Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
When you read any mainstream publication do you believe the entirety of the report / article? Or do you sift through it and assume that it has factual information within it but probably is skewed in favour of the narrative of said publication?

I think all publications have their share of truth including the Mail, the Independent and the Guardian but I am always suspicious (with all of them no matter which leaning) as to the way they present the story.

You can see the same story in several publications and if you read through it you would end up with a different resulting viewpoint because each one will ignore some facets that would counter their narrative.

It isn't the Orwellian nightmare that you suggest. Merely that you have to be able to read a story and not soak up the narrative each publication is trying to present with the way they present their story.

Breitbart and others like it (left and right) are labelled as post truth which is not true at all. Like all publications and TV media as well as facebook there is truth in the story but the use of exaggeration as well as suppressing some key context makes the interpretation of the news different to the reader.

Key at the moment is the downplaying of "good news" since Brexit in terms of a lot of the financial "pointers". One side is downplaying everything and actually looking for things to say "ahah, look" where the other side is saying "look it's all rosy." The context is ignored and the real interpretation is somewhere in the middle of "yes the pointers are good BUT......."

At the moment the economists and those who want to push the picture of something around the corner are so focused on the Brexit doom angle that they are fatally ignoring the fact that consumer credit is rising dangerously and we could be facing another bust very soon. Nothing to do with Brexit that one but a recession could well hit us sometime soon because people are going mad on credit again.

This is nothing new and you could say it is actually not being biased. Like a football fan seeing a perspective through glasses tinted to your viewpoint however many media organisations add to that tint by purposefully ignoring context that may make their "argument" less convincing.

It is not the medias job to decide which news should be suppressed like the Cologne incidents. They should be reporting all news. I have no problem with them taking issue with any viewpoint that tries to paint the whole muslim community because of such incidents but they MUST report the news and not select what they want us to know and what they don't because that is the very same as they accuse right wing sensationalists like Breitbart of.

Thanks for reply.

No to the point in bold. I'm well aware of an agenda. If people are honest, if they have a side, they would rather read what is more palatable to their 'mainly' held views. I was genuinely wondering if there is such an outlet (website perhaps) that offers balance as oppose to the binary press.

I choose not to read the Mail/Express as its fairly immediately vile to many humans that don't share the same religion/skin colour or weird sentiment about how Britain used to be. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
 
Depends where you live. The US Supreme Court says it's covered by the first amendment.
Yeah which is crazy. Milo made a trans girl quit her college because he held a speech there. He basically called her out the who time and spewed disgusting **** at her. America is ****ed up.
 
No to the point in bold. I'm well aware of an agenda. If people are honest, if they have a side, they would rather read what is more palatable to their 'mainly' held views. I was genuinely wondering if there is such an outlet (website perhaps) that offers balance as oppose to the binary press.

I would say the answer there is a resounding No. There is no unbiased publication anywhere. All screen or printed media will have a biased view intentionally or unintentionally which is natural. The problem is though that they intentionally add to that bias by the way they present "the facts."

If you find one that just says everything like it is and includes the pros and the cons no matter their narrative then you should share it.

I choose not to read the Mail/Express as its fairly immediately vile to many humans that don't share the same religion/skin colour or weird sentiment about how Britain used to be. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I don't read the Mail or Express either and I am a "right winger."

I do of course read Mail and Express articles as well as Guardian and all the others. This is the facebook generation and the "self propaganda" society ensures my newsfeed is full of right and left "told you so" shares from all sides of the political spectrum. I take all of them "left and right" with a pinch of salt however I cannot ever say I do not agree with some more than others because we will always tend to favour what we believe ourselves. I am however an individual and not swayed by things that agree with me when I still doubt that they 100% give me the whole story.

Look back on my posts where I said that the "employers" were taking advantage of migrant labour and that when I worked in the food industry it was 3 strikes and you are out. I said then it was widespread and that Sports Direct was a public "showcase" whereas it was industrywide in all walks of low paid emplyment. People laughed at me and talked of how could people/unions accept this? Last week Channel4 exposed JD Sports as running an "illegal" strikes and out system as well as many other "worse than Sports Direct" policies. The same show detailed a winning compensation claim from migrants that had been for all purposes slaves to their agency bosses.

That case was an agency that provided workers to my workplace (and many others) that eventually ousted myself and all the Brits I used to work with from our workplace via "strikes" for nothings and no union stood up for us and society decided we were lying. You will see many ore of these coming to light now the media has learned they have an audience for this and you will see many more politicians like Vince Cable that feel forced to say "this is not right" while they are the same politicians that fed the "Lazy Brit" lie based on a small proportion that actually were.

I told you how low paid employers are using agencies as a shield to say "we are not guilty!" Everytime from now that you hear more and more of these companies called out by a media that is altering to actually detail what is/was happening think of what I said and then question how you bought the narrative of "Lazy Brits." I always said I am married to an immigrant. I have no problems with immigrants. I don't in reality have a problem with immigration but I have a huge problem with a system that utilises a small proportion of scroungers to brand ME and people like me!

I will fight racism with you. I will fight bigotry with you. I will not agree with you on this denial of what has been happening to British citizens for the past decade with the compliant approval of British society for a decade!

They go by the Clinton statement of "its the economy stupid" and do not care who that statement affects as long as the $$ rolls in. People can f off as long as we as UK plc are growing.

This is the tip of the iceberg that you all didn't/don't believe is/was happening and you all wanted to believe the employer/society narrative of lazy Brits based on the small proportion that are lazy.

The reality is worker's rights. You all seem to want worker's rights but then do not seem to understand how worker's rights have put paid to the Brits because Brits will demand these rights while employers want cheap and obeyant workers that do what they are told for the cheapest price possible. Something the Blair/Brown and Cameron lot were very happy to facilitate and on screen to make excuses for and something that is rife in low paid employment across this country with the media and politicians (and these days much of society) ready to shout "Lazy Brits" when the reality is the small amount of "lazy Brits" are as small as the actual "racists" but are a good cover to tar all the rest of us if it suits those who are in charge.

And you wonder why there is a movement against the "establishment!"

I experienced what was happening when the migrants were first "brought" to this country living in houses with 100 people, yet 1 kitchen, 3 toilets and each room of a 4 story house having 8 mattresses on the floor. I didn't go there to be shocked and report on it. I went there because I worked with these guys (and girls) and I trained a fair amount of them prior to me getting on the Strike and out route. These were terrible conditions. Not war and tents like we see on TV but this was in the UK in modern day where people were cramped in rooms in huge houses with no real beds, smoking in all rooms, houses unregistered as HMOs yet.....................forget that "Lazy Brits."

This country is going to be very shocked this year...............if the main channel (BBC) actually report on it.

You should also see the narrative is "poor migrants." These guys have suffered but there is no quesiton to why the Brits lost their jobs. Just poor migrants. I pulled my wife from one of these multi occupancy homes. We have our moments of anger and discontent but that does not alter the fact that I am married to someone whom you all accuse me of being against. A black and non British woman.

Check out the CH4 segments. They were in the news last week. The Beeb will not report on them. They are pretty indicative of what is actually happening in low paid Britain.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe anything politically written in any paper. They lean politically left or right and tilt the story to fit their leaning. Give a left paper and a right paper the same story and you will get completely different views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
Breitbart is pure hate. They hate on the Jewish, trans, gays, women etc. Comparing it to normal papers is crazy.

So do the Mail and Express. Hate and fear are their selling points, but they must work because they have a lot of readers.

No way are these news outlets equivalent to the Guardian, Independant or even the Times. And at least the Sun has humour. But the Mail and Express are pure poison.
 
So the Mail and Express. Hate and fear are their selling points, but they must work because they have a lot of readers.

No way are these news outlets equivalent to the Guardian, Independant or even the Times. And at least the Sun has humour. But the Mail and Express are pure poison.

Mail and Express readers would echo your words the opposite way. The truth is they are as bad as each other and the Guardian getting worse by the day since they became virtually the only MSM publication for the left. They preach to their audience and increasingly skew their stories to get more nods from their own "fans."

My parents used to get the Express delivered daily and they always used to be Lib Dem voters. No idea what they vote these days but then I don't ask them. They stopped getting the Express delivered a few years after Desmond ruined it.

The Times has lots of people like Aaronovitch who will not listen to any viewpoint but his own and his viewpoint is very much the liberal left. Yasmin Alibih Brown who has spent years decrying the hate of the Mail is writing articles for them now since the Independent have axed her. These people talk and talk but money rules.

As for what does the alt-right mean these days. This article albeit on Breitbart is pretty accurate and details that far from it being what the MSM want to paint it as it is much more of a fight from within to kill off Spencer's original 1488r's. If you go on most right leaning publications including the Spectator there will be commenters who quite openly want ethnic cleanising. The lefties just whine about it and ignore them. The sane righties actively go after them. It is the right that is fighting the far right while the left just stand around with their fingers in their ears thinking that means it will go away.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

You will never beat racism by making it illegal or ignoring it. You have to stand up to these people not just hope they will go away.
 
Last edited:
They take their platform from them not just ban them. They debate them not just name call them.

Do they? Where is the evidence of this? All I see is the soft right and even the centre left pandering to the bigots. Who is actually putting the positive case for immigration, for example, or for co-operation with our European neighbours?
 
Do they? Where is the evidence of this? All I see is the soft right and even the centre left pandering to the bigots. Who is actually putting the positive case for immigration, for example, or for co-operation with our European neighbours?
Virtually everyone as far as I can see. I certainly haven't seen anybody arguing that there are no benefits to immigration, that there should be no immigration at all or that we shouldn't co-operate with other European countries.
 
If I was Teresa May, the first thing I would attend to would be the removal of the extremists that have taken over segments of the Conservative Party, both in Parliament and at local constituency level. In other words those MPs who favour Brexit are not true Conservatives. Members of local parties who back Brexit are likewise not true Conservatives. True Conservatives, a la Ken Clarke, believe that the UK should remain in the EU. Furthermore they envisage further integration and even monetary union. These actions, I believe, is what the Conservative Party should and must strive to achieve, instead of walking away as it is now from the battle to ensure the UK's position in the world.
 
Virtually everyone as far as I can see. I certainly haven't seen anybody arguing that there are no benefits to immigration, that there should be no immigration at all or that we shouldn't co-operate with other European countries.

Point pretty deliberately missed there I reckon.

Ukip and the looney right of the Tory party have been setting the terms of the debate for years, and Cameron played right in to their hands. Now we all have to pay the price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChilcoSaint
Point pretty deliberately missed there I reckon.

Ukip and the looney right of the Tory party have been setting the terms of the debate for years, and Cameron played right in to their hands. Now we all have to pay the price.
Those people have set the terms of the debate because there is no good counter-argument to what they say about controlling immigration. Immigration is like many things in life - too little causes problems and too much causes problems. You can argue about whether or not we are at a point where immigration is causing problems (although you'd probably struggle to convince many people - surveys suggest the majority of people in the UK have believed the level of immigration is too high for more than 20 years now) but nobody can argue it's better not to be able to control immigration than to be able to control it.
 
Point pretty deliberately missed there I reckon.

Ukip and the looney right of the Tory party have been setting the terms of the debate for years, and Cameron played right in to their hands. Now we all have to pay the price.

A miscalculation that the Republican Party made in the US, as well. In both cases, they assumed that the fringe was small enough to be controlled, but large enough to merit a bit of pandering. In doing so, both ensured that the fringe grew in legitimacy such that they took hold of the agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
A miscalculation that the Republican Party made in the US, as well. In both cases, they assumed that the fringe was small enough to be controlled, but large enough to merit a bit of pandering. In doing so, both ensured that the fringe grew in legitimacy such that they took hold of the agenda.
I think the miscalculation is believing that these are or ever were fringe views. In terms of immigration they simply aren't and weren't. A recently-published survey suggested 55% of Remain voters are in favour of the UK being able to limit EU immigration. The majority of people in the UK believe the level of immigration is too high and have done for decades. Here is the British Social Attitudes Survey from 2013. It includes figures regarding attitudes to immigration over the period 1995 to 2013. The percentage of people who believed that immigration to Britain should be reduced was:

1995 - 63%
2003 - 72%
2008 - 78%
2011 - 75%
2013 - 77%
 
They take their platform from them not just ban them. They debate them not just name call them.

This is just a bunch of meaningless gibberish. No one "debates" Brietbart or the far right racists. They are not even remotely interested in debate.

If the right were "taking the platform" from racists, then Donald Trump would not be President. You seem to have confused the terms "debate" and "apologism."
 
I'm going to guess you have no idea how assinine that article is.

I'd be happy to explain it to you, but I would admittedly have to rely on my years of education in things like public policy, law, statistics and logic rather than appeals to emotion and bogey strawmen.

I am entirely unapologetic about the fact that I am intelligent and educated enough to know that Trump is a disaster. Also entirely unapologetic about any hurt feelings this might cause anyone.
 
I'm going to guess you have no idea how assinine that article is.

I'd be happy to explain it to you, but I would admittedly have to rely on my years of education in things like public policy, law, statistics and logic rather than appeals to emotion and bogey strawmen.

I am entirely unapologetic about the fact that I am intelligent and educated enough to know that Trump is a disaster. Also entirely unapologetic about any hurt feelings this might cause anyone.

I put it there as clickbait. I am not Impsaint on Disqus but I argue pretty similar to you. I get your first sentence but the last one is a bit dubious in a "I am cleverer than the people who don't know" but hey. I commented that I disagreed that it was down to "training" people not to want to veer "off the tracks."

It is all about differing life experiences and echo chambers. Thick skin and brittle skin. We all experience different "real worlds" because of what we do, who we surround ourselves with and what we choose to enjoy. I would merely argue that most people that go to university tend (<----not fixed) to go their lives mixing in circles of other like minded higher educated people. That means that in the main there is no real challenge to their ideas of reality. Most think differently of course but not that much differently bar a few they consider mad. (My Mum thinks I'm barking mad.)

Those who don't tend to experience thoughts and opinions. Some they agree with, some they don't and some that are mixed but such a variation of vastly differeing behaviours and opinions and viewpoints that it makes them think about what they really believe and question themselves constantly. I'm not talking about the really stupid mad people that have a fixed view for life because thats what they have always believed and this is how its always been done.

But hey, I put the article link there for you to bite on. Its an article written by a leaver/anti elite that could never understand what "ordinary people" are thinking because he is one of the establishment completely and is trying to do the usual establishment thing of telling the world what the ordinary man thinks.................and it is always wrong. Something we see daily when middle classes talk on behalf of the working classes on TV and get it so completely wrong but then the elite don;t want to listen to the working class. They like their "nicer smelling" and "better spoken" intermediaries. Another honour for Shami please.
 
Last edited: