TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 408

Thread: The Decline of the Debate and the Rise of the Far Left and Right

  1. #201
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    One of these.

    He SD, what do you make of exotic sprasms? Lol

  2. #202
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    So near as anyone can figure out, the reporter was describing a particular model of Flying Pigeon brand bicycle.

    You know, your condescending LMGTFY would've been more effective if it weren't undercut by all those links on the first page showing how nobody else had a clue what the reporter meant either.

  3. #203
    SShock2.com
    Member

    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: The land of ever sideways rain
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    Corbyn isn't extreme left because he's not particularly ideological. The reason for that is because he's not very intellectual, and the reason he's not very intellectual is because he's a little bit thick. His socialism is an instinctive, side-with-the-underdog type of socialism, which is why he comes across as very principled, and also why he has an unfortunate habit of consorting with Irish Republican terrorists and Islamists who want to commit genocide against the Jews. The folk in his inner circle, like chief of staff Seumas Milne (a literal Stalinist) and shadow chancellor John McDonnell are much cleverer than Jeremy and, consequently, that much more dangerous.
    You've just made more sense than the BBC has since I moved to the UK several years ago. You might be right. People don't usually say that, so it never occurred to me.

    Now, I generally hate politicians just based on how much of their chosen profession is about lying and make stuff up to get votes. I'm old and cynical. I never agree with any of them, Usually. Certainly not the limp, ineffective LibDems. Having said that, Vince Cable's speech this week, I agreed almost 100% with the first 10 minutes of his anti-Brexit rant. That's quite unusual for me. I never agree with any of them, but it felt like he was saying I have been waiting two years for someone to say. Then, of course, the speech went downhill from then on, but it was good for a while.

  4. #204
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Trance View Post
    You know, your condescending LMGTFY would've been more effective if it weren't undercut by all those links on the first page showing how nobody else had a clue what the reporter meant either.
    Whaaaat?

    I was just pointing out that you could have googled it. I didn't really know what they meant either, though I thought it probably meant one of those old Chinese bikes. And I was right, but only found out from googling it.

  5. #205
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    An article of interest, which discusses Youtube's influence on the anti-social justice movement. An interesting read.

  6. #206
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2011
    Location: Wild and Wooly West of Ireland
    An interesting interview with Sir Roger Scruton.

  7. #207
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Here's an interesting radio segment discussing an experiment to test the nature of "echo chambers" on social media, specifically twitter.

    Click the Listen button, below the graphic.

    For the experiment, they recruited about 1,200 Republicans and Democrats to complete a survey about their political views. Following the survey, they offered half of the group financial incentives to follow a bot created for the study that retweeted messages from the other side, exposing them to messages from opinion leaders of the other party.

    One month later, when those who followed the bot were surveyed again, they discovered that nobody became more moderate. They saw no difference among Democrats, but Republicans actually became substantially more conservative when they followed a Democratic bot.
    It's only one experiment using one platform in one country but it is suggestive that people whose core values include tradition and stability are simple more resistant to change.

    "We don't want anybody to take away from our study that all attempts to reach across political divides are inherently doomed."

    Bail thinks reducing political polarization on Twitter could require a gradual approach. "If you imagine you wake up one morning and all of the sudden your filter bubble has popped, you know it's not a pleasant experience," said Bail.

    He suggests that Twitter could build a tool that would allow individual users to monitor whether they're being exposed to the same type of information repeatedly. "Research shows that if people have control over that information learning process that they're much more persuadable," Bail added.

  8. #208
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Have to say that politics is definitely a MUCH bigger deal over in the US than here in Australia. You see on TV about someone not wanting to date a person since their republican etc. To me that's just ridiculous, as there is far more to someone than just what political party they support, but meh.

    Over here in Aus, the difference between the 2 parties here (Labor and Liberal parties) was QUITE massive growing up. Where as now the difference isn't really that much other than that Labor has far left leanings (and only from a small amount of the politicians) and Liberals have some far right leanings from a small subset. Beyond that, their both quite similar now and both lack good leadership, so people don't know who to vote for anymore.

    Question is, is a party better with a more "individual" leader who stands true to his/her ideals regardless of their parties stance, or a leader who takes in the opinions of their party and only says what their party as a whole believes in. Personally I far prefer a good leader, with their own opinions on things (whether good or bad) and stays true to that.

  9. #209
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Frankly, I have massive issues with (de facto) two-party systems and with strong leader figures. IMO a government has to represent not just the majority but the whole electorate - according to proportionality, surely, but any politics that's about going, "Screw the 49% that voted against us, we're just in power for the 51% that voted for us!" is toxic and essentially undemocratic, as far as I'm concerned, because I consider the checks and balances in the system as much a part of democracy as the idea of the majority. Otherwise you foster a system and a society that is inherently adversarial, and I don't see any advantage in that.

  10. #210
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    I'm generally with Thirith - because you get these pendulum swings in administration where one side undoes what the previous administration did. It's immensely wasteful. Like two people pulling in opposite directions on a boat's tiller.

    I don't even know how much PR helps, but it does force coalitions and slows things down a bit.

  11. #211
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Switzerland has a system of proportional representation where the four biggest parties always share government at the highest level and always have to collaborate on proposals to parliament, where practically all parties are represented. Majorities affect the balance of power, but you don't have a governing party and an opposition. As a result, everything takes fairly long, everything has to be a compromise, but I think that this - in combination with the good old Swiss tradition to give the public a vote on almost everything - is one of the reasons why Switzerland hasn't become as polarised as most of the surrounding countries. Having to please everyone at least somewhat is baked into the system.

    Though one of the big negatives is that social change takes forever to be turned into laws. There is a reason why women in Switzerland were only able to vote in national elections/referendums in 1971, and in some cantons women only got the cantonal vote in 1990, which is a fucking disgrace.

  12. #212
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    That sounds just as bad as many Eastern countries with terrible rights for women though, so that idea is out.

  13. #213
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    Yes, that last point is a bit dismal - but you could account for some things being Swiss cultural inertia rather than the system as such. Switzerland is certainly regarded as one of the most stable countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    That sounds just as bad as many Eastern countries with terrible rights for women though, so that idea is out.
    Well I don't think you can tie a PR system to bad rights for women.

  14. #214
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Have to say that politics is definitely a MUCH bigger deal over in the US than here in Australia. You see on TV about someone not wanting to date a person since [they're] republican etc. To me that's just ridiculous, as there is far more to someone than just what political party they support, but meh.
    That's because the politics over there is so much more extreme.
    Their current president is a racist, sexist, bigoted liar and makes no attempt to hide it. That kind of means that anyone who supports him is, themselves, a bigot. Could you really have a relationship with a bigot? Maybe you could get away with it, for a time, by steering very clear of any kind of political debate, but it probably still wouldn't work out. You couldn't avoid such things ever coming up with someone that you are in a relationship with.

    It's not anywhere like the same as supporting a normal right- or left-leaning party here in Europe. It's more like supporting one of the neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist parties that have been springing up lately.




    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Question is, is a party better with a more "individual" leader who stands true to his/her ideals regardless of their parties stance, or a leader who takes in the opinions of their party and only says what their party as a whole believes in. Personally I far prefer a good leader, with their own opinions on things (whether good or bad) and stays true to that.
    I'd like to see a system of government made up of individuals who stand up for their ideals. In other words, the abolishment of political parties, but instead a parliament of individuals who all have to come to agreements, rather than a party that sets a line and everyone in the party has to follow it.

    The Swiss system sounds nice, though. I knew they had a lot of referendums, but I didn't realise they also had a government like that.


    I actually saw an interesting TED talk recently where someone proposed replacing elected politicians with (slightly controlled) randomly selected individuals, which is a concept that has some appeal:

    Brett Hennig: What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?

    I'd imagine a lot of people would hate having to uproot their lives if they were chosen, though.

  15. #215
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    We actually had a thread about sortition. Worse than hating to uproot their lives, people are apparently reluctant to put aside their cynicism for a few minutes.


  16. #216
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I'm a bit surprised something like this can even happen in the US where free speech is apparently one the most sacrosanct things you can think of -- apparently a state official in Texas got offended over a political sign in someone's yard and the police went and confiscated it:

    https://www.star-telegram.com/news/s...219551530.html

    Here's the sign in question (it's the one at the very bottom):

    Last edited by Starker; 6th Oct 2018 at 05:46.

  17. #217
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I'd like to see a system of government made up of individuals who stand up for their ideals. In other words, the abolishment of political parties, but instead a parliament of individuals who all have to come to agreements, rather than a party that sets a line and everyone in the party has to follow it.[/QUOTE]
    One of the things that is tricky is the balance of standing up for ideals vs. compromise; I don't think you get a stable, working political system without the latter. More than that, I think people need to understand that democratic politics is very much about compromise, not about "We won! Suck it, assholes!" At the same time, compromise should be something that comes at the endpoint of a thorough, respectful struggle between points of view. Also, IMO both politicians and the electorate should be up front about compromise not being something evil and/or weak but one of the fundamental qualities of getting hundreds of thousands or more to live together and work towards a functioning society. At present, I may be more cynical about the electorate than I am about politicians.

  18. #218
    Administrator
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: above the clouds
    Politicians are still human, ranging from outrageously corrupt to actually trying to improve the system. But I wonder if too much focus is on who controls the system, rather than whether the system is broken. I find myself thinking debate is pointless if it's stuck on whatever the "big issues" tend to be. The most contentious issues that attract the extreme idiots.

    Do humans essentially have to evolve further to be able to make any better systems, or will civilisation collapse before we get there? I've ended up as a sort of pessimistic anti-capitalist anarchist - I'd prefer more decentralisation as damage limitation, but I don't think the groups with power will allow that to happen.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I'm a bit surprised something like this can even happen in the US where free speech is apparently one the most sacrosanct things you can think of -- apparently a state official in Texas got offended over a political sign in someone's yard and the police went and confiscated it:
    And then they turn and call their opponents “snowflakes”. Bunch of fucking thin-skinned hypocrites, can’t fathom one can have the audacity to rub their nose in their own shit.
    Last edited by raph; 6th Oct 2018 at 12:44. Reason: typo

  20. #220
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Oh, I'm sure free speech advocates will be all over this and it will be discussed non-stop on Fox News. Any moment now.

  21. #221
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    You know, the majority of the comments attached to that news article are people basically saying "I agree that the sign was pretty terrible, but it was wrong to have it removed". I would wager that that's a fairly accurate cross-section of opinion even among conservatives.

  22. #222
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!!!

    As something relevant to this thread has come up over the past few weeks over here in Australia.

    A few months earlier, a sports player (Israel Folou) was fired from his team for posting religious views on Facebook concerning gay and lesbian people. Last week, he attempted to setup a GoFundMe fund to raise money so that he could take Rugby Australia to court, on unfair dismissal grounds, and of his right to free speech. After news of the GoFundMe was made public, a large amount of people on the left heavily applied pressure to the site to remove it, and after a few days, the site buckled and removed it. He had raised 700k of a 3 million target.

    Folou, then received assistance from the Australian Christian Lobby, who setup a new fund raising initiative on a different site, and raised 2 million, before it was paused.

    If you've not noticed from my earlier posts on this thread and similar ones, I am a huge believer in free speech under a democracy. We may not like what someone has to say, but no'one has the right to silence them, as what has been done, and I think he has the right to defend his right to free speech under religious freedom.

    Link to an article on the issue:
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-...attle/11257778

    Whats your opinion?

    It's been diving A LOT of people over here.

  23. #223
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    I don't see anyone preventing him from speaking his mind. If anything, all of this is happening to him because he's exercising his right to speak without thinking: he's being a tool, and he's reaping the consequences of it. If his contract stipulated a fair social media presence and he broke it, that's on him. GoFundMe is a private platform just like TTLG, and making a decision to not host someone because the campaign violates their ToS is entirely under their remit.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 27th Jun 2019 at 16:40.

  24. #224
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Obligatory XKCD comic:



    Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

  25. #225
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    Once again, XKCD sums thing up perfectly.


    I go back to my earlier argument - I don't think one man's freedom of speech is more important than another man's freedom not to be attacked.

    Bigotry is never okay, no matter if it's hidden behind a veneer of "religious grounds".
    Threatening a group of people with fictional threats of damnation instead of real-world consequences is still threatening that group people, in this case specifically because of bigotry against their sexual preferences.

    Do people have the rights to express such views? Sadly, yes. But every right-thinking person has the right to shun them, and I would argue that they have a moral duty to use that right.


    The truly sad thing about the article is the crazies who raised $2m to defend bigotry. Things like that drain what little hope I have left for this world.

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •