part of the national curriculum. I'm actually surprised it currently isn't.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Grim... wrote:

Well, they have the fear.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:33

Cavey wrote:

I agree with that, but you're talking about the way politicians conduct themselves (i.e. the "practitioners" as it were). I'm talking about the way "followers" behave.

I think your average internet politico has far too much vested pride in what is, for many, seemingly a modern-day belief-system? I mean really, can anyone of us imagine guys like, say, Billy Bragg, Owen Jones (or even our erstwhile webmaster, remember that whole changing laws of physics thing?), if confronted with compelling - or even absolutely conclusive evidence contrary to their precious beliefs - confronting their lifelong held dear political fundamentals and (publicly and fundamentally) revising their positions? I just can't see it myself.

The classic case is the doomsday cult. A breif summary goes: You get a secretive cult based on the idea that the world is going to end on x day. x day comes. You'd expect that after that they'd go "Huh, it was bollocks and we were taken in by a shyster". What actually occurs is that they double down of their beliefs and it's often at this stage that they get less secretive and go on a recruiting binge.

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:36

Mr Dave wrote:

Cavey wrote:

I agree with that, but you're talking about the way politicians conduct themselves (i.e. the "practitioners" as it were). I'm talking about the way "followers" behave.

I think your average internet politico has far too much vested pride in what is, for many, seemingly a modern-day belief-system? I mean really, can anyone of us imagine guys like, say, Billy Bragg, Owen Jones (or even our erstwhile webmaster, remember that whole changing laws of physics thing?), if confronted with compelling - or even absolutely conclusive evidence contrary to their precious beliefs - confronting their lifelong held dear political fundamentals and (publicly and fundamentally) revising their positions? I just can't see it myself.

The classic case is the doomsday cult. A breif summary goes: You get a secretive cult based on the idea that the world is going to end on x day. x day comes. You'd expect that after that they'd go "Huh, it was bollocks and we were taken in by a shyster". What actually occurs is that they double down of their beliefs and it's often at this stage that they get less secretive and go on a recruiting binge.

Just, um, for the curious. What's the, err, common factors in the leaders of these cults? Anything that we should look out for? Do they get riches and bitches for doing this? Just to protect people, obvs, know your enemy, and all.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:59

I will not be joining any Malicool cult.

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 13:04

'Cult' is such a strong word. Let's try out 'association' for a while, see how it feels. Tell me what you feel about the word 'association', twenty words or so.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 13:08

I'm not joining any Malicool sssociation.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38464

MaliA wrote:

'Cult' is such a strong word. Let's try out 'association' for a while, see how it feels. Tell me what you feel about the word 'association', twenty words or so.

It's a little close to assassination, don't you feel, Oh Great One?

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 13:25

Heh.

But actually, I really *do* think the term "cult" could be legitimately used in extreme cases, e.g. nationalists intent on ignoring plain facts (the most fervent of Trump supporters etc.).

A cult is formally defined as '... a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object". If, say, one venerates and is devotional to a given specific, political cause, irrespective of all contra-indicative facts, what is this if not "cult-like"? It is surely irrational and intransigent at the very least.

Cults and the like are self-reinforcing; they need numbers. (One does not get a one-man cult). So, the ready formation of internet-induced, exclusive "echo chambers" could be seen as a step change from the past?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

I reckon if you went back forty years and went to a northern men's working club, LA theatre school, or Tennessee dive bar you'd find those exact same echo chambers. They're just more visible now.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 14:38

Kern wrote:

Credit where credit's due. According to the Guardian, the government's accepted an amendment to the Children & Social Work bill making sex education an obligatory part of the national curriculum. I'm actually surprised it currently isn't.

Apart from (AFAIK) they are going to allow Faith Schools to ignore it. So near, and yet so far.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 14:41

@Cras

I'm sure you're right and I don't disagree, but my point is that, with the advent of the internet these things are vastly more easily formed, and thus become much more prevalent, influential and relevant. Not in a good way.

We're in danger of hysteria, ignorance, nationalism, misinformation and propaganda trumping facts, knowledge and rational debate, and we know where that can end up.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 14:42

Cavey wrote:

@Cras

I'm sure you're right and I don't disagree, but my point is that, with the advent of the internet these things are vastly more easily formed, and thus become much more prevalent, influential and relevant. Not in a good way.

We're in danger of hysteria, ignorance, nationalism, misinformation and propaganda trumping facts, knowledge and rational debate, and we know where that can end up.

"President Trump"

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 14:45

Precisely.

Question is: could someone like Trump have been elected, say, 20 years ago?
What about the UK Brexit vote and all the misinformation that went with it?
What about nationalism sweeping across the globe?

How much of this is due to people living in a post-truth world driven by petty prejudice etc., because it's "comfortable" and surrounded by self-reinforcing like-minded types also saying the same thing, pseudo legitimisation of hitherto socially unacceptable views? A triumph of bigotry over facts, where facts don't actually count for much, and expert opinion even less (in fact, is viewed in contempt?)

Since when did the bare truth of a given situation count for so little?

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 14:46

Valid questions.

As is: Did people just as bad or worse did get in but we didn't hear about it?

Though there are obvious nationalist types who have risen to power in ostensibly smart democracies in the past.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

Cavey wrote:

Precisely.

Question is: could someone like Trump have been elected, say, 20 years ago?

No I don't think he could and I think that the internet has certainly been a facilitating factor but I also think the groundswell of opinions came far earlier than mass internet use. Decades of Daily Express and Daily Mail headlines, our own fucking foreign secretary writing total nonsense about Brussels in his columns. Right wing talk radio in America, Fox news etc etc. All of those as well as 9/11 and other attacks created the climate that was just ripe for extremists like Trump and Farage to exploit. Loads of factors really.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 14:56

Curiosity wrote:

Kern wrote:

Credit where credit's due. According to the Guardian, the government's accepted an amendment to the Children & Social Work bill making sex education an obligatory part of the national curriculum. I'm actually surprised it currently isn't.

Apart from (AFAIK) they are going to allow Faith Schools to ignore it. So near, and yet so far.

Agree. It's frustrating, because good sex and relationship education is so important to people's lives that's it more immoral to not be honest and instructive to kids than to gloss over, ignore, or lie about about such things. Probably the government decided not to go all the way because they didn't want a noisy argument.

The Beeb are reporting that the government will run a consultation on content later in the year.

The sex education I had in school in the 1990s was appallingly bad, once we got past the basics of biology and different forms of protection.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 15:11

markg wrote:

Cavey wrote:

Precisely.

Question is: could someone like Trump have been elected, say, 20 years ago?

No I don't think he could and I think that the internet has certainly been a facilitating factor but I also think the groundswell of opinions came far earlier than mass internet use. Decades of Daily Express and Daily Mail headlines, our own fucking foreign secretary writing total nonsense about Brussels in his columns. Right wing talk radio in America, Fox news etc etc. All of those as well as 9/11 and other attacks created the climate that was just ripe for extremists like Trump and Farage to exploit. Loads of factors really.

I'm inclined to agree but as I said to Cras before, these things were (kind of) always there, but it's the internet - and more accurately an evolution that seems to be occurring over time due to the mass-accessibility of the net and "othering" (e.g. nationalist-driven) internet-based groups - that has become the mass-vehicle for this. So whereas the *potential* has been there for a long time, and increasing no doubt, it's only really now - in this post-mass use of internet capable smart phones etc. and highly evolved virtual social networks/networking - that there's only now this apparent step change and mass-movement.

If this hypothesis is even remotely right, I can't see Pandora's Box closing any time soon. Ignorance is indeed strength.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 15:14

Wasn't the problem with Alf Garnett that too many people didn't realise he was a parody?

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Mar 01, 2017 15:20

Cavey wrote:

Precisely.

Question is: could someone like Trump have been elected, say, 20 years ago?

Could Reagan?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Kern wrote:

Wasn't the problem with Alf Garnett that too many people didn't realise he was a parody?

Al Murray has also said that's why he stopped 'doing' The Pub Landlord

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK