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!
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
There's nothing incorrect about the study. What they did was look at satellite maps and determine how much land was covered by trees. That seems like a logical approach. They concluded-- and there's no reason to doubt them-- that more of the Earth's land surface is under tree cover than 40 years ago. That's extremely useful knowledge.

What they didn't do was look at the KINDS of plants that were growing. They accomplished their goal, but now it's up to other scientists to react to that data and use it to drive further investigations. No one is saying the study is wrong, just that it's incomplete.

This is why I get annoyed when people blame scientists or the media for things. The whole point of science is to seek answers to tough questions. When it comes to climate change or things like that, it's pushing the envelope of knowledge. So no study should be treated as conclusive. At the same time, just because you have two findings or two interpretations that disagree, doesn't mean you throw your hands up either. Each of those things is a piece of the puzzle.

The problem is that people are extremely bad at dealing with uncertainty and risk. And with more information at their hands than ever, it's simultaneously harder to think about issues if you really try (because of conflicting info.) while easier than ever to just pick a side and have tons of stuff to back you up.

The article from Nature is easy to obtain online. It goes over some of this stuff. It says that the major loss is coming from the tropics, that there is some re-forestation from abandoned farms going back to nature, that some re-forestation efforts seem to have been successful, but some of the coverage is coming from tree farms and global warming as well.

It doesn't draw the conclusions people want it to draw. There is no "yes/no" or "scale of 1-10" answer. Which is how it should be in science.

You see this attitude in how people treat news as well. People will say "Well, I read some left wing articles. And then I read some right wing articles. I take what I read and make up my own mind." They think this is a very enlightened approach and pat themselves on the back. But really, it's a fundamentally stupid approach.

The average person is not hanging out in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or 10 Downing Street. They're not experts in that area of policy, they're not experts in government. Most people are ****ty readers as well. So like, you have a reporter who has spent 10 years writing about this stuff. Or you have yourself who has spent 15 minutes reading a couple of two page articles. We're completely unqualified to render a judgment. We're basically just reinforcing our own internal biases when we decide which side to believe.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that apart from the "get annoyed by scientists and media" part. You should be annoyed at scientists and media because they report the straight line without caveats for an agenda.

So thus we have one side that will claim "more forest cover" and the other side that will claim "forest being cut down." The caveat that you are explaining is not given light. Scientists in this age are not immune to politics and very often are quite happy to just play along with the narrative that is being used. That allied with journalists just wanting a scientist or academic to give them a "creditable" yes answer to their story's narrative.

This is the same for all sorts of subject matter. And thus we have (example) one article from the Mail that says "X is not true" and one article from the Guardian that says "X is true" and the reality is that what they are detailing is true but the point that it does not confirm the actual point they are using the data to say is true.

There are arguments online that the icecaps are growing from deniers. We have articles in other areas that say they are reducing. I can't remember which way round it is but the 2 sides are using data where it is either increasing or decreasing in area while the other side are talking about volume/depth. So this example might be the wrong way round but just for example. One side is saying the icecaps are decreasing because they aren't as thick while the other side are saying they aren't decreasing because they are taking up more area.

This is one reason why I like John Curtice and Matthew Goodwin's analysis on politics and polls because they don't just play along. They will state what the result is but make clear caveats of why that is or what it means while all the others are quite happy to agree with the narrative being used.

We are in an era of headlines and small print where the public are even less inclined to read the actual story let alone the small print. Headline and first paragraph and on to the next thing.
 
ImpSaint said:
We are in an era of headlines and small print where the public are even less inclined to read the actual story let alone the small print. Headline and first paragraph and on to the next thing.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly why I think the problem is with the public and not the scientists/media. If you go back to the original sources on some of these studies, they do talk about a lot of things that are left out in newspapers. And then the politicians leave out a lot of the stuff that's in newspapers. I mean, the information is out there. People just don't want to read it. To me, that's not a problem with information source, it's a problem with information absorption.

When Russia tried to influence the US elections, they didn't infiltrate academic institutions and write fake scientific articles, or publish political books. They just posted **** on Facebook and Twitter. I'm not saying that scientists or the media are not somewhat to blame or can never be blamed. But if people are basically begging to be lied to, someone is going to do it. I don't feel like people are saying "I just wish I could get my hands on more information before I make my decision." They're saying "I just want someone to give me an answer." But that's not the way things should work. When people abscond on their duty to apply their own critical reasoning, **** hits the fan. People cannot critically reason FOR you, that defeats the whole purpose of critical thinking.

Also, I'm not saying people should be experts in everything. It's not possible. I'm saying people should at least use the common sense they already have even in areas that are beyond their understanding. Like your point about defining ice cap size is similar to the thing about defining forest size. When it's explained, it's not that hard to grasp. But people need to learn how to read and think critically. I may not have the ultimate expertise to decide which measurement of polar ice cap size is really the most important for greenhouse impacts or biodiversity. But I can at least read an article and think "Okay, what are they talking about here, area covered or volume? How are they measuring this?"

And to also recognize that there's going to be things you just don't know, and will never know. Not because of any inherent mental defect, but because you haven't spent 20 years of your life studying something. And then how do we all learn to operate in uncertainty? Politicians are generally just as bad or worse at science than the average person and they're the ones ultimately making the calls on a lot of this stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat and ImpSaint
Labour just lost my vote. I never thought I would say this but they must ditch Corbyn as soon as possible. The youth vote, which nearly overturned the Tory lead in 2017, will surely desert Labour now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onionman
ChilcoSaint said:
Labour just lost my vote. I never thought I would say this but they must ditch Corbyn as soon as possible. The youth vote, which nearly overturned the Tory lead in 2017, will surely desert Labour now.
Click to expand...

They had my vote in their hands. And Mrs Onionman and Onionmanette.

They'll still get plenty of the youth vote who don't pay attention but plenty will go. As will almost all of the people who were on the march the other month along with remain voters who are politically aware.

I suspect we'll see a deal where Corbyn conspires to deliver Brexit for Theresa May in the month or two anyway. It's clear he wants it.

Vin
 
Onionman said:
They had my vote in their hands. And Mrs Onionman and Onionmanette.

They'll still get plenty of the youth vote who don't pay attention but plenty will go. As will almost all of the people who were on the march the other month along with remain voters who are politically aware.

I suspect we'll see a deal where Corbyn conspires to deliver Brexit for Theresa May in the month or two anyway. It's clear he wants it.

Vin
Click to expand...
The tragedy is that although the Labour leavers like Len McCluskey are terrified of losing support in the northern seats, the evidence is that a huge majority of voters in the Labour seats that voted Leave would support a People’s Vote. I can’t find the poll but there was one held recently.

And after all, 65% of people who voted Labour in 2017 voted Remain in 2016.
 
Where are all these Labour (potential) votes going to go? Will the young now vote LibDem? No sign of that. Will they vote CUK? No evidence of that, indeed they are falling in the polls.

The problem we have with many parties (Tory, Labour, CUK) is that people do not know whether they are pro or anti Brexit because they are intentionally vague or give out statements that are contrary to their actual manifestos, commitments or actions.

There was a poll out today that put BrexitParty on quite a low % in London in comparison to the binary remain:leave percentages. Remainers are jumping on this to say that Tory and UKIP is way less than the 60:40 of the referendum but it is clear that Labour (and it seems CUK) are holding on to the leave segment through mixed/unclear messaging.

IF Labour were clear and conceded to the member's desire for 2nd ref to be a clear intent, rather than being a "bottom of the list" option then they would immediately lose a large chunk that they are holding on to and it isn;t clear that they would gain many more remainers than they already have to counter that loss.

Even this out today (following) on CUK. If people are unclear if CUK are pro or anti Brexit then they must be completely bamboozled as to Labour's stance:

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media
 
Last edited:
Just told the (Portuguese EU citizen) wife I was off to vote and she said (no lie):

"Vote Farage, he should be Prime Minister."

Would have spat my coffee out if I had been drinking coffee at the time.

Voted Green. Only other options were LibLabCon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road and ChilcoSaint
ImpSaint said:
Just told the (Portuguese EU citizen) wife I was off to vote and she said (no lie):

"Vote Farage, he should be Prime Minister."

Would have spat my coffee out if I had been drinking coffee at the time.

Voted Green. Only other options were LibLabCon.
Click to expand...
I voted LibDem as Labour or Green have no chance here.
 
ImpSaint said:
Green have no chance here either but at least LibLabCon will see my vote went somewhere else while their numbers go down.
Click to expand...

ChilcoSaint said:
I voted LibDem as Labour or Green have no chance here.
Click to expand...


If you believe in the Green’s message, I think council elections, rather than perhaps FPTP general elections, are exactly the place to show your support.

Don’t you get to vote for 3 candidates in local government elections? I usually vote for two reds and a green.
 
Archers Road said:
If you believe in the Green’s message, I think council elections, rather than perhaps FPTP general elections, are exactly the place to show your support.

Don’t you get to vote for 3 candidates in local government elections? I usually vote for two reds and a green.
Click to expand...
Just 2 in Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton Ward. The Greens are standing for the first time in about 20 years and have zero chance, I won’t vote for Labour while they support Brexit, and the 2 LD candidates are both young local lads who have a really good chance of kicking out the Tories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
ChilcoSaint said:
Just 2 in Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton Ward. The Greens are standing for the first time in about 20 years and have zero chance, I won’t vote for Labour while they support Brexit, and the 2 LD candidates are both young local lads who have a really good chance of kicking out the Tories.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I have voted LibDem in the past. I don’t hold the 2010 coalition against them as I think the electoral arithmetic dictated that course of action; and subsequent experience has shown that they did restrain the worst excesses of the Tories (I’m 100% with Nye Bevan on that lot).

Can never forgive Vince Cable for the privatisation of my old employer Royal Mail though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint and ChilcoSaint
Archers Road said:
If you believe in the Green’s message, I think council elections, rather than perhaps FPTP general elections, are exactly the place to show your support.

Don’t you get to vote for 3 candidates in local government elections? I usually vote for two reds and a green.
Click to expand...

Not as far as I know. Each ward you vote for one candidate here. Each constituency has loads of wards and the winner of each ward makes up the council. Normally 50-60 councillors in total.

And no I don't agree with a large part of the green policies. Some yes but a lot no. I think they are pretty unrealistic in some areas of their environmental argument. While their aims are to be applauded they can't really be going around pushing a green policy that would require a complete change to our economic model from consumerism and services to be able to fulfill while they also bang on about protecting jobs and "the economy."

Unfortunately one has to give and what we need to do (I agree we need to) to sort out the environmental (global) problem will require a massive change in how we as people live and will require a lot of the jobs we do to disappear. Tough love scenario but needs doing.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
Just 2 in Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton Ward. The Greens are standing for the first time in about 20 years and have zero chance, I won’t vote for Labour while they support Brexit, and the 2 LD candidates are both young local lads who have a really good chance of kicking out the Tories.
Click to expand...

I don’t want Brexit but will continue to support Labour because of their manifesto, even though this is a local election and not a general election. We won’t get better from any other party.
I would prefer that they go full out for a new vote, but I can understand the reticence to do so, when they could lose Brexit supporting seats at the next election, with no guarantee that Tory/Lib Dem remainers would switch support.
Maybe their hand will be forced, when the cross party talks inevitably collapse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back