-
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
You offered a very contrarian opinion to the vast majority of posters and I was interested to hear your views on the latest development. I'm not sure how that's trolling in any way shape or form. The only thing weird is the way you're responding to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question.
Watch the video if you want the info, he puts it on screen.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
You offered a very contrarian opinion to the vast majority of posters and I was interested to hear your views on the latest development. I'm not sure how that's trolling in any way shape or form. The only thing weird is the way you're responding to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question.
Watch the video if you want the info, he puts it on screen.
Ha! Entering these threads is like walking into an evangelist church and trying to explain about sky fairies. Pretty easy to be a contrary opinion to other posters.
My original comment was about the conspiracy theories around MSM.
What is wrong with the way I am responding? I am answering your questions around a topic I didn't directly approach and doing so in a clear and unemotive manner. Would you rather I started some name calling and making sweeping statements?
I also explained that I can't watch the video at the moment or did that part skip past you? As I said, I'm happy to read detail about the latest development and make additional comment. I just can't find any at the moment.
-
You have no high ground when you charge back into a thread and accuse a poster of being close to engaging in conspiracy theories.. a snide insult done entirely on purpose I am sure.
Then accuse another poster of trolling, simply for querying your position.
Nothing much harmful in any of that , but save the indignation and complimentary self assessment, nobody is buying it. -
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
Yeah, I agree with you, I wasn't being sarcastic. My evidence for that is sparse, freely admit that.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
You have no high ground when you charge back into a thread and accuse a poster of being close to engaging in conspiracy theories.. a snide insult done entirely on purpose I am sure.
Then accuse another poster of trolling, simply for querying your position.
Nothing much harmful in any of that , but save the indignation and complimentary self assessment, nobody is buying it.Thank you for your judgment from the sidelines.
'Charge back into a thread'? Is there some kind of regular post rate that must be maintained before someone can make comment? If so please advise so I can ignore the thread entirely and you can all preach to yourselves.
'Snide insult'? - no, just stating my opinion. Yes, it was done on purpose. Can't dispute that when I typed my opinion and hit enter. If you are implying I was trying to toss a grenade among the seagulls then no, that wasn't my intention.
The poster wasn't querying my position around the post he quoted, it was about another topic. -
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
Yeah, I agree with you, I wasn't being sarcastic. My evidence for that is sparse, freely admit that.
Thanks. It is just a commonly held view on these threads with little evidence other than opinion and ours obviously differs.
-
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
-
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
Are you talking about the burka comments?
If so, I think he has the right ( in his job) to debate the issue, so no grounds to fire him in that regard.
Is he a cheap version of Trump though? Yep. Opens his mouth without thinking, makes inflammatory comments and invites controversy that overtakes the actual issues.
-
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
Not sure about this Mike. Should someone be be denounced for something so puerile? Should he perhaps be ridiculed? More so the latter I believe. I'm really not one for getting too offended about some flippant comment and happy to see such a comment be judged on what it is.
Stupid.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
Not sure about this Mike. Should someone be be denounced for something so puerile? Should he perhaps be ridiculed? More so the latter I believe. I'm really not one for getting too offended about some flippant comment and happy to see such a comment be judged on what it is.
Stupid.
But why is he held to a different account from other people?
He wasn't debating the issue when he let forth.
-
-
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
Anyone not denouncing it is a fluffybunny?
Get a grip. I think it is funny. Oh no someone got told they look like a letter box when wearing dress up at the demand of an imaginary friend.They do actually look like letter boxes.
-
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
Not sure about this Mike. Should someone be be denounced for something so puerile? Should he perhaps be ridiculed? More so the latter I believe. I'm really not one for getting too offended about some flippant comment and happy to see such a comment be judged on what it is.
Stupid.
But why is he held to a different account from other people?
He wasn't debating the issue when he let forth.
Maybe it the the way other people are held to account that is the issue? Maybe ordinary people are so bullied that they cannot say things like this?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@mikethesnow said in British Politics:
Nothing on BoJo's latest fuck up?
An ordinary citizen would have been fired from their job for way less than that shit.
The guy is a fluffybunny. And all the ones not denouncing it.
Anyone not denouncing it is a fluffybunny?
Get a grip. I think it is funny. Oh no someone got told they look like a letter box when wearing dress up at the demand of an imaginary friend.They do actually look like letter boxes.
I agree. Any branch of a religion that forces women to cover themselves head to toe to avoid the gaze of males outside of the family, and holds women responsible for the actions of rapey men because they weren't covered properly, deserves every bit of mocking and ridicule coming its way. People need to get a grip.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@catogrande I know what you mean. It's so bad it's barely believable. The fear of being labelled racist clearly is stronger than logic or even in this case actual law.
Scary to consider this and Chelsea Russel are the only examples that have had any real notice and that is mostly due to grassroot movements like the Liberalists and alt-media like the now deleted InfoWars. Mainstream media did everything they could to either not report on or to go out of their way misrepresent the accused. There are many more cases that have had zero attention at all.
See, the first part of that has validity. The second part verges on conspiracy theory.
Agreed, all I have is stats on number of online offenses and anecdotal evidence so can't prove it.
Last one I saw in an interview on the street a 15 yr old made a meme that got him in trouble. The meme was a pisstake from a commonly shared facebook post, the posts says something like "2018 Names most likely to get married!" and then lists a load of names.The idea being you tag your friends to the posts and say "Ha ha Eric! You and Sally are due! Facebook says so! lol #putaringonit #yolo"
Anyway this kid did an edgy variation of this.
"2018 Names most likely to blow up a pop concert" and just one name listed "Mohammed"4 Police burst into his house the following day searched the house and arrested him. He wasn't charged but had to be enrolled in some sort of anti extremism course. From what I understand the course was originally designed to stop islamic extremists but its purpose has drifted somewhat from the original intention.
Just anecdotal mind you.
Didn't I say your post had validity in these issues? It was the assertion that the media are waging a campaign of deliberate ignorance that I said was verging on conspiracy.
Mainstream media outlets have a very obvious political bias - that's not a conspiracy, that's well known and has been for years. It's ramped up in recent times too, and it does impact how much coverage stories get, and what facts in each story get a lot of focus. An interesting exercise is to watch a story on CNN, and then the same story on Fox. Both generally get the facts right/the same, but the coverage is different in what parts they emphasise. And then they really diverge when they get a panel of "experts" (political hacks) to put their spin on it.
On Dankula, I don't think that is a partisan issue at all. It's an issue of massive overreach from the state as a result of people wanting the government to outlaw things they don't like. It doesn't matter what side of the isle you sit, that is a big issue, as it can come from anywhere. Some well known comedians in the UK who have come out in strong support of him are Jonathan Pie, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry - all very obviously on the left of the political spectrum.
For when you get the change to watch videos, this is a good take from Jonathan Pie on it:
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
You offered a very contrarian opinion to the vast majority of posters and I was interested to hear your views on the latest development. I'm not sure how that's trolling in any way shape or form. The only thing weird is the way you're responding to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question.
Watch the video if you want the info, he puts it on screen.
Ha! Entering these threads is like walking into an evangelist church and trying to explain about sky fairies. Pretty easy to be a contrary opinion to other posters.
My original comment was about the conspiracy theories around MSM.
What is wrong with the way I am responding? I am answering your questions around a topic I didn't directly approach and doing so in a clear and unemotive manner. Would you rather I started some name calling and making sweeping statements?
I also explained that I can't watch the video at the moment or did that part skip past you? As I said, I'm happy to read detail about the latest development and make additional comment. I just can't find any at the moment.
Crucial I simply asked for your view about the latest Dankula ruling. If you get a chance to see the video then fine. If not, then fine also. I'm not sure why you're losing your head over it.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
You didn't make it difficult, I just wondered why I was being approached by a microphone in the street asking for an opinion on something.
Now I'm being questioned on why I disagree with the interviewers opinion.
It's borderline trolling, but I'll take it as baiting.I haven't watched the posted video as I can't at the moment and google searches aren't coming up with any detail. I'm happy to read anything you can supply as fact around what has happened.
You offered a very contrarian opinion to the vast majority of posters and I was interested to hear your views on the latest development. I'm not sure how that's trolling in any way shape or form. The only thing weird is the way you're responding to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question.
Watch the video if you want the info, he puts it on screen.
Ha! Entering these threads is like walking into an evangelist church and trying to explain about sky fairies. Pretty easy to be a contrary opinion to other posters.
My original comment was about the conspiracy theories around MSM.
What is wrong with the way I am responding? I am answering your questions around a topic I didn't directly approach and doing so in a clear and unemotive manner. Would you rather I started some name calling and making sweeping statements?
I also explained that I can't watch the video at the moment or did that part skip past you? As I said, I'm happy to read detail about the latest development and make additional comment. I just can't find any at the moment.
Crucial I simply asked for your view about the latest Dankula ruling. If you get a chance to see the video then fine. If not, then fine also. I'm not sure why you're losing your head over it.
I watched it. My take is pretty much as I guessed in the earlier post. This is now about dick waving bureaucracy. The summary that he showed basically just reiterated the original ruling without assessing its validity then spent ages ripping into his defence for daring to question the law. It does sound a bit like his defence has riled up the establishment in the manner they presented the case and the establishment now won't back down.
Evidence of stupid bureaucracy, yes. Evidence of some overall govt clamp down on free speech, no.PS: from that document it sounds like his lawyer 'threatened' the sheriff with the fact that they had gathered money to appeal should he rule guilty. Pretty dumb thing to do (if that was the manner of what he said) and has probably got all the old farts at the courts up in arms.
I do hope he manages to find the correct legal avenue.
British Politics