SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Raven]

It would help massively if you had a basic grasp of the English language.

People should not have to try and work out what you actually mean from the drivel you spout.

 

[Gwadien]

Where's the "approved thoughts" list.
Who keeps it?
Who decides what is allowable or not?
What are the consequences if you go off message, even if you feel strongly another way?

Your way is the way of religious oppression of heretics - apart from at least the church had the good grace to write down what was blasphemous.

As it is - people self-censor all the time. Even in front of seemingly benign questions from pollsters like "will you vote for trump?"

"Oh no. Not me. He's a cunt, clearly. I don't identify with anything he says. Look at my twitter and facebook feeds - I'm clearly anti Trump. I don't need to be on "the list" the Dems are keeping. Nosiree!!"

*votes Trump*

You keep getting it in your head that I'm talking about censoring political thought.

I'm talking about straight up lies that are created to cause friction.

I don't know the answer to your question, but equally you can't say oh you can't try that because it's never worked before! Because this is all brand new territory, as I've said before, freedom of speech in the 18th century and in the 21st century are two completely different things.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think you need to be more specific on what social taboos.

I'm all for debates contrary to what Scouse may think of me, but there's some things Job supports and wants to be debated like that white people are superior to non white people. Which is obviously nonsense and drives home a dangerous rhetoric.

I don't think we're self censoring it's private businesses such as facebook, twitter etc that are doing it and I still stand by that it's their decision what to do with their platform. But its dangerous for them to give oxygen to far flung extremist ideologies as it will mean a reduced number of users and investors.

OK, let's unpack that shall we?

I think you need to be more specific on what social taboos.

Take your pick. Everything from Israel can't be criticised to Gal Gadot can't be Cleopatra and you're a racist if you say otherwise, to cancel Chris Pratt because religion=anti-gay so don't you dare defend him, to "trans-women are women". I could go on. Someone throws out the offence (in the case of Israel through a state actor campaign) and chill debate or counter-arguments through the mechanism of "offence".

but there's some things Job supports and wants to be debated like that white people are superior to non white people.

If @Job wants to have that debate in those terms, I have no problem with that, and am happy to shoot him down. However;

Which is obviously nonsense and drives home a dangerous rhetoric.

If people think it but don't say it, or don't feel they can say it, is the "dangerous rhetoric" lessened? Besides, you've also made a massive sweeping statement about a much more nuanced subject; do I think white people are intrinsically superior to other races? Of course not. However, do I think western European pluralistic liberal culture (which was mainly invented by white people) is superior to other cultures? To be honest, yes, and I can point at a good deal of evidence to back the assertion up, but you're not really allowed to say that because its racist, even though it isn't, because of a chilling effect of making race and culture synonyms. This is the problem with censorship as a blunt instrument, and the dangerous and wrong idea that "offence" is to be avoided at all costs.

I don't think we're self censoring it's private businesses such as facebook, twitter etc that are doing it and I still stand by that it's their decision what to do with their platform

. Just because the big techs are self-censoring, doesn't mean we, the general public, are not; we just all, collectively have something to lose; they lose money, but we (well, you, I live in a less repressive country) can lose our liberty.

But its dangerous for them to give oxygen to far flung extremist ideologies as it will mean a reduced number of users and investors.

Fine, but that has nothing to do with making those ideologies effectively illegal through things like "hate speech" legislation; which is once again a blunt instrument massively open to abuse by the authorities and accusers.

 

[Gwadien]

I agree with what you are saying @DaGaffer but don't you think there's a clear correlation between unnecessary extremism (whether it's politics, religions etc) and the increasing role of social media?

I just think that when we live in a society where we have the 'truth' and the 'alt-truth' prevalent in our politics and it's impossible to shut down the alt-truth because they've already got all their bases covered (grr fucking Liberals etc).

Again, to use this forum as an example - if there's some young impressionable person out there browsing the internet for alt-truth to back up their perception of reality, and then they get to this forum what do you see? A person spouting alt-truths and the rest of the forum shutting them down, I don't really care about what Job gets up to, because he's within the conversation, but we're living in a time where conversations aren't between a group of people, and there could be thousands of people watching this thread right now and not having any input. Say if one person then decides to go and do something stupid off the back of what Job has been posting, who takes responsibility for the build up to that stupid act? I really don't think that the responsibility lays with the person conducting the action, because if that was the case terror cells would never be destroyed because all they're doing is *telling* people what to do. Thankfully the authorities don't act in such a manner and prevent numerous terrorist attacks across the UK, based on what people are saying and not what they're doing.

I'm very aware that this kind of stuff will cause anxiety because of the abuse that could happen by the authorities, but that's why I'm saying we don't have to go down an Orwellian route and we can achieve something that the majority of society agrees upon.

Put it this way, I'd rather see us come to a sensible arrangement because in my perspective there will be attacks (in one form or another) which will be directly linked to social media/the internet and the Government at the time knee-jerk reacting with a clamp down on our liberty and the vast majority of people going along with it because of emotional support due to a major attack.

There's also the argument that if you self-censor social media then people are just going to find alternatives on the internet, but as far as I'm concerned social media acts as a gateway for people to go deeper into the internet to find 'evidence' to back up their view of the world, much like Job does.

 

[Scouse]

I've facepalmed @Gwadien, but will respond when not at work

 

[Gwadien]

I've facepalmed @Gwadien, but will respond when not at work

I expect nothing less.

 

[Lamp]

I've broken 2 coffee mugs in 2 days

I'll start on her best China tomorrow

 

[DaGaffer]

I agree with what you are saying @DaGaffer but don't you think there's a clear correlation between unnecessary extremism (whether it's politics, religions etc) and the increasing role of social media?

I just think that when we live in a society where we have the 'truth' and the 'alt-truth' prevalent in our politics and it's impossible to shut down the alt-truth because they've already got all their bases covered (grr fucking Liberals etc).

Again, to use this forum as an example - if there's some young impressionable person out there browsing the internet for alt-truth to back up their perception of reality, and then they get to this forum what do you see? A person spouting alt-truths and the rest of the forum shutting them down, I don't really care about what Job gets up to, because he's within the conversation, but we're living in a time where conversations aren't between a group of people, and there could be thousands of people watching this thread right now and not having any input. Say if one person then decides to go and do something stupid off the back of what Job has been posting, who takes responsibility for the build up to that stupid act? I really don't think that the responsibility lays with the person conducting the action, because if that was the case terror cells would never be destroyed because all they're doing is *telling* people what to do. Thankfully the authorities don't act in such a manner and prevent numerous terrorist attacks across the UK, based on what people are saying and not what they're doing.

I'm very aware that this kind of stuff will cause anxiety because of the abuse that could happen by the authorities, but that's why I'm saying we don't have to go down an Orwellian route and we can achieve something that the majority of society agrees upon.

Put it this way, I'd rather see us come to a sensible arrangement because in my perspective there will be attacks (in one form or another) which will be directly linked to social media/the internet and the Government at the time knee-jerk reacting with a clamp down on our liberty and the vast majority of people going along with it because of emotional support due to a major attack.

There's also the argument that if you self-censor social media then people are just going to find alternatives on the internet, but as far as I'm concerned social media acts as a gateway for people to go deeper into the internet to find 'evidence' to back up their view of the world, much like Job does.

Open debate means they can also see us tearing @Job a new one for his ill-informed bollocks. Pushing dissent underground is MORE likely to polarise into single-voices, not less. In all honesty I'd prefer more @Job's on here, not less, because its like shooting fish in a barrel. But people don't want debate, they want their biases cofirmed.

 

[Lamp]

Always great conversation on Global Chat in FoE

10:57: oldeforge: If your in Florida this week and you have $10 head to the dumpsters near the keys
10:57: kvsi: why
10:58: oldeforge: go see Em
10:58: oldeforge: she smells awful but she's always willin'
10:59: kvsi: class act

 

[Job]

For your endless self adulation you seem very short in actually proving it.
You just cant keep saying I dont understand, because you have long ventured into wine and art snobbery territory.
You say its like shooting fish in a barrel when youve never fired a shot.

 

[MYstIC G]

I agree with what you are saying @DaGaffer but don't you think there's a clear correlation between unnecessary extremism (whether it's politics, religions etc) and the increasing role of social media?

I just think that when we live in a society where we have the 'truth' and the 'alt-truth' prevalent in our politics and it's impossible to shut down the alt-truth because they've already got all their bases covered (grr fucking Liberals etc).

Again, to use this forum as an example - if there's some young impressionable person out there browsing the internet for alt-truth to back up their perception of reality, and then they get to this forum what do you see? A person spouting alt-truths and the rest of the forum shutting them down, I don't really care about what Job gets up to, because he's within the conversation, but we're living in a time where conversations aren't between a group of people, and there could be thousands of people watching this thread right now and not having any input. Say if one person then decides to go and do something stupid off the back of what Job has been posting, who takes responsibility for the build up to that stupid act? I really don't think that the responsibility lays with the person conducting the action, because if that was the case terror cells would never be destroyed because all they're doing is *telling* people what to do. Thankfully the authorities don't act in such a manner and prevent numerous terrorist attacks across the UK, based on what people are saying and not what they're doing.

I'm very aware that this kind of stuff will cause anxiety because of the abuse that could happen by the authorities, but that's why I'm saying we don't have to go down an Orwellian route and we can achieve something that the majority of society agrees upon.

Put it this way, I'd rather see us come to a sensible arrangement because in my perspective there will be attacks (in one form or another) which will be directly linked to social media/the internet and the Government at the time knee-jerk reacting with a clamp down on our liberty and the vast majority of people going along with it because of emotional support due to a major attack.

There's also the argument that if you self-censor social media then people are just going to find alternatives on the internet, but as far as I'm concerned social media acts as a gateway for people to go deeper into the internet to find 'evidence' to back up their view of the world, much like Job does.

I'd say the normalisation of phrases like 'alt-truth' are more the problem. It's frowned upon to say anything is bad anymore.

 

[Embattle]

EU faces crisis as Hungary and Poland veto seven-year budget

Countries reject package over attempts to link funding to respect for rule of law

www.theguardian.com

 

[Embattle]

I've broken 2 coffee mugs in 2 days

I'll start on her best China tomorrow

Did you fart and the dog broke them to pay you back.

 

[DaGaffer]

For your endless self adulation you seem very short in actually proving it.
You just cant keep saying I dont understand, because you have long ventured into wine and art snobbery territory.
You say its like shooting fish in a barrel when youve never fired a shot.

I think I've managed to demonstrate your absolute fuckwittery at least three times in the last week. Its embarrassing just how lazy/uncomprehending (its got to be one or the other) you are with your easily dismissed twaddle. And I'm hardly the only one. And "wine and art snobbery" ? WTF?

 

[Gwadien]

I'd say the normalisation of phrases like 'alt-truth' are more the problem. It's frowned upon to say anything is bad anymore.

Alternative truth was a phrase coined by Trump and his devotees when they were criticising the media about lying, when they were the ones lying - I think it came from the numbers at the inauguration originally.

This does not mean that it involves things about personal views, it's purely about presenting non-facts as facts.

One thing in particular is presenting BLM as a Marxist organisation; that's straight from the Red Scare handbook, it's about creating fear surrounding BLM rather than debating their actual goals.

But you don't want to engage in a group that wants to bring Marxism to the States! So that's a large chunk of American society unwilling to debate.

 

[Raven]

This guys sums it up far better than I can.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU-zhajzad4


That's not to say being a complete cock is acceptable but yelling at people for not following the ever increasing lists of things that people might be offended by is just as much of a problem.

 

[Moriath]

This guys sums it up far better than I can.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU-zhajzad4


That's not to say being a complete cock is acceptable but yelling at people for not following the ever increasing lists of things that people might be offended by is just as much of a problem.

Indians have more issues in their class system to begin thinking about racism tbh.

 

[Job]

This is very odd all of a sudden the guard is worried about fake history.

The Crown's fake history is as corrosive as fake news | Simon Jenkins

The popular TV series about the royal family is reality hijacked as propaganda, and a cowardly abuse of artistic licence, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/1328086363594510341

 

[Lamp]

After breaking a few mugs this week, I though I'd have a peek on Amazon for mugs. Found this in the Q&A section for one product:

Q: Is this mug hot to touch from the outside when full of boiling water?
A: Most mugs have handles for that small problem. You could try holding the mug by its handle...

 

[Aoami]

View: https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/1328086363594510341

We have been moving into a post truth world for some time imo. Maybe it has been like this for a long time but social media and the internet in general has just amplified it, because there is more shite for people to read, believe and pass off as fact.

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/1328086363594510341

Precisely.

The future of 2 party democracies will be radical ideas versus the status quo purely because its better than the radical ideas.

Every time.

 

[Job]

Ive mentioned the World economic forum before and its rather out outlandish ideas you can find digging into the fringes of its agenda.
The accompanying Great Reset is a meme supported and publicised by all sides as either a gentle push or an Orwellian takeover.

Time magazine is helping to legitamise it.

The Great Reset: How to Build a Better World Post-COVID-19

TIME and the World Economic Forum asked leading thinkers to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work

time.com

Tony Blair
Bill Gates
Harry and Meghan.
And enless list of CEOs.

What can go wrong.

 

[Wij]

Personally I'm loving the fact that the bloke from school who went down the David Icke rabbit-hole and posts his insane shit on Facebook now gets 'Fact-checkers-say-this-is-bollox' on every post he makes.

 

[Gwadien]

Personally I'm loving the fact that the bloke from school who went down the David Icke rabbit-hole and posts his insane shit on Facebook now gets 'Fact-checkers-say-this-is-bollox' on every post he makes.

It's great, but that just makes him go further down the rabbit-hole.

I mean, Zuckerberg is a jew.

 

[Raven]

Ive mentioned the World economic forum before and its rather out outlandish ideas you can find digging into the fringes of its agenda.
The accompanying Great Reset is a meme supported and publicised by all sides as either a gentle push or an Orwellian takeover.

Time magazine is helping to legitamise it.

The Great Reset: How to Build a Better World Post-COVID-19

TIME and the World Economic Forum asked leading thinkers to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work

time.com

Tony Blair
Bill Gates
Harry and Meghan.
And enless list of CEOs.

What can go wrong.

There is that absolute bollocks again.

 

[Raven]

Personally I'm loving the fact that the bloke from school who went down the David Icke rabbit-hole and posts his insane shit on Facebook now gets 'Fact-checkers-say-this-is-bollox' on every post he makes.

I think we need something similar here, maybe a flag that says 'these are the ramblings of a certified racist, xenophobic idiot' followed by a pop up when you hit quote that reads 'this guy is too dumb to understand his own post, let alone to argue his own points and you wont ever see a defense of said random racist tirade, just more bollocks'

That would be swell.

 

[Job]

Raven in his never ending quest to prove every stereotype sent in his ideologies direction.

 

[Ormorof]

Raven in his never ending quest to prove every stereotype sent in his ideologies direction.

Its amazing to watch you project 😃

 

[Job]

Ive posted Time magazines website.

There is that absolute bollocks again.

I mean youve got bigger problems with your own reasoning if that bolloks to you.