Racist
-
Well hello you."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
Hey lovely, might do a long post in the brains are shit Fred at some point z but for now, just posting infrequently, long shifts"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
Do any or all of it. Nice to see you anyway."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
Good to see you Cocko.
I did notice you were somewhat absent recently.
You are always welcome here. -
Why would palace mean anything? Cocko is a Bournmouth dude right?
-
Oh shit sorry. Yeah you are right.
In that case no worries. Hope Bournemouth come back up. -
Haha, olimite is the Palace fan, though I did get a Palace shirt for that FA Cup final in 90"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Genuinely I have a lot of time for Bournemouth.
I see you are 4th, hopefully you will be up again soon. A better club than a couple that stayed up. -
I'm still great and you still love it. -
Censoring them and/or treating them like shit on panel shows like Question Time only plays to the rhetoric.
I remember Nick Griffin on QT once not being able to string more than a few words together before being shouted down to cheers from a baying audience. He was essentially just put in the stocks. That was wrong. What should be done is real-time fact-checking to crush them on screen.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
He's right. Don't give the fuckers a mainstream platform anymore. The rightwing trolls had their moments in the sun with Trump. Time to get them back under the bridge aka mom's basement.Steam: Ruffnekk
Windows Live: mr of unlocking
Fightcade2: mrofunlocking -
davyK wrote:Censoring them and/or treating them like shit on panel shows like Question Time only plays to the rhetoric.
I remember Nick Griffin on QT once not being able to string more than a few words together before being shouted down to cheers from a baying audience. He was essentially just put in the stocks. That was wrong. What should be done is real-time fact-checking to crush them on screen.
Did you read the piece? Don't have them on the show.
I posted a good vid a few pages back about the tactics of Nick and co, nazis use the any publicity is good publicity. Don't give them the platform.
I'm still great and you still love it. -
Haven't read it all yet I have to admit but I am one for worrying about censorship - no matter how hateful the speaker. Incitement to hate of course should be removed. That dog whistling thing is a new one on me.
Sigh.
It's very difficult. It's too easy to categorise someone a certain way. It smacks of knee jerking in the current environment.
It's truly awful when news networks feel they have to switch the cameras off when the POTUS is speaking.
Rightly so perhaps. But then where does that end? Where on the spectrum do you have to be? You have to tell the truth now not be censored?Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
The problem is we have few journalists who actually do their job and try to get to the truth and not just let people use news channels as platforms for hate speech.
It’s fucking worrying when the most questioning news presenter at the moment is Kay Burly. The been have given up challenging anyone in the Tory government as they need to be balanced. -
b0r1s wrote:The problem is we have few journalists who actually do their job and try to get to the truth and not just let people use news channels as platforms for hate speech. It’s fucking worrying when the most questioning news presenter at the moment is Kay Burly. The been have given up challenging anyone in the Tory government as they need to be balanced.
This.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
I definitely get the feeling that many journalists are too often preoccupied with managing bias, balance, and public opinion rather than actually just doing their job properly and reporting the truth.
-
Laura K and Peston have no such worries. Did Dominic Cummings say it? Tell everyone what he said as fact!
-
There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance
If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
cockbeard wrote:There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance
If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus
This.
Not trying to pick on you davey, but please read/watch some of the links I posted. Your well meaning fear of censorship has been gamed by these sly nazi fucks forever.
I'm still great and you still love it. -
Facewon wrote:
This. Not trying to pick on you davey, but please read/watch some of the links I posted. Your well meaning fear of censorship has been gamed by these sly nazi fucks forever.There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus
There are good points made there. And yeah - bad people take advantage of fair systems. My issue with censorship is who draws up the list of people who are fit to get airtime? That's just another system of control with ultimately an arbitrary set of rules as to who is in and who is out.
There is a simple rule - we should tolerate everything except intolerance. Not too easy to implement I'll grant you.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
I've talked about it before but a major issue with the BBC is that they don't have a broad spectrum of people working there so don't actually know what the alternate view is. So instead of getting a moderate counterpoint or even recognising there isnt one they leave a vacuum that people like Farage or Griffin step into.
The BBC are the trend setters in the UK, the place people look for impartiality, the PH 7 on the political litmus paper. This of course isn't entirely accurate and I can talk more on that, but it remains that the BBC sets the tone. -
cockbeard wrote:There's a subtle but important difference between censorship and platform removal. If you're having a discussion about combating racism, you don't need to invite racists on the show in the interests of balance If that balance stuff was done properly, then climate change deniers would get maybe one second airtime every 20 years or so, because that would reflect the scientific consensus
Yep, although a show like that would seem positively quaint compared to the one-sided algo shitfest that is social media."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
LivDiv wrote:I've talked about it before but a major issue with the BBC is that they don't have a broad spectrum of people working there so don't actually know what the alternate view is. So instead of getting a moderate counterpoint or even recognising there isnt one they leave a vacuum that people like Farage or Griffin step into. The BBC are the trend setters in the UK, the place people look for impartiality, the PH 7 on the political litmus paper. This of course isn't entirely accurate and I can talk more on that, but it remains that the BBC sets the tone.
There is a skew. I love the BBC. I still happily pay my fee. BBC1 has gone downhill terribly. And BBC2 isn't what it was either. The TV service has dumbed down an awful lot as it feels the need to compete with the private sector.
As I've said before I am sometimes uncomfortable with how some interviewers behave - even when they are being hard on someone I really don't like. Whether that's a generation thing or not I don't know...the 60s gen are in charge now - but each gen brings its own skew.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
I'm ok with the Paxman brand challenges on legitimate guests, although I will definitely concede sometimes they are doing a bit of a show. By legitimate guests I mean cabinet members and leaders of the opposition.
Gove, Bohnson, Corbyn, Starmer, Sturgeon etc. These are legit guests that should be able to answer tough questions.
The issue really as others have said is about having guests on where their presence is significantly off kilter with their representation.
Griffin/Choudary was a thing for a while. The BBC decided balance was giving air time to the worst pair of cunts going. It is because they didnt understand the argument. -
Facewon wrote:
Similar energy.....
https://theshot.net.au/general-news/extreme-moderates-are-a-threat-to-our-way-of-life/I'm still great and you still love it. -
Will watch.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009.
-
Facewon wrote:
Davey, this is the vid I was referring too.https://youtu.be/H94mfxMTmc4 This is really really good.
I don't see anything there to change my mind.
These people are losers on the fringe. They operate in more sophisticated ways. Sure. But they ultimately show their hand. Where is Griffin and the BNP now? They will get a period of popularity from time to time. Griffin's appearance on QT was because his party had polled a certain % - not because of his views. That went away. These people would wither under the spotlight of responsibility if they ever got near real power. They have their 15mins.
They do need to be taken seriously though and that is where things have to change. We can't laugh these fringe loonies off any more. Doing that gave us Brexit and Trump.
These people are symptoms of underlying anger. It isn't created by them; it's used as a force for their own gratification or advancement.
That anger needs to be addressed. Censorship isn't going to make that anger go away. Bolting down a lid on anger isn't the way to deal with it - and that's what censorship is. It needs to be dealt with instead - challenged. The old story - an educated population capable of critical thought see through these paper men that fold at the first sign of detailed critical appraisal. People need to see that for themselves - replacing one speaker with another, or muting a speaker isn't the long term solution.
And media has a magnifying effect. 70s-90s Belfast was a violent place to live in. But it wasn't anything like how it was portrayed in the media. The threat from these people is magnified in a similar way and those who run the media need to be aware of that. But censoring them isn't the answer. Exposing them is and quite often they do it without too much prompting eventually.
I don't know if you remember the nonsensical move by the BBC some years ago that muted anyone from Sinn Fein speaking on their channels. You think that made them go away? Ludicrous. Turned them into media martyrs. Now of course these people had huge support so it isn't an accurate or fair comparison - but these people were real killers and bombers. Muting their words didn't make them go away - anything but.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836