Reply With QuoteThese guys are good if you want some bare-bones, just the facts stuff. Unaffiliated, OpEd-free, charity-supported fact-checking organisation. They seem on the level, but if you find any inherent biases let me know.... https://fullfact.org/
Partly. I don't really read, watch or listen to a lot of it though so my exposure to it all is either 2nd hand through threads like this one (though generally less sensible) or from the utter crap that gets shoved through my letterbox.Originally Posted by faetal
These guys are good if you want some bare-bones, just the facts stuff. Unaffiliated, OpEd-free, charity-supported fact-checking organisation. They seem on the level, but if you find any inherent biases let me know.... https://fullfact.org/
Those adaptive politicians... Part of the problem is that humans are not generally wired for detail or deliberation. Too easy to influence. This isn't the only issue where any attempts a getting unbiased views is difficult.
The media influences what happens on forums too. For every person willing to do fact-checking, there are at least 50 who will just parrot the opinion of their news outlet of choice. The reason media is so powerful is because it gets to design the public conversation. So much of the arguments being counter-argued are only there because that's how the media have framed the discussion. So rather than people taking a proper look at the pros and cons of in vs out, we instead have to talk about immigration, membership fees and sovereignty.
Yeah but unfortunately it's Rupert Murdoch's wrinkly old shitbag hands pulling the strings rather than Eliza Cassan
Here
I guess you're now going to argue that they do such a great job they deserve every penny.
STOP TELLING ME WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. Seriously, you realise if you do that you're literally just arguing with yourself? It turns a debate into an angry wank.
Point-counterpoint: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-david-cameron
Turns out lots of people are better paid than David Cameron. 80k net is a good pay grade, but it sounds like it's the low end of standard for operation at that level? It's not exactly Sir Phillip Green levels of embezzlement, is it?
Last edited by Vivian; 21st Jun 2016 at 07:59.
10,000 vs 300. How many of those 10,000 are actually necessary I wonder...
These guys say it's 3,000. And I still can't find the original data everyone's quoting. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1167878.ece
None of what I've read on that site has had any clear bias in any direction, as far as I can tell it's all considerably more truthful than most other sources.
It's full of not necessarily all that relevant stuff but that's because it's trying to provide information on questions asked and claims made, it's not their fault people are asking daft questions and making stuff up.
Yeah, that was a stretch calling it populist. I was mainly referring to how the Lib Dems were on the rise and Nick Clegg had become arguably the most popular political figure in the country. They got their referendum, lost it, and then Clegg looked like a loser, the media turned their attention away, and the party got hammered in the next two elections. Now they're barely relevant. Which is a shame because I liked their views and approach.
To loop this back to the original topic, I'm assuming the lib dems are in the Remain camp but I haven't actually heard anything because they only have two and a half MPs left and no-one cares what they think anymore. Which, yeah, is a bit sad.
I'm not surprised. The 2010 election was exciting because it felt like a 3 horse race for the first time in ages. Then the Lib Dems decided to team up with The Conservatives - and proceeded to become impotent.
Nick Clegg could have proposed a sack of cash and jet packs for every household and the public would have voted against it. They are easily led by their nose to blame everything on scapegoats, whether that be immigrants or junior coalition partners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzNj-hH8LkY
Daniel Hannan is making the same point I was trying to make. Even though he's a Conservative, and I am not. Watch.
Last edited by Gryzemuis; 21st Jun 2016 at 18:32.
The UK public beggars belief in general. I can't believe the extent of the venom rising during this referendum. Everything from naive British exceptionalism at the milder end to xenophobia, racism and borderline fascism at the other. It's like the tone of the Leave campaign has emboldened the closet cases and it turns out there were a lot more than you'd hope.
This is an especially good video to watch after this video: https://www.facebook.com/Universityo...3361974024537/
You can literally check off the list -- us vs them, democracy is at stake, we'll be able to renegotiate trade as we please, etc.
Are you not even joking?
"An organisation which takes from the low and middle income people and gives to the wealthy organisations and corporations"
He's a member of the Conservative party, who have characterised themselves over the last 6 years by imposing austerity and wage stagnation in the general population and giving tax breaks and subsidies to the wealthy. Also, the EU has ruled that the Conservative party's treatment of the disabled is illegal under European human rights directives and are trying to halt the nigh indiscriminate re-classification of people as fit to work despite being barely fit to stay alive for more than a few more days in some cases.
His second point about the EU economy shrinking is misleading also, since it ignores the fact that the EU is either the biggest or second biggest economy in the world depending on which type of GDP measure used. he talks about wages going up and food prices going down after a UK exit with literally zero reference to mechanism or other justification why that would - it's full scale magical thinking.
If a rousing piece of oration is supposed to proof of anything other than that you like what Hannan is saying, then you might need to elaborate on what it is, because saying something doesn't make it true, just because you agree. You're a Eurosceptic and so is he - great. I could link a video of someone saying a load of baseless or warped talking points about the case for Remain, but I won't because I'm only really interested in factual reasons for either direction.
As someone else has said a few days ago: just because you currently have a government in the UK that you don't like, is not a good reason to hand over authority to the EU.
Facts are pretty meaningless in a discussion like this.
People put different weight on facts.
E.g. the fact whether my country, or any country, can make a few more bucks, just by staying in the EU, is totally unimportant to me. Like I said in my first post here: it is a matter of principle. I didn't vote for Juncker, nobody in my country voted for Juncker, Juncker doesn't answer to any of us, Juncker does not have my best interest in mind.
Juncker: "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties".
Last edited by Gryzemuis; 21st Jun 2016 at 22:43.
Yes, fears always trump facts.
Almost there...Gonna be a close one...EU referendum poll latest tracker and odds
Facts are only meaningless if you're the worst sort of idiot.
.
You guys seem a bit naive ?
The pro-EU people mainly talk about economics. And economics is about numbers. Statistics mostly, because you can't do proper science in economy. (Try to do double-blind research on some national subject. Good luck).
We all know the saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
You know you can make anything look completely different by massaging the numbers. Not outright lying. But taking a different sample, applying other conditions, using different axiomas, drawing different conclusions, mixing correlation and causation, putting different values on different parameters, etc. And as economics are mostly about numbers and statistics, I think anyone can draw any conclusion they want. Just look at the "economic fact" of "trickle down economics". Biggest bullshit ever, but it was sold as fact to the US people.
Basically all the economic facts boil down to: "Some people made more money during the last decades. And it's because of the EU. We think".
That's basically your facts.
Statistics isn't proper science? Where the fuck did you go to school?
I mean you are right in that inappropriate (or incompetent) use of statistics can confuse or obscure whatever trends you're looking at identifying, but you're talking about basically the entire core mechanism of analytical science. If you disregard statistical analysis then you're left with opinion and anecdote. Which is only really useful for making yourself look like a prick.
"economics are mostly about numbers and statistics" yeah no fucking shit. Also, what do you think happens to the results of a double-blind test? I'll give you a clue, starts with an 's'.
Last edited by Vivian; 22nd Jun 2016 at 06:01.
Posting Permissions
