Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 12914 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:33 
User avatar
Comfortably Dumb

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10853
Location: Sunny Stoke
Kern wrote:
Cras wrote:
Lib Dems standing aside for Dominic Grieve, interestingly.


More of this kind of thing, please. From everyone.


Ok. I'm standing aside for him too.

_________________
Consolemad | Under Logic
Curse, the day is long
Realise you don't belong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:57 
User avatar
Paws for thought

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16570
Location: Just Outside That London, England, Europe
DavPaz wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
Weird, mine recommended voting Labour.

Me too.


Me, too.

Me too, too.

It recommended lib dems to me.

Unsurprising as Labour are essentially dead here, LDs have come consistently second and gained council control last council election.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:23 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 20861
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Mine too, but I think Four Candle’s advice is generally very sound. Those sorts of sites are generally well shared on occasions such as these and would be a very efficient way of swaying votes to prompt the user to vote tactically ‘wrongly’.

But on the other hand, it's equally easy to efficiently spread rumours that a site cannot be trusted, and thus should be ignored. Even if it's actually giving reasonable advice.

I also saw tweets about this site that said "it only ever says LibDem and should not be used." Based on a few datapoints in this thread, the first part of that statement isn't true, which puts the second part into doubt.

I do’t think anybody is saying don’t trust and use these sites because they are untrustworthy, but try your best to do some research into the one(s) you use. ‘Try to be sure this site works in a transparent and accurate way’ works for both yours and Four Candles’ scenarios.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:10 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 1865
DavPaz wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
Weird, mine recommended voting Labour.

Me too.


Me, too.

Me too, too.

Also: me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:24 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 1865
I'm not sure how such sites work, to be honest. I'd have thought it would be a simple check on the last few results for the constituency, and (if it's currently a Tory seat) recommend whichever non-Tory party is averaging most votes? Easy enough to find that data and check it yourself (I knew before I tried it that Labour were miles ahead of Lib Dems here, which is a shame in a way, as despite being a Labour member, I really like the LD candidate here). So yes, I don't think there's anything magic about these sites, so if you don't trust them, it's easy to check.

The site I posted the link to is by Best for Britain. While their CEO, Naomi Smith, is a Lib Dem, if you listen to her speaking (either at protest events, or frequently on the Remainiacs podcast), it's pretty clear that her passion is for remain/referendum, rather than party politics. So I find it difficult to believe that that site is deliberately shilling for the Lib Dems. (Which of course doesn't rule out broken algorithms - using such a site is always going to be an act of faith.) I posted it mostly just to make the case for organised tactical voting, particularly in this election (which, given how often GEs seem to be coming along these days, is understandably, and forgivably, going to be basically a single-issue election, despite what Corbyn and Johnson might say about getting on with other stuff, once in a generation opportunities, etc.).

TL;DR: if in doubt, do your own research about tactical voting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:26 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 1865
Kern wrote:
Cras wrote:
Lib Dems standing aside for Dominic Grieve, interestingly.


More of this kind of thing, please. From everyone.

Except (as seems worryingly likely) the Brexit Party, for the more rabidly Brexity Tories. Less of that, please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:00 
User avatar
Soopah red DS

Joined: 2nd Jun, 2008
Posts: 2109
Best for Britain are publishing their research - it seems based on more recent polling, so they're saying it isn't just the last few elections, but (at times) showing the shift towards remaining, which then favours the Lib Dems. And Ian Dunt posted a "FFS" to some of the wilder conspiracy claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 14:17 
8-Bit Champion
User avatar
Two heads are better than one

Joined: 16th Apr, 2008
Posts: 13660


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 17:13 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14711
Location: Oxford
Tweet of the Day:
https://twitter.com/SocialHistoryOx/sta ... 3316395009




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 14:33 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32288
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/1 ... ng-a-sewer

Quote:
Jacob Rees-Mogg claimed people with "common sense" would not have followed official instructions to stay in their home during the Grenfell fire. He looked at LBC presenter Nick Ferrari and noted: "I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building." In other words: People like us wouldn't be so stupid. Only the poor are that stupid.

Soon afterwards, the Tory MP Andrew Bridgen seemed to corroborate that assessment. Radio 4 presenter Evan Davis put to him the following proposition: "He is, in effect, saying 'I wouldn't have died because I would have been cleverer than the people who took the fire brigade's advice'."

There was a long pause, and finally, having thought about it, Bridgen answered: "But we want very clever people running the country, don't we, Evan?"

And suddenly a whole other world of private conversations opened up, which you never had the poverty of imagination to think possible. One in which Conservatives would sit together and loftily dismiss the reasons for Grenfell, and confide in each other that the real reason so many people burned to death was because they were too stupid to leave. This, after all, is where Conservatism goes when it is unchecked by moderation or its better instincts. It starts by harbouring thoughts that the poor are poor because they deserve it. And ends by harbouring the thought that they are dead because they deserve it.

There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 14:42 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 35503
Completely ignoring privilege, natch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 14:51 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 25th Jul, 2010
Posts: 10578
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.


It's a larger part of why the US is suck a fucking shitshow in my opinion because the above pretty much describes the fabled 'American Dream' that they take so seriously. It's all well and good to think that with hard work people can make something of themselves; but the terrible corollary of that is that if you're not successful it can only be because you're lazy and/or stupid. This is a problem attitude everywhere of course--as you point out with the above UK example--but it seems especially fucking pernicious in the US because of this 'land of opportunity' horseshit that they're indoctrinated in from birth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 14:59 
User avatar
Soopah red DS

Joined: 2nd Jun, 2008
Posts: 2109
Victory narrative, right? The same reason sports stars are so often disappointingly right-wing. "I worked hard, and I achieved success. Therefore, working hard brings success. Therefore, lack of success..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 15:01 
User avatar
Soopah red DS

Joined: 2nd Jun, 2008
Posts: 2109
Bamba wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.


It's a larger part of why the US is suck a fucking shitshow in my opinion because the above pretty much describes the fabled 'American Dream' that they take so seriously. It's all well and good to think that with hard work people can make something of themselves; but the terrible corollary of that is that if you're not successful it can only be because you're lazy and/or stupid. This is a problem attitude everywhere of course--as you point out with the above UK example--but it seems especially fucking pernicious in the US because of this 'land of opportunity' horseshit that they're indoctrinated in from birth.


Totally agree, and the American Dream, and whatever our version of it, is a load of bollocks that needs debunking. One thing about the US that really made me challenge my prejudices, though, is that they don't (in the main) look down on people, or judge them, by what they do. I realised I do that pretty routinely. That lack of judgment, at least, is the good side of believing everyone can succeed, people should work, work is good, blah blah etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 12914 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 255, 256, 257, 258, 259

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Columbo, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
cron
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.