Not The Politics Thread.

[Carl the Llama]

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Read an article yesterday that might offer some insight into this:

 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/6/26/22550981/carl-bergstrom-joe-bak-coleman-biologists-ecologists-social-media-risk-humanity-research-academics

Sadly those who need to understand this kind of thing will have most likely been conditioned to see the source and dismiss it out of hand (in the name of being open-minded no less).  

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, What the Fuchs? said:

I will never understand the fetish some people seem to have for Johnson, the man is as corrupt, entitled, self serving, dishonest, manipulative and incompetent as it gets in this country - all qualities these same people will tell you they abhor. In fact the way he’s lowered standards in public life with brazen corruption lying and ignoring of rules and standards is downright dangerous. There’s something strange and unhealthy about the people who fawn over the government on the internet as well, you only need to look at Twitter, they’ve all littered their usernames with Union flags etc to show they’re against virtue signalling as well 🤦‍♂️😂

I don’t think there’s a single answer to this and many things are intertwined, but I reckon there are some key parts:

 

- Charm. You may not like him. In fact you come across as utterly loathing the man, but he has a turn of phrase that a significant portion of people find charming. It’s how he came to be Conservative mayor of London. He’s identifiable, people remember him and he carries a cheeky glint and a shaft of wit around with him. Say it’s all an act if you will. You’d have a point. But he can carry it off.

 

- Social media. To progress from @leicsmac’s post, I’m convinced that the majority of us can’t handle social media. How many of us feel when get it right all the time? How many of us have posted something we regret? Yet there it is, forever, lines drawn and grudges held. People get locked into characters, can’t move on, struggle to escape their past because it’s only ever one friend request away. But more than that, it creates tribes. In particular, people get to see angry things written about them every day, further entrenching views. So then when someone is hated by the people who mock you daily, there’s a temptation to join them. People shelter under big character, non-PC Boris like they do big character, non-PC Trump in America, and it’s because they feel their way of life is under threat, in part due to the sheer rudeness and unstoppability of social media.

 

- I can’t stress this enough, but Brexit. Or, more specifically, what happened after the vote. All of the adjectives you level at Boris are what many leavers still think of remainers, that they wouldn’t let them have what they won (voted for). The response to Brexit is the reason Boris became PM. The response to Boris when he became PM entrenched those views further. He’s seen as the man who delivered what many politicians refused and allowed people’s votes to stand.

 

If you’re a progressive remainer who demands competence above everything from public officials, there’s little doubt that you’ll feel something between contempt and hatred for the man. But then, your point was bewilderment at why people have a fetish for him. I believe the short answer is because the battle lines have been drawn, and not entirely - or arguably even mostly - by those who do.

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not sure about that to be honest. While there have been some very visible mistakes, I think on balance the successes outweigh the **** ups. 

Big tick on overall economic support which means we have an economy to come back to.

Big tick on early funding for vaccine development and the roll out which will ultimately take us out of the crises, while also helping the rest of the world.

Big cross against the panicked emptying of the hospitals, which undoubtedly resulted in many deaths in Care homes and beyond, and had a knock on effect on treatment of other illnesses.  However you have to balance against this the horror shows we have seen in countries where the healthcare system has been overwhelmed, from Italy to India.

Big cross against decisions in retrospect made too late - the track and trace system, and not limiting incoming people especially from high risk locations.

Smaller cross against the reticence to lockdown early, and then laggy coming out of it due to a desire not to have to lock down again.

 

No idea why you have to balance the debacle of discharging from hospitals and healthcare systems being overwhelmed elsewhere but you don’t have to balance the economic support against what other countries have done there. For example, the desire to not raise sick pay (despite it being comparatively woefully low) and not advertise the fact furlough could be used for those self-isolating has almost certainly made the pandemic in this country needlessly worse. The desperation to remove furlough last autumn was bizarre too.

 

Id say the economic response has been par for the course, little that’s been comparatively good about and it not worthy of a tick and I’m not sure there’s great promise for a good ‘post-pandemic’ response either.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I don’t think there’s a single answer to this and many things are intertwined, but I reckon there are some key parts:

 

- Charm. You may not like him. In fact you come across as utterly loathing the man, but he has a turn of phrase that a significant portion of people find charming. It’s how he came to be Conservative mayor of London. He’s identifiable, people remember him and he carries a cheeky glint and a shaft of wit around with him. Say it’s all an act if you will. You’d have a point. But he can carry it off.

 

- Social media. To progress from @leicsmac’s post, I’m convinced that the majority of us can’t handle social media. How many of us feel when get it right all the time? How many of us have posted something we regret? Yet there it is, forever, lines drawn and grudges held. People get locked into characters, can’t move on, struggle to escape their past because it’s only ever one friend request away. But more than that, it creates tribes. In particular, people get to see angry things written about them every day, further entrenching views. So then when someone is hated by the people who mock you daily, there’s a temptation to join them. People shelter under big character, non-PC Boris like they do big character, non-PC Trump in America, and it’s because they feel their way of life is under threat, in part due to the sheer rudeness and unstoppability of social media.

 

- I can’t stress this enough, but Brexit. Or, more specifically, what happened after the vote. All of the adjectives you level at Boris are what many leavers still think of remainers, that they wouldn’t let them have what they won (voted for). The response to Brexit is the reason Boris became PM. The response to Boris when he became PM entrenched those views further. He’s seen as the man who delivered what many politicians refused and allowed people’s votes to stand.

 

If you’re a progressive remainer who demands competence above everything from public officials, there’s little doubt that you’ll feel something between contempt and hatred for the man. But then, your point was bewilderment at why people have a fetish for him. I believe the short answer is because the battle lines have been drawn, and not entirely - or arguably even mostly - by those who do.

If this is the case, then how can you convince people that they are so incredibly, irrevocably wrong about something while somehow keeping them onside?

 

Particularly when the person they wish to join is merely using them for the purposes of con artistry anyway?

 

I can see the problem and I agree on the problem, but we need a solution or the future is going to be a place scarier than many people can imagine.

Edited 29 June 2021 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Quick bit of advice. If you're claiming the good outweighs the bad, best not in the same post detail how the bad outweigh the good. I think two big ticks are outweighed by two big crosses and some smaller crosses.

I would say the vaccine side alone pretty much offsets everything else tbh.  It doesn't mean Boris has been a good PM, or that we had the best government possible, but it is the one single world impacting outcome which puts an end to everything.

[Dunge]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this is the case, then how can you convince people that they are so incredibly, irrevocably wrong about something while somehow keeping them onside?

 

Particularly when the person they wish to join is merely using them for the purposes of con artistry anyway?

 

I can see the problem and I agree on the problem, but we need a solution or the future is going to be a place scarier than many people can imagine.

The key phrase I’d use is “live your values”. If you say you’re for tolerance, be tolerant. If you say you’re for kindness, be kind. If you’re criticising someone for failing to meet a moral standard, make damn sure you meet those moral standards yourself, Mr. Hancock. Hypocrisy is one of the biggest red flags going to people supporting Boris and particularly Trump, particularly against those who claim the moral superiority that is at the heart of wokeness.

 

I’ve never felt shouting at people helps. I always think the best thing is to step forward and lead in the direction you want to go, and so it is with values. Otherwise opportunists like Boris or dictators like Trump will step into the void and lead people where they want them to go instead. In the meantime, you have to trust people to work things out for themselves. Some won’t; most will. But not while they’re being constantly backed into a corner. I appreciate this is dangerous, like in 1930s Germany, but ultimately I think it’s the only way.

 

Also, social media has to be one of the unkindest things that humankind has ever created. I think we’re now reaching a position where is has to be properly regulated and platform providers held to account. That may be seen as unpleasant or controversial but I think the freedom, anti-oppression benefits of Twitter et al have long since gone considering the likes of China and Russia can block them at will. I don’t entirely know how to do this, but I think the anarchic nature of online discussions is fuel for what people are calling the “culture war”.

[Facecloth]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I would say the vaccine side alone pretty much offsets everything else tbh.  It doesn't mean Boris has been a good PM, or that we had the best government possible, but it is the one single world impacting outcome which puts an end to everything.

I was slightly pulling your leg, but you literally listed 2 things you considered a big success, 2 things you considered a massive failure plus some more failures. If you think the vaccine roll out outweighs all the bad, fine then say you feel it alone outweighs the bad. Some might disagree. Some might think that letting thousands of infected people back into care homes pretty much contras the vaccine, or not closing the borders and allowing the delta variant to take hold offsets it too.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I was slightly pulling your leg, but you literally listed 2 things you considered a big success, 2 things you considered a massive failure plus some more failures. If you think the vaccine roll out outweighs all the bad, fine then say you feel it alone outweighs the bad. Some might disagree. Some might think that letting thousands of infected people back into care homes pretty much contras the vaccine, or not closing the borders and allowing the delta variant to take hold offsets it too.

I am not saying it was my best ever argument   And they would have a point.  

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The key phrase I’d use is “live your values”. If you say you’re for tolerance, be tolerant. If you say you’re for kindness, be kind. If you’re criticising someone for failing to meet a moral standard, make damn sure you meet those moral standards yourself, Mr. Hancock. Hypocrisy is one of the biggest red flags going to people supporting Boris and particularly Trump, particularly against those who claim the moral superiority that is at the heart of wokeness.

 

I’ve never felt shouting at people helps. I always think the best thing is to step forward and lead in the direction you want to go, and so it is with values. Otherwise opportunists like Boris or dictators like Trump will step into the void and lead people where they want them to go instead. In the meantime, you have to trust people to work things out for themselves. Some won’t; most will. But not while they’re being constantly backed into a corner. I appreciate this is dangerous, like in 1930s Germany, but ultimately I think it’s the only way.

 

Also, social media has to be one of the unkindest things that humankind has ever created. I think we’re now reaching a position where is has to be properly regulated and platform providers held to account. That may be seen as unpleasant or controversial but I think the freedom, anti-oppression benefits of Twitter et al have long since gone considering the likes of China and Russia can block them at will. I don’t entirely know how to do this, but I think the anarchic nature of online discussions is fuel for what people are calling the “culture war”.

I'd agree with most of this but I'd raise a couple of counterpoints in response:

 

- AFAIC "hypocrisy" is a red herring argument used far too often by people who would rather do nothing on issues that need to be addressed. I agree entirely that many people act the way you describe when faced with hypocrisy, but I also believe that offers them no absolution - none whatsoever - and a big share of responsibility if "bad" things then happen, purely because they were not able to look past the messenger and see the content of the message and that is a failing IMO. That's on them and it should be made damn clear that it is. Of course, pointing fingers when the dust clears doesn't actually do much other than perhaps make one feel marginally better, but hey...

 

I'm not saying that the people advocating change can do anything they like value wise because of the value of their message, but at the same time they don't need to be as pure and the driven snow nor as pure as some people think they have to be because of their own value preconceptions, and I wish more people would see that.

 

- Social media is a tricky one, and I believe it to be only as good or as bad as its users. But knowing humans, that leads to the conclusions described in the article I posted. I'd add that while China and Russia can block them, I don't think it's difficult for an individual in  those countries to poke holes in such blocks - VPN's batter holes in China's "Great Firewall" every day.

[Salisbury Fox]

6 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

There’s something strange and unhealthy about the people who fawn over the government on the internet as well, you only need to look at Twitter, they’ve all littered their usernames with Union flags etc to show they’re against virtue signalling as well 🤦‍♂️😂

Prefer Palestinian flags then? 

[urban.spaceman]

They’ve definitely had to explain to him what a goal is and what normal people do when it happens haven’t they?

 

 

[I am Rod Hull]

On 26/06/2021 at 07:57, SemperEadem said:

How radicalised do you have to be to look at the current government and think "Yup, still better than Labour..."

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

They’ve definitely had to explain to him what a goal is and what normal people do when it happens haven’t they?

 

 

Why are people laughing at him, and not celebrating with him.  It's so bizarre if not generated.

[Dunge]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'd agree with most of this but I'd raise a couple of counterpoints in response:

 

- AFAIC "hypocrisy" is a red herring argument used far too often by people who would rather do nothing on issues that need to be addressed. I agree entirely that many people act the way you describe when faced with hypocrisy, but I also believe that offers them no absolution - none whatsoever - and a big share of responsibility if "bad" things then happen, purely because they were not able to look past the messenger and see the content of the message and that is a failing IMO. That's on them and it should be made damn clear that it is. Of course, pointing fingers when the dust clears doesn't actually do much other than perhaps make one feel marginally better, but hey...

 

I'm not saying that the people advocating change can do anything they like value wise because of the value of their message, but at the same time they don't need to be as pure and the driven snow nor as pure as some people think they have to be because of their own value preconceptions, and I wish more people would see that.

 

- Social media is a tricky one, and I believe it to be only as good or as bad as its users. But knowing humans, that leads to the conclusions described in the article I posted. I'd add that while China and Russia can block them, I don't think it's difficult for an individual in  those countries to poke holes in such blocks - VPN's batter holes in China's "Great Firewall" every day.

Knowing you as I do, I know there’s a temptation here to frame the hypocrisy argument along the lines of climate change, such as people who say “they’re using aircraft to fly around the world; why should I listen to them?” In terms of getting people to listen and appreciate a relatively unseen danger is something that I agree is a massive challenge. But I do think in the case of climate change it’s ultimately a martial threat that forces people to take it seriously. I’m encouraged, for instance, that India and China seem to see its long term threat to them and their countries, and seeing that will get them to act. The biggest danger with climate change in my mind is Trump getting back into the White House. But I digress - I think climate change is a bit of an exception to what I put.

 

The kind of things I’m thinking are where people declare on Twitter that the world needs to be a kinder place, then fly off on a brilliantly eloquent but nasty rant about or to someone who disagrees with them. Check out The Poke for examples, they absolutely glory in this all the time. There’s a culture, particularly on Twitter, of trying to embarrass people into submission. It doesn’t work, at least not beyond just chasing people off, and only serves to make people look like intelligent bullies attacking less intelligent suckers who dared to write down something they were thinking. I always like to refer to the story of the strong east wind versus the sun, competing to remove a man’s coat. The strong east wind tries to blow it off, causing him to hold it tighter, while the sun offers warmth and encourages him to remove it on his own.

 

This, I think, is where accusations of hypocrisy come in - not from tangible things like climate change but in social morality and philosophy like demanding tolerance and flexibility while offering little in return.

 

With social media, I would argue that humans created society precisely so that they could have order, at least in balance against anarchy. But there’s a real lack of that online and it’s starting to take its toll - particularly as people seem to have moved beyond treating it with great suspicion and almost as a joke as a source of truth. Not that I have a great, formulated plan for what to do about it, of course.

[StanSP]

16 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

They’ve definitely had to explain to him what a goal is and what normal people do when it happens haven’t they?

 

 

Looks like they just re-ran the footage and made him do a celebration just for the cameras.

[urban.spaceman]

14 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Looks like they just re-ran the footage and made him do a celebration just for the cameras.

You can even see the ****ing remote  

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

They’ve definitely had to explain to him what a goal is and what normal people do when it happens haven’t they?

 

 

This is the most staged thing I've ever seen.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

1 hour ago, I am Rod Hull said:

 

 

Staggering really that the electorate didn't vote Labour into power in 2019 after watching that 

[bmt]

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I would say the vaccine side alone pretty much offsets everything else tbh.  It doesn't mean Boris has been a good PM, or that we had the best government possible, but it is the one single world impacting outcome which puts an end to everything.

Matt hancock watched contagion (which is shit).

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Dunge said:

Knowing you as I do, I know there’s a temptation here to frame the hypocrisy argument along the lines of climate change, such as people who say “they’re using aircraft to fly around the world; why should I listen to them?” In terms of getting people to listen and appreciate a relatively unseen danger is something that I agree is a massive challenge. But I do think in the case of climate change it’s ultimately a martial threat that forces people to take it seriously. I’m encouraged, for instance, that India and China seem to see its long term threat to them and their countries, and seeing that will get them to act. The biggest danger with climate change in my mind is Trump getting back into the White House. But I digress - I think climate change is a bit of an exception to what I put.

 

The kind of things I’m thinking are where people declare on Twitter that the world needs to be a kinder place, then fly off on a brilliantly eloquent but nasty rant about or to someone who disagrees with them. Check out The Poke for examples, they absolutely glory in this all the time. There’s a culture, particularly on Twitter, of trying to embarrass people into submission. It doesn’t work, at least not beyond just chasing people off, and only serves to make people look like intelligent bullies attacking less intelligent suckers who dared to write down something they were thinking. I always like to refer to the story of the strong east wind versus the sun, competing to remove a man’s coat. The strong east wind tries to blow it off, causing him to hold it tighter, while the sun offers warmth and encourages him to remove it on his own.

 

This, I think, is where accusations of hypocrisy come in - not from tangible things like climate change but in social morality and philosophy like demanding tolerance and flexibility while offering little in return.

 

With social media, I would argue that humans created society precisely so that they could have order, at least in balance against anarchy. But there’s a real lack of that online and it’s starting to take its toll - particularly as people seem to have moved beyond treating it with great suspicion and almost as a joke as a source of truth. Not that I have a great, formulated plan for what to do about it, of course.

I would agree that climate change may well be an exception when it comes to stuff like this, but we both know that it's rather a bloody important one. And, from what I read every day, unfortunately not enough people see the nuance as you do and are able to treat is an an exception.

 

That is the big problem and because of the overall importance of that issue it's I'm looking at all the hypocrisy arguments with a similar eye - there's undoubtedly a difference between situations but not nearly enough people see that. And in a democracy, "enough people" is important.

[Fightforever]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If this is the case, then how can you convince people that they are so incredibly, irrevocably wrong about something while somehow keeping them onside?

 

Particularly when the person they wish to join is merely using them for the purposes of con artistry anyway?

 

I can see the problem and I agree on the problem, but we need a solution or the future is going to be a place scarier than many people can imagine.

Boris has done what they want. Get out the EU and keep the wokes and migrants out. As long as he does that they don't really care about anything else. The tribalism that causes such a mentality will basically always exist. If Boris Johnson made a amenesty for all migrants tommorow that would kill his approval ratings in a way which that a million dying off covid couldn't even dream of doing.

 

Basically we can't do shit. Just hope the next generation is slightly less shitty.

Edited 30 June 2021 by Fightforever

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

Boris has done what they want. Get out the EU and keep the wokes and migrants out. As long as he does that they don't really care about anything else. The tribalism that causes such a mentality will basically always exist. 

 

Basically we can't do shit. Just hope the next generation is slightly less shitty.

Hopefully that'll be the case.

 

But depending on the issues, we may not have that kind of time.

[Fightforever]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hopefully that'll be the case.

 

But depending on the issues, we may not have that kind of time.

Regarding climate change I have already accepted the fact that we are doomed. We're just going to have to go through the stages of grief. 

Edited 30 June 2021 by Fightforever

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

Regarding climate change I have already accepted the fact that we are doomed. We're just going to have to go through the stages of grief. 

Perhaps this is just the first stage of that process talking, but I don't believe all is lost yet. We still have time - a narrow window - but time nonetheless. Innovation and progress on a wide scale can come very quickly if the drivers are there.

 

Not much time for mistakes based on self interest, though.

[katieakita]

Luckily run a Post Ofice so i see the Tories incompetence, corruption and bare faced lies and denials all too often showing utter contempt for public and the laws of the land