It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed. Anyone with information to suggest this has happened should report it immediately to the police.

Kazuo wrote:

AndCallMeCharlie wrote:

No one says cunt as fluidly as the east coast of Scotland

The west coast would like a word with you.

afgavinstan wrote:

Sadly, I have a few too thanks to Rangers, which is as fucking stupid as it gets. Muted or unfollowed.

GooberTheHat wrote:

It's still important to call out bullshit when you see it though.

The human mind is a pretty stupid thing. Here's a few reasons why just discussing crazy things, without a counter argument, can be dangerous;

When it comes to believing something of which you personally have no way of verifying:

• Multiple sources are more persuasive than a single source, especially if those sources contain different arguments that point to the same conclusion.
• Receiving the same or similar message from multiple sources is more persuasive.
• People assume that information from multiple sources is likely to be based on different perspectives and as such worth greater consideration.
• Communications from groups to which the recipient belongs are more likely to be perceived as credible. The same applies when the source is perceived as similar to the recipient.

Now, let's talk about just talking about stuff:

• Repeated exposure to a statement has been shown to increase its acceptance as true.
• The “illusory truth effect” is well documented, whereby people rate statements as more truthful, valid, and believable when they have encountered those statements previously than when they are new statements.
• When people are less interested in a topic, they are more likely to accept familiarity brought about by repetition as an indicator that the information (repeated to the point of familiarity) is correct.
• When processing information, people often save time and energy by using a frequency heuristic (favoring information they have heard more frequently).
• Even with preposterous stories and urban legends, those who have heard them multiple times are more likely to believe that they are true.
• If an individual is already familiar with an argument or claim (has seen it before, for example), they process it less carefully, often failing to discriminate weak arguments from strong arguments.

But we all know its bollocks right? It's just a bit of fun, no one really believes the crazy stuff, right? :

• In a phenomenon known as the “sleeper effect,” low- credibility sources manifest greater persuasive impact with the passage of time. While people make initial assessments of the credibility of a source, in remembering, information is often dissociated from its source. Thus, information from a questionable source may be remembered as true, with the source forgotten.
• Information that is initially assumed valid but is later retracted or proven false can continue to shape people’s memory and influence their reasoning.
• Even when people are aware that some sources have the potential to contain misinformation, they still show a poor ability to discriminate between information that is false and information that is correct.

Yeah, but we have evidence, and expert witnesses!" There's a reason why people who are trying to convince you of a conspiracy theory claim they have 'evidence' when they don't, and that people are 'experts' when thay aren't:

• The presence of evidence can override the effects of source credibility on perceived veracity of statements.
• In courtroom simulations, witnesses who provide more details—even trivial details—are judged to be more credible.
• Peripheral cues, such as the appearance of expertise or the format of information, lead people to accept—with little reflection—that the information comes from a credible source.
• Expertise and trustworthiness are the two primary dimensions of credibility, and these qualities may be evaluated based on visual cues, such as format, appearance, or simple claims of expertise.

LivDiv wrote:

poprock wrote:

I noticed, from the beginning of Brexit nonsense onwards, that having a lot of ‘car enthusiasts’ on my Twitter feed means that I have a lot of folk in the south of England with more money than sense.

This little bubble of people represent some of the biggest twats I have met or seen post on social media.
I have a couple of mates big into their cars (one runs a pretty big classic meet), as is my brother. They are all O.K but the people commenting on their posts are often absolute morons. 
Car forums are bad as well, armchair experts on everything.