No. Labelling something as extreme is just dismissing the source, and is intellectually the same as throwing the label “racist” around is (albeit not as morally loaded). You don’t get to dismiss the BBC as having an extreme left wing bias. If they’re extreme left wing, I guess that means the Guardian is extreme extreme left wing, and the London Review of Books and Mother Jones are extreme extreme extreme left wing, genuine socialists are extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing, and Lenin is extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing? And the Economist is far left?
No. Labelling something as extreme is just dismissing the source, and is intellectually the same as throwing the label “racist” around is (albeit not as morally loaded). You don’t get to dismiss the BBC as having an extreme left wing bias. If they’re extreme left wing, I guess that means the Guardian is extreme extreme left wing, and the London Review of Books and Mother Jones are extreme extreme extreme left wing, genuine socialists are extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing, and Lenin is extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing? And the Economist is far left?[/quote]
Not to disagree with anything you are saying. Just wanted to add that the Guardian is just as bad as the Daily Mail these days in terms of bias and sensationalism. It used to be a good if not museli-fied paper, now it is just the propaganda wing of the Blairite/Fabin Portland Group.
And then there’s this:
Juncker: “Les dirigeants des autres planètes sont inquiets”
7sur7.be/7s7/fr/37462/Brexit … iets.dhtml
This article is not a hoax, as far as I can see right now.
The video, with the incriminating phrase from 15-30 seconds, is here:
No. Labelling something as extreme is just dismissing the source, and is intellectually the same as throwing the label “racist” around is (albeit not as morally loaded). You don’t get to dismiss the BBC as having an extreme left wing bias. If they’re extreme left wing, I guess that means the Guardian is extreme extreme left wing, and the London Review of Books and Mother Jones are extreme extreme extreme left wing, genuine socialists are extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing, and Lenin is extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing? And the Economist is far left?[/quote]
They have been pushing the Overton Window, engaging in revisionist history, etc. for decades. Look at where the Overton Window was just ten years ago.
A quick search reveals the following (many quoting from BBC insiders), amongst others:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/571208/Leader-s-election-debate-BBC-confirms-audience-WAS-left-leaning-as-Farage-claimed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3135408/DAMIAN-THOMPSON-Shock-Horror-BBC-boss-admits-s-biased.html
http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10235967/BBC-is-biased-toward-the-left-study-finds.html
At the base of the Overton window wikipedia page there are a lot of other links. Reading them can explain some of the brainwashing we’ve all been subjected to:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Ambit claim
Argument to moderation
Asch conformity experiments
Diffusion of innovations
Door-in-the-face technique
Foot-in-the-door technique
Gatekeeping (communication)
Groupthink
Slippery slope
Framing (social sciences)
Communal reinforcement
Creeping normality
Opinion corridor
Political suicide
Spiral of silence
Radical flank effect
Third rail of politics
Cultural hegemony
THIRD MYTH: BRITAIN CANNOT SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY OUTSIDE THE EU IN A WORLD OF TRADING BLOCS
-Major economies eg. Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc.
-The EU is not the place where most economic growth is occurring. The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 22% in 2025, down from 37% in 1973.
-Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
-Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
-The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US.
No. Labelling something as extreme is just dismissing the source, and is intellectually the same as throwing the label “racist” around is (albeit not as morally loaded). You don’t get to dismiss the BBC as having an extreme left wing bias. If they’re extreme left wing, I guess that means the Guardian is extreme extreme left wing, and the London Review of Books and Mother Jones are extreme extreme extreme left wing, genuine socialists are extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing, and Lenin is extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing? And the Economist is far left?[/quote]
They have been pushing the Overton Window, engaging in revisionist history, etc. for decades. Look at where the Overton Window was just ten years ago.[/quote]
I didn’t dispute they’re left wing. It’s the word extreme that is misapplied. Labelling something as “extreme” is the same as putting it in “radical” or “unthinkable” in Wikipedia’s Overton Window. Seeing as how there are so many other organizations and groups significantly to the left of the BBC, labelling the BBC as extreme left wing renders words meaningless. If you use the word “extreme” you’re already dismissing their views without even thinking about them. It’s like me writing “maverick thinker GuyInTaiwan just introduced me to the Overton Window” versus “alt-right nutjob GuyInTaiwan just introduced me to the Overton Window.” The latter has a hell of a lot of unfair and unjustified bias in it.
(Who the fuck DOESN’T push the Overton window? Isn’t that kind of what engaging in ideas always does?)
Please try to not be so self centered. The simple and obvious point is, there’s two sides to the coin. Some might say it’s the metropolitan areas that are out of touch with the UK, and many others might say it’s the people in the country that are out of touch with the UK. Just pointing out that many UK citizens do in fact live in metropolitan areas and wouldn’t agree with the statement that they are out of touch with England. They very likely view it the opposite way. But sure, you can ignore and say they are out of touch with you.
You and several of the leave camp here have talked at length about infrastructure, rail and transportation, social programs, subsidies, taxes, etc etc. Perhaps you’re not aware that those things fall into a category, but they do none the less. As I said, you’re all just bunching monetary, fiscal, Euro, EU, and standard Cameron government problems into the same basket. They aren’t. Britain has autonomy over 4 out of 5 of those things.
First off, there’s nothing rational about people, and there’s nothing rational about the leave camps arguments. Secondly, it doesn’t affect me? Is this where your going to keep trying to tell people who run businesses that are affected by Brexit that they don’t matter because they can’t physically see the Brexit bus advertisements? There’s been three people now that have explained they run businesses that are affected by this, and you still keep telling them that it doesn’t. Boy you sure do find yourself important don’t you?
It is an entirely different issue with entirely different variables. And I’m not a Europhile exactly, but I support reunification with the mainland. For another thread?
You and several of the leave camp here have talked at length about infrastructure, rail and transportation, social programs, subsidies, taxes, etc etc. Perhaps you’re not aware that those things fall into a category, but they do none the less. As I said, you’re all just bunching monetary, fiscal, Euro, EU, and standard Cameron government problems into the same basket. They aren’t. Britain has autonomy over 4 out of 5 of those things.
Oh i see. What you are doing is arguing with a strawman. Ok i haven’t said any of those things. I didnt vote, im not sure how i would have voted.
I am saying, as many people are saying, that you dont understand the UK, you dont understand the culture and you are not trying to understand. You are coming across as boring and pompous.
What i said is that your strawman argument , or team pompous in general has been:
Thick , racist , insular Brits have voted themselves into oblivion because they have been brainwashed by a right wing media lying politicians. Now they have realized what they have done , and gee do they have egg on their faces. Ha ha stupid, racist Brits obsessed with their empire and sovereignty. Haha they are so stupid and racist
The reason this has gone on fifty pages is that Brits find this offensive and not factual. You understand little or anything of how this happened. You dont understand the culture, the history , the society or anything. Instead you are arguing with yourself, or a strawman leave camp about something you know little about. If you want to have your little smug argument with a jingoistic ‘leave camp’ I suggest maybe trying the Daily Mail comments
What kind of person spends ours lecturing people from another country based on stereotypes they got from Yahoo news ?
Sadly Britain may be getting polarised into US style political theater next you’ll have your own TV stations and radio hosts for each side. If the UK is such a welcoming multicultural society it’s not doing a very nice job of showing it recently especially if Theresa May is the next PM.
She is notorious for bringing in the high salary minimums for British citizens who want to bring their own spouses and family back to UK and chucking out 10,000s of students many of which were genuine English students. Bit sad to see things go like that. Lots of Brits on here complaining about that rule before but they have mostly left Taiwan or this board I guess. Be careful what you wish for leavers because it was the EU was helping lots of these Brits being their spouses back through the Singh rule. She is just going to shut the door on your international families. If you have money you can buy your way in, if you don’t have money or connections you are screwed.
theguardian.com/uk-news/201 … visa-rules
This is what she was doing to non EU migrants.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 14841.html
[quote=“OrangeOrganics”]What I said is that your strawman argument , or team pompous in general has been:
Thick , racist , insular Brits have voted themselves into oblivion because they have been brainwashed by a right wing media lying politicians. Now they have realized what they have done , and gee do they have egg on their faces. Ha ha stupid, racist Brits obsessed with their empire and sovereignty. Haha they are so stupid and racist[/quote]
In the same post where you accused me of a strawman (which I wasn’t at all, you said all of those things) but in the same post you falsely accuse of a strawman you bring up the most egregious strawman imaginable. I literally said NONE of those things.
That my friend was masterfully retarded. You have outdone yourself, and given the high quality of shite you’ve been posting, that’s impressive in itself.
Again, just brilliant. 
[quote=“headhonchoII”]Sadly Britain may be getting polarised into US style political theater next you’ll have your own TV stations and radio hosts for each side. If the UK is such a welcoming multicultural society it’s not doing a very nice job of showing it recently especially if Theresa May is the next PM.
She is notorious for bringing in the high salary minimums for British citizens who want to bring their own spouses and family back to UK and chucking out 10,000s of students many of which were genuine English students. Bit sad to see things go like that. Lots of Brits on here complaining about that rule before but they have mostly left Taiwan or this board I guess. Be careful what you wish for leavers because it was the EU was helping lots of these Brits being their spouses back through the Singh rule. She is just going to shut the door on your international families. If you have money you can buy your way in, if you don’t have money or connections you are screwed.
This is what she was doing to non EU migrants.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 14841.html[/quote]
Yeah the leadership vacuum is not good. I dont think anyone voted out of the EU to be get Theresa May in as leader though. The whole leadership circus is making me really upset at the moment. I could strangle all of them. Especially the Blairites and Hillary Blair. Thats why im backing Corbyn, not because he is an amazing leader, rather a decent man. Just all quite upsetting. Desperately in need of leadership and we have a bunch of careerist planks.
The biggest plank of all is Johnson. He will be fine, just get a matey matey banking jobby wobby in Grand Cayman or something.
[quote=“BrentGolf”][quote=“OrangeOrganics”]What I said is that your strawman argument , or team pompous in general has been:
Thick , racist , insular Brits have voted themselves into oblivion because they have been brainwashed by a right wing media lying politicians. Now they have realized what they have done , and gee do they have egg on their faces. Ha ha stupid, racist Brits obsessed with their empire and sovereignty. Haha they are so stupid and racist[/quote]
In the same post where you accused me of a strawman (which I wasn’t at all, you said all of those things) but in the same post you falsely accuse of a strawman you bring up the most egregious strawman imaginable. I literally said NONE of those things.
That my friend was masterfully retarded. You have outdone yourself, and given the high quality of shite you’ve been posting, that’s impressive in itself.
Then if we are both arguing with strawmen, we are not having a conversation
Again, just brilliant. [/quote]
???
Sure I can explain it again, I’m patient. You said the things I mentioned, and I didn’t say the things you mentioned. One of us was making an egregious strawman and the other was just pointing out that you don’t seem to know the difference between fiscal, monetary, Euro, EU, and David Cameron issues.
But you were saying…
Well the rest of us know exactly how we would have voted and why, and for some of us it directly affects our lives and our businesses, so we’re discussing it. But by all means when you do finally figure out what you think, jump in the discussion. Until then, one wonders why the rest of us have to listen to your journey into self discovery…
Sure I can explain it again, I’m patient. You said the things I mentioned, and I didn’t say the things you mentioned. One of us was making an egregious strawman and the other was just pointing out that you don’t seem to know the difference between fiscal, monetary, Euro, EU, and David Cameron issues.
But you were saying…
I didn’t say any of those things. You were talking to your Daily Mail strawman
Well the rest of us know exactly how we would have voted and why, and for some of us it directly affects our lives and our businesses, so we’re discussing it. But by all means when you do finally figure out what you think, jump in the discussion. Until then, one wonders why the rest of us have to listen to your journey into self discovery…[/quote]
You think people or on your side ? You have spent hours lecturing to people of a country you know very little about regarding a situation that doesn’t concern you and you barely understand. Its the height of boorish behavior and tedium. Sheeeeeesh. And you think people are on your side
You wouldn’t have voted, because you arent BRITISH. A divided country wouldn’t affect you because you are not BRITISH. You wouldn’t have sympathy with the people who voted to leave, because you are not BRITISH. You didn’t experience the emotional rollercoaster pre referendum or the abysmal remain campaign that lost ten points in a month, because you are not BRITISH
My feelings were that the EU is a deeply flawed endeavor but we should stay and push for reform. Immigration was an issue. It was, i can pull up charts, maps, explain Englands population density, blah blah but you wont listen. Even the bank of England said that it was becoming an issue. It didn’t affect me and how i would of voted but have sympathy for people who feel that way. Globalization left them behind. The EU wasn’t interested. They didn’t care. It was a policy disproportionately affecting England and they stuck two fingers up. What kind of a union is that? What hope for reform is there? These are not extreme views but common across Europe. The EU needs to reform or it dies, but what hope do u have with the current bureaucracy.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]MikeN: I’ve already written that I’m critical of Nazism, communism and liberalism as all being cut from the same cloth. The Nazis were fucking dumb if for no other reason than they greatly contributed to the destruction of Western civilisation, though there are lots of other reasons to call them fucking dumb.
If I wanted to dog whistle, I’d be a little more subtle than typing nine sets of brackets around someone’s name. Maybe one, maybe even two or three, but nine? I was trying to type in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos and (((((((((((((((((((((((((((Christina Hoff Sommers))))))))))))))))))))))))))) earlier with the Steven Crowder comment and it kept doing it to them also and I have no idea why (they’re Jewish obviously, but that’s not what I mean). I don’t know why I can’t edit this stuff out on my computer. Yeah though, you caught yourself a real, in the flesh Neo-Nazi, because obviously, I’d be sympathetic to Yiannopoulos and Sommers then…
I’ve also stated that I think that the problem is English Puritanism exported to the Northeastern USA, then the rest of the world, but yeah, when I say Oliver Cromwell or the Mayflower, I’m actually dog whistling the Jews. Good one. Do you know how the plot gets even thicker? This Progressivism as Puritanism argument comes from (((Mencius Moldbug))) (aka (((Curtis Yarvin)))), who is himself Jewish, so yeah, definitely a Neo-Nazi there too. So, all of the major intellectual influences from which I draw were themselves Jews, defined themselves as anti-fascist, or were disavowed by fascist parties, but yeah, definitely Neo-Nazi.
That said, even if I were trying to point out that ((((((((((((((((((((((((Alinsky)))))))))))))))))))))))) was Jewish, so what? Gramsci was Italian. Again, so what?
EDIT: Ah. It’s still doing it putting these fucking parentheses around people’s names. Some have three, some have six, now.
EDIT 2: Every time I preview this it adds another three sets and I still can’t delete them. Furthermore, I can’t directly embed Milo as a url link. I have no idea why. I’m guessing it’s some kind of virus.[/quote]
Sorry. My sincere apologies- no, not one of those “I’m sorry you were offended” type things, a real one. I must admit I was surprised, and I should have queried first before shooting my big mouth off. So again, my deepest apology.
No. Labelling something as extreme is just dismissing the source, and is intellectually the same as throwing the label “racist” around is (albeit not as morally loaded). You don’t get to dismiss the BBC as having an extreme left wing bias. If they’re extreme left wing, I guess that means the Guardian is extreme extreme left wing, and the London Review of Books and Mother Jones are extreme extreme extreme left wing, genuine socialists are extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing, and Lenin is extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme left wing? And the Economist is far left?[/quote]
They have been pushing the Overton Window, engaging in revisionist history, etc. for decades. Look at where the Overton Window was just ten years ago.[/quote]
I didn’t dispute they’re left wing. It’s the word extreme that is misapplied. Labelling something as “extreme” is the same as putting it in “radical” or “unthinkable” in Wikipedia’s Overton Window. Seeing as how there are so many other organizations and groups significantly to the left of the BBC, labelling the BBC as extreme left wing renders words meaningless. If you use the word “extreme” you’re already dismissing their views without even thinking about them. It’s like me writing “maverick thinker GuyInTaiwan just introduced me to the Overton Window” versus “alt-right nutjob GuyInTaiwan just introduced me to the Overton Window.” The latter has a hell of a lot of unfair and unjustified bias in it.
(Who the fuck DOESN’T push the Overton window? Isn’t that kind of what engaging in ideas always does?)[/quote]
I think that the BBC does support a radical agenda, though I understand that most people don’t consider them radical, so I take your point.
us.yahoo.com/finance/news/fu…115156180.html
Statement submitted to the European Parliament.
George Soros. 30 June, 2016.
[spoiler]When I was invited to address this joint hearing, the refugee crisis was the greatest problem Europe faced. Since then it has played a crucial role in what could prove to be an even greater calamity — Brexit.
The vote for Brexit was a great shock to me and, I imagine, to most people in this room. Last Friday morning, the disintegration of the European Union seemed practically inevitable.
But as the initial disbelief wore off, something unexpected happened, and the tragedy no longer looks like a fait accompli.
Over the past week, buyer’s remorse has begun to set in, as the hypothetical became very real: sterling plunged, Scotland threatened to break away, and some of the working people who supported the “leave” campaign started to realize the bleak future that both the country and they personally face. Even the champions of leave are retracting their dishonest pre-referendum claims about Brexit.
In a spontaneous response, over four million people petitioned Parliament to hold a second referendum. By the time the Parliamentary debate on this petition takes place, it is not inconceivable that more people will have signed the petition than voted for Brexit.
Just as Brexit was a negative surprise, the spontaneous response to it is a positive one. People on both sides of the referendum, and most importantly those who did not vote—particularly young people under 35—have become mobilized. This is the kind of grass roots involvement that the European Union has never been able to generate.
The referendum has highlighted for people in Britain just what they stand to lose by leaving the EU. If this sentiment spreads not only in Britain, but also in the rest of Europe, what seemed like the inevitable disintegration of the EU could instead create positive momentum for a stronger and better Europe.
The process could start in Britain. The popular vote cannot be reversed but a signature collecting campaign could transform the political landscape by revealing a newfound enthusiasm for EU membership. This approach could then be replicated in the rest of the European Union by forming a movement that would seek to save the EU by profoundly restructuring it. I am convinced that as the consequences of Brexit unfold in the months ahead, more and more people will be eager to join this movement.
[For more of this drivel click here:
us.yahoo.com/finance/news/fu…115156180.html][/spoiler]
Can CAmeron “un-resign” ?
Here’s a fitting song:
But seriously Britain ought to rethink this through.