Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 47 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3745464748 LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,410 of 1416

Thread: Politics now. The State We're In.

  1. #1381  
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I'll leave it here for tonight and maybe somebody will post something that can change my mind. Maybe I'll read something that the press is free that will convince me, or that corporate media wouldn't have a stronger hand when influencing governments controlling both sides or governments wouldn't benefit from relationships with corporations that control support and opposition.

    I look forward to it.
    Sorry, but those would be our opinions and probably wouldn't be read for failing to meet rigorous scientific approaches needed to change your mind.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1382  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,301
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    Commentary and criticism are not always distinct. You want to ban that journalist from speaking her opinion in the press because the article doesn't meet your standards. That's madness. Another reason you want to ban commentary is because you disagree with too many of the newspapers. That's madness too.
    And that is the problem. They should be. All it takes is discipline. Opinion should always be clearly separated from fact.

    A partial collection of facts can yield several truths dependant on perspective (eg one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).

    The media spent years complaining about government spin during the Blair years. Mainly because the Blairites had got better at it than the journos. Headlines are the biggest spin going. Take what ever the facts are and give a big hint as to how to interpret them. The industry seems quite comfortable with that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1383  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    That depends. If the world is designed to make you think a certain way, believe this or that, the media pushes constant messages and your mind over times changes because of the data it processes and before you know it your mind is conditioned. I'm not saying that's happened but if it had I'm not sure how you could say It's a good thing. you wouldn't know because you'd have been conditioned to think that way.
    No. Other people share opinions I don't agree with. I then see those opinions and learn from them. That makes me better informed. So no, I'm not immune to outside influences, and that's exactly how an informed person should be. Always look to take on board other perspectives, no matter what you think their biases are. Assess an idea on the force of its merits. Then see where that leaves you. I love having my mind changed on topics - contrary to the way people might see me! And I would hate to lose that privilege. That is something I would lose if the ban you are talking about were to be instated.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1384  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    And that is the problem. They should be. All it takes is discipline. Opinion should always be clearly separated from fact.

    A partial collection of facts can yield several truths dependant on perspective (eg one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).

    The media spent years complaining about government spin during the Blair years. Mainly because the Blairites had got better at it than the journos. Headlines are the biggest spin going. Take what ever the facts are and give a big hint as to how to interpret them. The industry seems quite comfortable with that.
    Actually, criticism is just a subset of commentary. And that's a necessary subset in a democratic system. You, and anyone else, has the right to broadcast your opinion. No one can stop you, and that's how it should be. If you want to say something I might find abhorrent, say it! You might change my mind or introduce me to new ideas I never considered. Under Coach's ridiculous suggestion you'd never be able to do anything of the sort.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1385  
    Socratease is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    17,389
    Look at this;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs5r-HpGcA0

    Politics/polytrics and the perception of it are always open to critical observation.


    ,
    The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. Socrates.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1386  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratease View Post
    Look at this;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs5r-HpGcA0

    Politics/polytrics and the perception of it are always open to critical observation.


    ,
    Wordy as ever, Socs (), but you're right, you have to always open yourself up for critical responses. That's what discourse is! I'm astonished I've had to field arguments in here about banning discourse in the media. Absolutely amazing.

    (Regardless of all that, been a while since I saw you on here, hope you're well!)
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1387  
    Socratease is offline LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    17,389
    Doing fine mate, I hope you are looking after yourself and yours.




    ,
    The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. Socrates.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1388  
    Coach791 is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    And that is the problem. They should be. All it takes is discipline. Opinion should always be clearly separated from fact.

    A partial collection of facts can yield several truths dependant on perspective (eg one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).

    The media spent years complaining about government spin during the Blair years. Mainly because the Blairites had got better at it than the journos. Headlines are the biggest spin going. Take what ever the facts are and give a big hint as to how to interpret them. The industry seems quite comfortable with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    No. Other people share opinions I don't agree with. I then see those opinions and learn from them. That makes me better informed. So no, I'm not immune to outside influences, and that's exactly how an informed person should be. Always look to take on board other perspectives, no matter what you think their biases are. Assess an idea on the force of its merits. Then see where that leaves you. I love having my mind changed on topics - contrary to the way people might see me! And I would hate to lose that privilege. That is something I would lose if the ban you are talking about were to be instated.
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    Actually, criticism is just a subset of commentary. And that's a necessary subset in a democratic system. You, and anyone else, has the right to broadcast your opinion. No one can stop you, and that's how it should be. If you want to say something I might find abhorrent, say it! You might change my mind or introduce me to new ideas I never considered. Under Coach's ridiculous suggestion you'd never be able to do anything of the sort.
    I think the main problem here is that Luises understands most of what I'm saying but I can't say that for all. The mass media has become a WMM (Weapon of Mass Manipulation). The population are now in a dreamworld.

    To use a popular entertainment reference call it the Matrix. Now of course I'm saying that for a bit of fun and not suggesting this is a virtual reality world but think about what our brains interpret and it is data.

    When you control data to such an extent where the population don't know what to believe, they don't know what is real, they can no longer trust economists, they can no longer trust politicians, they can no longer trust the media then the system has collapsed.

    Unfortunately Miracles you don't have a grasp on what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying no criticism of government. I'm saying no spin, no misinformation, no creating fear, no creating panic, no conjecture, no guessing. I'm saying the media has destroyed itself already as have government with layers and layers of spin.

    It's now time to do several things

    - Make the media public owned so it is free from private wealth and government economic and legislative influence to create a truly free media
    - Give the media the remit to focus ALL investigation on power and wealth on behalf of the people
    - Produce critical studies like a scientist would. Highlight every single flaw in the system with critical evaluation but leave emotion, spin, opinion, debate out of it and allow the population to decide with a free mind

    You don't understand my suggestion. After several pages it has not sunk in. The only thing I am removing is the spin like commentary that confuses the population. The advertising, the imagery, the fear and instead replace with something more free, more powerful that allows the people to start to think for themselves again.

    The media, politicians have become experts at creating rage, fear, imagery, spin, conflict and every one of those designed to confuse us and make us irrational and actually hide almost all potential criticism of power and government.

    This system would get rid of that, the press would be free, not to paint flowery words of no meaning designed to confuse, anger, misinform but cold hard calculated analysis that finishes with allowing the reader to make UP THEIR OWN MIND.

    I don't see how you don't get that? Advertising, spin they are designed to create a remedial consumer, a misinformed consumer and that is now the UK population. Science doesn't do that because it leaves spin, emotion, fear, anger out and simply looks at the data.

    That's the society we will have to move towards if we want to be free of Weapons of Mass Manipulation. If you continue to allow a few corporations to ram their psychologically structured spin down people's throats then they will decide the outcome of every election.

    I honestly believe you may be in The Matrix because if you think what we're served now is critical evaluation of political systems, parties, government, finance and foreign affairs you see an illusion. That is not what we get. Instead we are served opinions of a few designed to misinform and lead us where they want us to go.

    If the media today (Guardian, S**, Mail etc........) all decided they'd had enough of May and switched to Labour then Labour would win the election. They could start a campaign of attacks about how Tories destroyed Britain, how the wrecked the economy, how austerity didn't work, how they have enriched themselves, broken every promise, wrecked the NHS and Labour would win.

    The only reason that is possible for them to have such power is the current system. One that is not free. One that misinforms. One that is spin, fog, mist, deception and leaves us all utterly clueless as a population. Then they use years of programming us to have an image of a leader, an image of strength then in a time of chaos with Brexit and election they will target Corbyn and say he is weak, look at his party fighting more chaos. Then they will say look at us rich and privileged we're strong, we're solid we look after ourselves isn't that what you want for Brexit?

    It will work. It doesn't matter that you believe you're immune, you are not. The herd mentality, the masses, the confused, the ones simply tired of being beaten by the media with the same message they will follow. Your position is you want democracy dead.

    It is dead now. People do not choose, the media gives the data, frames the debate, then pushes the population to the solution they want. If you cannot see it or don't believe it that is because you're still plugged into the Matrix. Which is just information bombarding you daily so what you think is real is actually an illusion.

    This is the point I've made all along. I said the evidence shows that media wishing to target the top 20% for advertisers in the majority have an alliance with the party that privileges the few. Is that freedom, really? A free press dictated by corporations, advertisers and economics?

    Then I suggested that in almost every election the population is so misinformed, so confused, so bombarded with messages from the media that the masses cannot stop this party of privilege destroying them. They're confused some vote one way, some another, some are so scared they vote for the party destroying them because they're told the alternative is worse and is that democracy?

    Time to unplug my friend. Time to see the real world where the press is't free and democracy is dead.

    Just to be clear Miracles I'm having a bit of fun with Matrix analogy but it's a good analogy for what information can achieve. Don't take it too seriously, just a bit of fun I'm not crazy



    QUESTION THE WORD FREE WHEN FREE MEANS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS, PAID FOR BY ADVERTISERS AND IN SUPPORT OF A PARTY OF PRIVILEGE
    QUESTION THE WORD DEMOCRACY WHEN THE MASS MEDIA USING PSYCHOLOGY CAN FORM YOUR OPINIONS FOR YOU

    MASS MEDIA IS NOT FREE NOR IS IT A PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY ANYMORE............................IF IT EVER WAS.
    Last edited by Coach791; 20-4-17 at 09:47.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1389  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    10,686
    Quote Originally Posted by BostonFans View Post
    The Guardian is a Tory paper?
    It has spent a lot of time attacking the elected leader of the Labour party since he was elected so...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1390  
    Coach791 is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,152
    Quote Originally Posted by rhoscoch View Post
    It has spent a lot of time attacking the elected leader of the Labour party since he was elected so...
    Just to clarify you don't have to outwardly support the Conservatives to play a role as Conservative supporting media. If you play the part of opposition but actually manage the opposition, control and shape it you can control the reaction.

    I pointed out that after not reading The Guardian for many years I went onto the site and what I saw shocked me. Almost every message was anti Labour, slightly favourable to Tories, there was one article supposedly criticising May which was more akin to an article of praise when you frame the context it is written in and finally you had Abi, an author to appeal to the youth opposition and she said split your votes in opposition.

    I found that incredible because that is exactly what a unified party of wealth wants. Votes equally split across opposition so they can win again. Lets take a look at the Guardian today.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk

    The main image is the keynote speech in which Guardian quotes Establishment v People. This looks very much like a positive piece of press. However the next few headlines tell another story

    Gutlessness. That's what Lib Dem Leader Fallon terms Corbyn on defence (terrorism we can't have feeble). Now that is in keeping with Tory framing of Corbyn as weak. This is Lib Dem media with a Lib Dem leader attacking Labour when Conservatives call election and they are in power and using attacks that benefit Conservatives because supports their attacks.

    Thornberry says some with 70,000 don't feel rich, which is a lead on from Labour saying those earning of 70,000 a year are well off. A Lib Dem not criticising Labour's position but putting the alternative 'Conservative' message across also.

    Corbyn Rips up the Rules. Now that could be positive or negative. However at a time of crisis, instability and concern somebody coming along to create more chaos ripping up the rules when framed is not positive. This is also in line with Tory framing of the Labour Party as unstable and at civil war.

    Finally........................................... .........

    Insurgent Corbyn. That's the final frame of the most impacting segment of the Guardian (the 'above the fold' headlines) and they have already talked about him being chaotic, weak on defence, now he's an insurgent (which technically can be anti government or a terrorist) and the whole picture is instability, infighting, civil war, turmoil.............................is he against the government or a dangerous terrorist?

    It is basically the Conservative Party propaganda being pushed at Labour through a Lib Dem paper. The imagery created is often more powerful than the specific meaning of the words. Psychologists have studied and often people will forget what is said to them but remember how those words made them feel.
    Last edited by Coach791; 20-4-17 at 13:09.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1391  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I think the main problem here is that Luises understands most of what I'm saying but I can't say that for all. The mass media has become a WMM (Weapon of Mass Manipulation). The population are now in a dreamworld.
    Tip: Never be so arrogant as to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is simply misunderstanding.

    Unfortunately Miracles you don't have a grasp on what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying no criticism of government. I'm saying no spin, no misinformation, no creating fear, no creating panic, no conjecture, no guessing. I'm saying the media has destroyed itself already as have government with layers and layers of spin.
    Like here for example. I understand what you're saying. You want to ban all media commentary on politics (unless, bizarrely, it is based only on stats). You're also saying (falsely) that editors are controlled by corporates. I think if anyone's getting confused about what you're saying it's you. First you want to ban all media commentary on politics. Then you only want that to extend to major publications. Now all of a sudden you claim not to want there to be no criticism of the government in the media, despite the fact that that'd be a logical consequence of the first thing you suggested - in your own words, banning all media commentary.

    Also I have to laugh at the idea that there's no room for fear in media commentary. Many journalists fear the results of a greater Tory majority. Writing about those fears would be perfectly legitimate.


    - Make the media public owned so it is free from private wealth and government economic and legislative influence to create a truly free media
    - Give the media the remit to focus ALL investigation on power and wealth on behalf of the people
    - Produce critical studies like a scientist would. Highlight every single flaw in the system with critical evaluation but leave emotion, spin, opinion, debate out of it and allow the population to decide with a free mind
    We already have a publicly owned media outlet. Your idea of a 'truly free media' doesn't tally with wanting to ban them from saying certain things because you don't approve of the methodology. Also, critical, scientific studies do not mutually cancel with opinion pieces. Opinion has every right to be in the journalism we consume. As has been explained to you multiple times, it's important to have access to others' opinions. If you deny me and others access to those, you'll leave us worse informed.

    You don't understand my suggestion. After several pages it has not sunk in. The only thing I am removing is the spin like commentary that confuses the population. The advertising, the imagery, the fear and instead replace with something more free, more powerful that allows the people to start to think for themselves again.
    No, no. I understand the suggestion. I just think it's one of the most moronic ideas I've ever had to entertain. The best thing I can say to you is that, if you find opinion pieces confusing, you're doing the right thing not reading them. The rest of us can engage with them as we please.

    The media, politicians have become experts at creating rage, fear, imagery, spin, conflict and every one of those designed to confuse us and make us irrational and actually hide almost all potential criticism of power and government.
    This is false.

    I don't see how you don't get that? Advertising, spin they are designed to create a remedial consumer, a misinformed consumer and that is now the UK population. Science doesn't do that because it leaves spin, emotion, fear, anger out and simply looks at the data.
    So is this.

    The rest wasn't worth replying to.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1392  
    Coach791 is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,152
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    Tip: Never be so arrogant as to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is simply misunderstanding.



    Like here for example. I understand what you're saying. You want to ban all media commentary on politics (unless, bizarrely, it is based only on stats). You're also saying (falsely) that editors are controlled by corporates. I think if anyone's getting confused about what you're saying it's you. First you want to ban all media commentary on politics. Then you only want that to extend to major publications. Now all of a sudden you claim not to want there to be no criticism of the government in the media, despite the fact that that'd be a logical consequence of the first thing you suggested - in your own words, banning all media commentary.

    Also I have to laugh at the idea that there's no room for fear in media commentary. Many journalists fear the results of a greater Tory majority. Writing about those fears would be perfectly legitimate.



    We already have a publicly owned media outlet. Your idea of a 'truly free media' doesn't tally with wanting to ban them from saying certain things because you don't approve of the methodology. Also, critical, scientific studies do not mutually cancel with opinion pieces. Opinion has every right to be in the journalism we consume. As has been explained to you multiple times, it's important to have access to others' opinions. If you deny me and others access to those, you'll leave us worse informed.



    No, no. I understand the suggestion. I just think it's one of the most moronic ideas I've ever had to entertain. The best thing I can say to you is that, if you find opinion pieces confusing, you're doing the right thing not reading them. The rest of us can engage with them as we please.



    This is false.



    So is this.

    The rest wasn't worth replying to.
    It's not arrogance. Your whole post was basically, wrong, not true, don't agree. No people should not think for themselves etc etc..................

    Words like violence
    Break the silence
    Come crashing in
    Into my little world
    Painful to me
    Pierce right through me
    Can't you understand
    Oh my little girl

    All I ever wanted
    All I ever needed
    Is here in my arms
    Words are very unnecessary
    They can only do harm

    Vows are spoken
    To be broken
    Feelings are intense
    Words are trivial
    Pleasures remain
    So does the pain
    Words are meaningless
    And forgettable

    Depeche Mode. The media is now just confusing noise. If they shut up and gave us the information we'd be fine. They won't because corporations sell through fear, panic, checking their page every days omg what's happening today.

    A quiet world is sure boring, not good for media advertising but lets face it we could do with cutting down both.
    Last edited by Coach791; 20-4-17 at 17:45.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1393  
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,859
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1394  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    23,624
    Kinell what is going on with this thread!?

    I was working late one evening in a cocktail bar, that much is true
    I was

    Oh **** it

    Human League
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1395  
    Coach791 is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,152
    Quote Originally Posted by welshypool View Post
    Kinell what is going on with this thread!?

    I was working late one evening in a cocktail bar, that much is true
    I was

    Oh **** it

    Human League
    Words are violence. Persuasion is violence. That's why I resort to terror attacks. The media is just constant noise, bombs, gun fire, all designed to cause chaos. We just need an information delivery system facts only. Then the media can shut up. We'll make our own minds up.

    Then we can enjoy the silence and calm the you know what down. Simple.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1396  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    23,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Words are violence. Persuasion is violence. That's why I resort to terror attacks. The media is just constant noise, bombs, gun fire, all designed to cause chaos. We just need an information delivery system facts only. Then the media can shut up. We'll make our own minds up.

    Then we can enjoy the silence and calm the you know what down. Simple.
    Think we've talked about this before, but its sometimes down to critical evaluation with all the information that is available.

    Its no different to politicians and media demonsing 'experts' during the referendum....as if suddenly all experts are a herd and are in on a big conspiracy or are unwittingly researching bunk one light information....when in so many cases there are some exceptional experts in their relative fields doing good work.

    I don't think opinion pieces should be wholly silenced, but that's the thin fine line now in media in some cases, opinion sometimes turning into heavily weighted persuasiveness or even duress
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1397  
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    17,088
    Quote Originally Posted by welshypool View Post
    Think we've talked about this before, but its sometimes down to critical evaluation with all the information that is available.

    Its no different to politicians and media demonsing 'experts' during the referendum....as if suddenly all experts are a herd and are in on a big conspiracy or are unwittingly researching bunk one light information....when in so many cases there are some exceptional experts in their relative fields doing good work.

    I don't think opinion pieces should be wholly silenced, but that's the thin fine line now in media in some cases, opinion sometimes turning into heavily weighted persuasiveness or even duress
    Agreed how many opinion pieces have talked up or down policies due to things like straw men arguments, generalisations of the individuals, amongst other fallacies.

    Although it is many steps away from fake news dressed up as news.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1398  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,301
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    Actually, criticism is just a subset of commentary. And that's a necessary subset in a democratic system. You, and anyone else, has the right to broadcast your opinion. No one can stop you, and that's how it should be. If you want to say something I might find abhorrent, say it! You might change my mind or introduce me to new ideas I never considered. Under Coach's ridiculous suggestion you'd never be able to do anything of the sort.
    I guess outside of this forum, I'm less interested in others opinions if they're not backed by anything. I already have enough baseless opinions of my own. Don't need any more. There's enough variety of emotion and opinion in here to give me different perspectives to consider. Plus some pertinent links at times.

    I'd pay good money for a paper that just gave me the pertinent facts and numbers on a matter. Just like businesses pay good money to get good market research.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1399  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    I guess outside of this forum, I'm less interested in others opinions if they're not backed by anything. I already have enough baseless opinions of my own. Don't need any more. There's enough variety of emotion and opinion in here to give me different perspectives to consider. Plus some pertinent links at times.

    I'd pay good money for a paper that just gave me the pertinent facts and numbers on a matter. Just like businesses pay good money to get good market research.
    If you feel they're not backed by anything that's a reasonable way to counter what they have to say. That way you get to challenge the way they think as well as just having your viewpoint challenged.

    In any case, I think you might be particularly interested in FullFact. It's not a newspaper per se, but it is a brilliant fact checking service. I think it's the closest thing out there to what you're looking for.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1400  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    It's not arrogance. Your whole post was basically, wrong, not true, don't agree. No people should not think for themselves etc etc..................
    Yes, because you were saying things that flat out weren't true. So I was pointing those out. Your response was to falsely accuse me of not understanding your ridiculous argument.

    If they shut up and gave us the information we'd be fine. They won't because corporations sell through fear, panic, checking their page every days omg what's happening today.
    You can get all the information you like if you only ever read news. My recommendation is getting it from multiple sources - the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, etc. That way you can avoid the frankly terrifying situation in which someone might manage to change your mind on something. You know, the way adults approach the media.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1401  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,301
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    If you feel they're not backed by anything that's a reasonable way to counter what they have to say. That way you get to challenge the way they think as well as just having your viewpoint challenged.

    In any case, I think you might be particularly interested in FullFact. It's not a newspaper per se, but it is a brilliant fact checking service. I think it's the closest thing out there to what you're looking for.
    I will ask questions usually now-days, rather than challenge. That is usually the best way of finding out if there's anything behind the opinions. I usually find there is, but that it's based on the symptom of the issue rather than the cause. And dealing with the symptom is totally valid. Like in a house with unsound foundations you spend resource plastering or papering over the cracks. Fixing foundations is hard and time consuming. We all got lives to live.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1402  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    23,624
    Quote Originally Posted by paul143 View Post
    Agreed how many opinion pieces have talked up or down policies due to things like straw men arguments, generalisations of the individuals, amongst other fallacies.

    Although it is many steps away from fake news dressed up as news.
    Yes that's spot on, fake news has become a buzz word but actually people have to decipher the difference between news and opinion pieces.

    I could never personally abide the idea of a blanket ban on media, whether it be opinions or dry factual news, that's insane and using one extreme to fight another extreme.

    Perhaps controversially I think some voters are understandably a little lazy and then lacking in responsibility, while its hard to evaluate news and opinions, read between the lines etc, sometimes it is perfectly doable and just takes more thought and time and if its a hugely important topic then it deserves time.......I think sometimes we run around pretending we're too busy with modern life to spend time thinking too much about such issues, we got TV to watch and cars to drive and kids to worry about etc so when a bad decision is made by a voter or voters it becomes easier to blame the media on mass or experts on mass and clump them into some lazy general herd while ignoring our own personal responsibility in our decision making.

    Which is something some media and politicians will then cash in on and use to their advantage.

    Pride is the other killer in voting, a wrong vote after the event will be ignored in some cases for fear of looking or feeling cheated or even foolish, so some will continue backing the wrong horse and with a level of unhappy vitriol.

    I sat in on some focus groups last year pre and post the referendum and there were a few in there who clearly pretended to vote remain for instance and pretended to be Labour or Lib Dems, basically anyone but the Tories....but in debate or conversation after their guard dropped, they were very driven towards rubbishing the EU and most parties bar the Tories so it became obvious over time what they actually voted for and the whole narrative of voting the other was based on a need to be seen in a better or more open light while in debate

    I think if sometimes we could all be more open about how we voted and why and whether over time we were happy with our decision, we'd get far more honesty and informed votes going forward.

    Its a complicated old business is voting and human nature

    I'm probably just rambling off on one now
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #1403  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    I will ask questions usually now-days, rather than challenge. That is usually the best way of finding out if there's anything behind the opinions. I usually find there is, but that it's based on the symptom of the issue rather than the cause. And dealing with the symptom is totally valid. Like in a house with unsound foundations you spend resource plastering or papering over the cracks. Fixing foundations is hard and time consuming. We all got lives to live.
    That's a good way of approaching it to be fair.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #1404  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,301
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    That's a good way of approaching it to be fair.
    Thanks.

    Short-sighted, self opinionated hot head. Been there, got the T-Shirt. Nobody is immune. I've no doubt I'll ware the T-shirt again.

    For example. Even though I ask questions, the older I've got the harder it is not to play the "I've seen/learnt stuff that you haven't". Same T-shirt, different cut.

    What about you? What helps you to change or broaden your outlook?
    Last edited by Luises-Finger; 21-4-17 at 12:28.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #1405  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24,540
    Politics and the state we are in

    Only have to look at parking fines....
    A system that generates a lot of money and shouldn't really

    30m vehicles on the road and not enough parking, coz iike the roads themselves its an after thought......

    And yet - a parking ticket is issued every 7 seconds in the UK
    Says it all really
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #1406  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Politics and the state we are in

    Only have to look at parking fines....
    A system that generates a lot of money and shouldn't really

    30m vehicles on the road and not enough parking, coz iike the roads themselves its an after thought......

    And yet - a parking ticket is issued every 7 seconds in the UK
    Says it all really
    Parking has to be limited to discourage EVERYONE driving into city centres.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #1407  
    Coach791 is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Politics and the state we are in

    Only have to look at parking fines....
    A system that generates a lot of money and shouldn't really

    30m vehicles on the road and not enough parking, coz iike the roads themselves its an after thought......

    And yet - a parking ticket is issued every 7 seconds in the UK
    Says it all really
    Ron that is a great point. I absolutely mean that. I've not known you too often to consider the bigger picture as well as the individual and see that are not mutually exclusive. I fully expected your position to be 'stupid peasants' there is a sign they're just lazy on their phones............fine them!

    In some cases that would be true. However as you rightly point out the system itself causes problems with too many cars, too few spaces and punishing people for that is strange. A fantastic point Ron, it really is.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #1408  
    Coach791 is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,152
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    Parking has to be limited to discourage EVERYONE driving into city centres.
    That doesn't make sense Jared. You could if you wanted ban all cars, create a public transport system that works and have a largely car free city centre. Also you're focusing on city centres. In the UK due to a recent severe illness I had to rush my partner to hospital.

    There is a parking system where you MUST pay and I'd left without change. I parked across the road in a residential area with numerous free spaces and no double yellow lines and returned to fine 140 fine ticket. Apparently there is a very small sign on the road prior saying no parking.

    You can make the argument they don't want residential parking to be affected but for several decades it hadn't. You now have to pay to park and sometimes in an emergency you don't have change or forget your wallet. Now the parking is excluded anywhere around the hospital. that's to force you to pay inside.

    They're not suggesting they want you to avoid the hospital they are suggesting they want you to pay. In any economic system (I know you are well versed economically) you create wealth by putting a fence around something of value. There is also the law of scarcity and abundance.

    The less access you have of something you need the more valuable it is. Air is available all around us. Currently it is free and we have free access therefore it doesn't yet have value. However if you increase the number of cars on the road, increase the number of drivers and increase mobility in life in general but spaces on the road diminish then you have created wealth.

    You can charge for parking, you can fine for parking in non designated areas and you can dress it up as some kind of kind social policy to protect city centres but we know that isn't true. The option is there to completely rid city centres of cars.

    I can't agree with your suggestion it is some kind of benevolent driver policy for city centres. Maybe it is different where you are but here in the UK it is absolutely obvious that is not the case.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #1409  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Ron that is a great point. I absolutely mean that. I've not known you too often to consider the bigger picture as well as the individual and see that are not mutually exclusive. I fully expected your position to be 'stupid peasants' there is a sign they're just lazy on their phones............fine them!

    In some cases that would be true. However as you rightly point out the system itself causes problems with too many cars, too few spaces and punishing people for that is strange. A fantastic point Ron, it really is.
    It is the role of government to encourage behaviour that benefits society as a whole. Or in some cases, discourage bad behaviour (taxes on cigarettes for example, diesel taxes for pollution etc...).

    You don't want everyone driving into city centres, both for environmental reasons and congestion reasons (which will block taxis, couriers etc...) - it would be chaos. So you discourage it by having limited parking.

    The issue I have is public transport is too expensive. Positive reinforcement is stronger than negative reinforcement. Limited parking and fines is negative, if they subsidised or capped profits or even nationalised public transport to greatly reduce costs that would be the ultimate encouragement to ditch your car.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #1410  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    That doesn't make sense Jared. You could if you wanted ban all cars, create a public transport system that works and have a largely car free city centre. Also you're focusing on city centres. In the UK due to a recent severe illness I had to rush my partner to hospital.

    There is a parking system where you MUST pay and I'd left without change. I parked across the road in a residential area with numerous free spaces and no double yellow lines and returned to fine 140 fine ticket. Apparently there is a very small sign on the road prior saying no parking.

    You can make the argument they don't want residential parking to be affected but for several decades it hadn't. You now have to pay to park and sometimes in an emergency you don't have change or forget your wallet. Now the parking is excluded anywhere around the hospital. that's to force you to pay inside.

    They're not suggesting they want you to avoid the hospital they are suggesting they want you to pay. In any economic system (I know you are well versed economically) you create wealth by putting a fence around something of value. There is also the law of scarcity and abundance.

    The less access you have of something you need the more valuable it is. Air is available all around us. Currently it is free and we have free access therefore it doesn't yet have value. However if you increase the number of cars on the road, increase the number of drivers and increase mobility in life in general but spaces on the road diminish then you have created wealth.

    You can charge for parking, you can fine for parking in non designated areas and you can dress it up as some kind of kind social policy to protect city centres but we know that isn't true. The option is there to completely rid city centres of cars.

    I can't agree with your suggestion it is some kind of benevolent driver policy for city centres. Maybe it is different where you are but here in the UK it is absolutely obvious that is not the case.
    I don't know what the situation is in Liverpool so can't comment. I don't think there should be parking limitations if its an empty, quite country road, for example.

    But in London car parking is limited because quite simply there is so much people. In residential areas it needs to be monitored so residents of that street can park their own car and it isn't filled up with outsiders. In the city centre it needs to be limited because otherwise it would be chaos. They have also whacked a congestion charge to offset the environmental damage and Khan is talking about a much steeper diesel charge as well - but the point is all of these measures are to discourage what is an environmentally damaging behaviour.

    I'm only a city boy so these policies are in line with what I have come across in Auckland and Sydney, I can't speak for smaller towns and like I said I think this should be done on a common sense basis.

    If there are ridiculous examples, like the one that happened to you, that obviously that is more of an issue with implementation than the underlying concept in the first place. Mystery's original post, to me anyway, seemed to suggest we should just go out and build loads more car parks for the millions of cars we have on the roads that can't find spaces. That is absolutely backwards thinking. IMO.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



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