you mean, if she is gong to trust her own experience.
that source would be Corbyn himself
You’re such a preposterous elitist, Silhouette, I really marvel at how you are able to deceive yourself about others so efficiently. Perfectly isolated from reality.
Because the left seems to be composed of such pure and perfect elitists, with absolutely no experience in the real world, I am not very optimistic about prospects for reconciliation.
Your condescension alone merits a declaration of war. You’re evil, dude.
I’m flattered that you find me so intimidating but no, a questioning of her sources and application of impartial critical thinking is merely rational on my part - sorry to disappoint.
Unless of course you find “rational” evil?
I’ll grant you that I personally prefer an academic analysis of politics, which some may perceive as “elitist”.
How dare I prefer evidence and impartial reasoning, right?
The fact that the vast majority of people don’t seem to apply this as standard would make me elitist for requesting it, I suppose.
I’ll do it again here, if you’ll forgive such loftiness in my standards which you obviously find so objectionable, and ask you politely about your expertise over my offline life. You are remarkably certain about how isolated I am from reality, and how I have absolutely no experience in the real world. For one, such things would be quite the achievement: to have lived somewhere between a 1/3 and a 1/2 of a normal human lifetime without once interacting with it. But I can’t quite concede that I have succeeded in such a task, given that I’ve been all too thoroughly embedded in the lives of all classes of people across my lifetime, but no - I’ll respectfully defer to you as expert on the details of my life, to tell me all about myself.
Sorry to laugh though - at the contents of your white knight defense of Maia at this point - so valiantly defending her right to trust her own experience and yet not affording me the same gallantry - it’s just a little ironic that your double standards are so faithful to your own obvious biases. I’ll give you a tip though: if you want to escape your isolation from reality and gain experience in the real world, I recommend a transcendence of your current flagrant ideological commitments and to instead stand back a second to consider that those with whom you disagree are equally beholden to both their own experience and the standards of academic inquiry.
Her own experience would appear to consist overwhelmingly of right wing slander.
Perhaps I am wrong, and she has performed far more independent and impartial research into the private life of Corbyn and his reasons for being where he’s been and at what time and for what reasons - this is what I’m attempting to find out at this point. I am merely making suggestions this far, and none of the “elitist” standards I’m looking for appear to have been adhered to in any way over the course of her forming her political opinions. It’s all intuition, wishful thinking as far as I can yet tell, and receptivity to the juggernaut of right wing propaganda forcefully shoved into the minds of the British public by sheer relentless repetition and persistence - with a degree of exposure afforded only to those who have been allowed to so utterly dominate the media.
Are you attempting to speak for her as you are attempting to speak for me, by asserting your own experience over ours, claiming that her own experience is based solely on having heard what Corbyn has to say and nothing else whatsoever besides?
I am sure she lives in the real world just as we all do, and has been subject to information sources from all kinds of angles.
That’s not the issue though, it’s more of a given. The issue is over how credulous you have to be to believe the right wing slander, and how much honest research you’ve done to fact check such persistent claims.
As I’ve pointed out already, the BBC are anti-Tory and anti-Brexit, and are far more influential than any number of right wing newspapers. So I’ve managed to reach my opinions despite the prevailing propaganda and not because of it. Have you?
The BBC are probably anti-Brexit, sure. At this point, it’s not hard to see why. I’ve hardly seen any TV over the past few years, but I keep an ear out to what the masses listen to while I reach my opinions by more objective means.
Do you need my example to follow to do the same?
It’s difficult to say if the BBC are anti-Tory from what I can tell. We’ve had a Tory government for 12 years, and unless you count the previous 13 years of “new-Labour”, the UK hasn’t had a left-wing government since the brutal overhaul that started in 1979 with Thatcher, who called Tony Blair “her greatest achievement”. Yes, that’s 40 years. The incumbent party gets all the TV coverage including BBC, because they’re the ones in the driving seat knee deep in all the current affairs. The opposition just gets to chip in occasionally on how much better they’d be if it were them in power.
This is another reason why I have to remain pro-democracy in spite of the stupidity of the electorate. Nobody can demand that the electorate objectively study all of their decisions like academics, and nobody can protect the electorate from the politicians who thrive from manipulating them.
So what else can we do than educate ourselves and spread what we’ve learned to people who are otherwise convinced by the incessant propaganda peddled by the partial interests of the media?
Well, I’ve listened to clips of last night’s debate, and neither Boris nor Corbyn came across as any good. I’ve also listened to clips of a separate interview with Nigel Farage, and he still comes across as by far the best, and possibly the only honest politician we have.
Only way to see if someones is truly honest is to give them governing powers.
Thats when you know.
Its easier to be honest while carrying no responsibility.
Meanwhile the fact that a Corbyn can thrive in England is a sign that civilization is waning there.
No, it is not my usual manner… this was reserved especially for you glad you took it well… it wasn’t ill-intended, so for you to figure out what my intention was, or not… that, is up to you…
Sure the UK could be better, but in relation to other scenarios and situations, we’re not doing too badly… on many fronts. What do you think?
The popularity of an ideal in the 70s may not transfer well 40 years later, as keeping-up-with and ahead-of-the-times, is a crucial component of the Social Sciences, no? I will await your reply on this, before I commence further with my thoughts… I’m hoping for a fruitful exchange, you see.
Does both Left and Right not do this, when they are in Government? I do not disagree with your assessment here, but how can this tooing and froing be diminished… for the sake of livelihoods, both of Peoples, Nations, Countries, and the World at large? What is the answer?
It is not about Countries anymore, but about the world in its entirety, and humanity at large.
The BBC and most newspapers have always been pro-Left… for decades.
The BBC has now become more non-bisased, and so they should be… because we all contribute to their service-provision and therefore expected impartial output. Same with the newspapers…
Just out of curiosity, is there a way to connect the dots between a discussion in a Society, Government, and Economics forum to a discussion in a philosophy forum such that all rational individuals are obligated to construe civilization in a particular way? In regard to such things as, say, immigration policy, race, religion, political prejudices?
Or are civilized folks pretty much in sync with the kind of people that you want to be around?
UK general election newspaper endorsements for 2010, 2015, and 2017:
2010: 16 endorse Tories, 3 Lib dem and 5 Labour, of which 13 national newspapers endorse Tories with just the Mirror and the Sunday Mirror endorsing Labour in that same category.
2015: 3 national daily newspapers now endorse Labour, and 5 the Tories. 16 in total still for the Tories but an increase to 11 endorsing Labour in total.
2017: 15 endorse Tories, 12 Labour - breaking down to 11 daily/sunday papers for the Tories and only the Guardian and the Morning Star to add to the Mirror and Sunday Mirror for Labour totalling 4.
Don’t give me this shit that “most newspapers have always been pro-Left… for decades” when it’s patently false with all the information out there and readily available on the internet.
How you’ve been able to maintain this delusion even without actually checking it is beyond me - it’s obvious enough as it is, but this is exactly what I was talking about with Maia - FACT CHECK ffs.
And this isn’t taking into account circulation, where even this year, the Mirror only sells just over 1/3 as much per month as the Sun and the Guardian only 1/10, with all the the other daily newspapers either endorsing the Tories or no one. That’s 4 million a month for Tory newspapers and 650k for Labour: making Tories literally 6 times more dominant in the newspaper media than Labour.
But you’re right, “most newspapers have always been pro-Left… for decades”
…and what about the BBC… how long have they been anti-Tory/right, and all about da Left? How long have they been Left-biased? Do you have a link for that?
I thought we were having a very civil debate, but it only seems so when it suits you… care to comment on the rest of my post? If not, no matter.
I already wrote this a whopping 7 posts before you began page 3 of this thread by “just saying stuff” about newspapers.
By definition the BBC is a public service broadcaster, so why would they vote for Tory cuts to public services? But this doesn’t mean they’re pro Corbyn, they’re centre-left, new Labour style, not left - even though the left goes way further left than Corbyn, who is just old Labour. He’s still a Social Democrat, which the ignorant, indoctrinated or biased love to conflate with Socialism or even “radical Socialism”, but this is more “just saying stuff” that simply isn’t true. I don’t remember you personally making this mistake, but just in case you’re tempted like so many others have on this forum…
It’s not just you on this forum who inspired my comment about how this place as a whole drives me nuts, you were just the most recent example of corroborating patent political partisan falsehood.
A Social Democrat is still pro-Capitalist, which at its leftest sides with the “Nordic model”, that consistently tops economic measures of success per capita. It’s a stretch but not too much of a stretch to suggest that even Tories are Social Democrat, because even they’re pro-mixed-economy, even if they want much reduced government intervention than Labour - but even they’re a long way off Libertarian, just like even old Labour is a long way off rejecting Capitalism outright - as Socialism is defined.
Feel free to fact check all of the above information, unlike so many others here I don’t give a shit about misrepresenting anyone or sugar-coating anyone else.
If I’m wrong, show me a source and an argument that isn’t fallacious and I’ll gladly adjust my views.
As for now, I’m no representative of Corbyn’s policies even though plenty of them overlap with my own - I’m actually more left than he is, but even I’m still hesitant about rejecting Capitalism outright and going full Socialist. As you know, I have unprecedented new ideas that revolutionise the normal way of doing things, which is a step too far for people like yourself. But given a choice between Corbyn and Boris, or some pointless single-issue political populist opportunists like “The Brexit Party”, Corbyn is obviously the closest. Lib Dems pretended to be a Labour alternative with Nick Clegg, but it turned out they were just Tory-lite so fuck them. I was dumb enough to side with them at the time, and I even sided with Green before Corbyn came along.
My own personal context aside, to re-iterate what I said in the post before my last one, I’m not saying the BBC is not left, I’m saying it’s not pro-Corbyn - and since it’s been Tories or “New Labour” for the past 40 years, the positions of Tories are the most oft presented on the BBC - never mind any of the countless other privately owned channels that far outnumber the publicly owned channels. It really isn’t as simple as saying BBC and C4 are left therefore TV is left like Maia seemed to be hinting towards - even if she’d probably admit there’s more to it than that without too much hesitation.
The bottom line of all my “whining” here is that pretty much everyone contributing to this thread is set in their ways, including you - so what is the purpose of having “a very civil debate” with you or any of them?
Yes, I think the UK isn’t doing too badly, only a fool would think the vast majority of the world isn’t a lot worse than the UK. This doesn’t mean that I like the way it’s going, nor that I don’t think it could be a lot lot better.
Yes, the ideals of the 70s may not transfer well 40 years later - they weren’t even that popular by the end of the 70s from what I can tell - but that’s not to say we haven’t strayed way too far in the opposite direction and badly need reining in. I’d love a more Nordic Model here, those guys are killing it. But instead we’re drifting further and further over to a US model, and even American patriots have become known for bemoaning the direction of the US. Since you ask, the Nordic Model is my answer, even if I’d go a step further than that answer if were up to me (and I’m sure many here are glad it’s not up to me), and the “entirety” of “humanity at large” that “is not about countries anymore” is going in the direction that insufficiently fettered Capitalism requires it go - away from my answer. This is why I propose steps further than that answer such as this one. It sets out a theory of updating Capitalism to have sufficient internal mechanics to keep it stable, perhaps even optimal, since the Classical Liberal ones that you learn about in Economics class are evidently woefully insufficient in practice.
I’ve seen BBC political talk shows, where anyone right of centre have been shouted at and harassed by the presenters, but that has subsided this year, and so more balanced debate can take place and all views heard, not some shut down.
All the infighting amongst us only hinders progress and Policy-making that would benefit All.
If we, as a Nation, could be all on the same page, then the System would work better. Could that ever be a possibility?
It’s going to be an interesting Election indeed, with so many Voters changing their Voting Intentions and with Brexit influencing their vote.
But wasn’t it BBC bias that had TV License owners in uproar, for the fact that a fairer representation of Political views should be heard?
It’s not that I’m anti any other Party, but anti bias. Aren’t we all.
I’m not averse to change, to a more beneficial economic model… how it would be implemented with regard to funding streams and long-term upkeep etc. are of more importance than change.
I do think that the Parties should work together, but the want for gaining Seats precedes cooperation… I can’t see the concept of better Political cooperation becoming a thing, but it would be a good solution to our current state of affairs.
glad you took it well… it wasn’t ill-intended, so for you to figure out what my intention was, or not… that, is up to you…
