General / Off-Topic Blatant and Obvious !!!

[Sunleader]

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Now we have Fuzzy arguing for abolition of universal suffrage, Adept arguing for the abolition of free speech, and me finding myself in agreement with verminstar.

As I said earlier, it seems like we as a society have found ourselves in a bit of a mess right now.

Think thats how its Supposed to be tough.
Democracies should not be Monoliths where People have the same Opinion about everything.

We have Agreed in other Topics which often leads to the Idea that we are like Minded on everything.
But thats a false Friend. Each of us is still his own Person and has his own Opinions. So of course we will also Disagree and Argue on things.
As long as thats done within the Proper Rules I think thats nothing bad tough
Discussion tends to bring new realizations and new Viewpoints. I think no Teacher or School has taught me as much about the World as Internet Forums in which I discussed with Thousands of People while Researching the Topic in the Backround


As for Agreeing with Verminstar. Well ^^
Its not so much his Base Opinion which is Disagreeable. Its the Wrong and Twisted Intepretions he gets from it.

I am for example all the way with him on Preventing the Elites from gaining all the Power in the Country.
But Voting for Brexit is doing just that. Because Voting for Brexit made the UKs Government heavily Dependent on just exactly these Elites. Granting these Elites alot more Power by removing the Restraints from the EU and on top Pushing the Government into them as they Require Money.
Same on Trump. I got no Idea how anyone can really Believe that Voting Trump would be a move against the Elite of the USA lol. This Man is the very Definition of just one of these Elites. And he just achieved what Verminstar claims to Fight. He got himself into the absolute Power of the Country and now stands at the Reins of the USA.

 

[Sunleader]

Democracies absolutely require an educated public (good access to schools, and a solid foundational education for everybody), and an aggressive, credible and free press.

The biggest threat currently is the mass of disinformation being spread over the net and social media, as well as the fraudulent propaganda "news" organisations like Fox and the Daily Mail.

We need aggressive legislation to combat the deliberate spread of falsehoods. If people can't tell what is true and what is false, democracy will wither and die.

Said that Earlier.
The Law needs to Explicitly Prohibit the Publishing of Factually Wrong Information.
This needs to be Controlled by an Ministry and needs to have Penalties and Legal Consequences.
This of course needs to be done after the Fact. Which means the Ministry must never Prohibit Publishing of something. But must be able to Enact Punishment if the Information is Proven to be Wrong.

Its harder done than said tough.
Education is Fairly Good to be Honest.
You cant 100% Educate People about everything.

I am pretty well Educated on Tons of things. But even I have to Look things up over and over.
What they would need to teach People. Is how to get Reliable Information themselves.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one of those that have been tried. Refusing to vote in the referendum is a bit dodgy already, but your example was flawed since my major beef is with you stating that you refuse to vote at all. Ever. To me that is a cop-out.

Actually it reminds me of Corbyn. You say you hate him, but this is very familiar. Because voting is not perfect, rather than use the flawed tool to best effect you'll rather refuse to use it at all.

Corbyn has issues with the EU, so he couldn't bring himself to campaign for it. I suspect he actually thought that staying was better than leaving, but refused on principle to campaign for the non-perfect EU.

Sorry. I still don't see how your position is sound. It seems like a dereliction of duty.

Now granted, the UK political system is ridiculous with it's two-parties and a bit system. If you dig up a political map of Finland, or any other proportional representation, multi-party country, I think you'll notice that it's pretty far from a simple either-or choice. Coalition governments are about debate and compromise.

- - - Updated - - -



Who is they mate? This experts-only government is Fuzzy's own special project.

I am somewhat Impressed that someone besides me is using the word "mate" this is usually an Unique trait of mine ^^
Its even been reported to the Mods in other Forums because People tended to feel like I wanted to mock em with it xD


I think. The Importand Question is if there is something that can be Voted.
Right now. In Germany I am considering for the First time in over 10 Years to Vote the SPD.
Martin Schulz has some weight to me as an Candidate.

But I often enough lately had the Situation that there really was not a Single Party that would be Worth receiving a Vote from me.

welfare spending has doubled since 2000 and increased over 400% in the US since 1980, according to Forbes. not to mention the ACA was widely hailed as a thinly disguised redistribution of wealth program, probably one of the largest the US has ever seen.

Thats an False Friend Mate.

GDP of the USA in 1980 was 2.800 Trillion
In 2015 it was over 18.000 Trillion

Sure the Welfare Cost has Increased by 400%
But lets Face it. The Economy has Grown by over 600%
So the Share of the Social Welfare has Actually been Shrinking.

This becomes even more Obvious when you Check the Inflation Rates. Because the Inflation since then has been even more Drastic.
In Total Value. The Social Welfare Received has actually been Halfed compared to 1980.

I think that 'blaming' the voter, for making 'ill informed' decisions, is hardly fair. Unfortunately a major chunk of voters, genuinely believe what the campaigning politicians tell them. Yes they can check the 'facts', but many don't see or feel the need to do so, or have no real idea, who to check with.

The thing that needs to change, to make democracy work as intended; is an independent recognized system of checking and exposing the lies. At the same time; the law needs to change so that there are penalties for those whom wish the mislead the voting public.

Its Unfair to Blame them Alone.
But them being Blamed is alright.

Everyone has the Option to Inform himself.
If People dont use it. And just believe the First guy they Hear. Thats not exactly Adult behavior.
I mean sorry. But do you Believe every Random Tele Marketer ? Or do you consider it Adult when someone just believes everything the Telemarketer says to him ?


Voters do have a certain Responsibility as well. They hold a considerable Power with their Vote. So they need to make sure that they meet Information with the Adequate Distrust and Confirm Information.
The State needs to Support em in this by trying to Remove Factually Wrong Information and attempt to Provide Factual Information as far as that is Possible.
But the State cannot take away this Responsibility from the Voter. Otherwise the whole Concept of the Voter having the Vote would not make sense as he would not hold the Power of the Vote anyways.

 

[Toumal]

Obama got a lot of hate because he didn't "do his plan". He didn't force them to close Gitmo

He couldn't close Gitmo, because the moment you put these accused before a real court of law, the judge will throw out the case because 1) the defendant was pre-judged, 2) the defendent's rights were abused to the utmost degree, 3) the evidence was gathered via illegal means (torture, then-illegal wiretapping, etc) or 4) there is no evidence (Point in case: the so-called "casio-evidence")

And a few of those in Gitmo definitely aren't innocent, closing Gitmo would mean you set them free. The real problem is that Bush and Co were stupid and blind and didn't care about "any of that legal crap", which is what got us into this stupid situation.

 

[FuzzySpider]

You can't have a voter ID test and then tax people that fail it.

If you don't tax all the people who fail the test then you run the risk of not collecting enough revenue.

You can't have any group that has rights that another group does not. Especially with the right to vote where you'd create a system where voters could legislate against non-voters.

We had a revolution over this kind of crap.

Thinking some more on this, this is actually another problem with the current system.

Voting = Representation. Ergo Representation = Voting.

So we've had a referendum on leaving the EU and the result was for leave. This is being challenged in various places - people are protesting, people are going to court, people are attempting to convince their MPs to vote against it etc. But these are actually considered invalid, or even fraudulent, methods of seeking representation. The Daily Mail has called those involved "Enemies of the people".

All other methods of trying to politically engage with the system are supposedly "undemocratic" or even "elitist". Is that really a healthy political system?

 

[verminstar]

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Now we have Fuzzy arguing for abolition of universal suffrage, Adept arguing for the abolition of free speech, and me finding myself in agreement with verminstar.

As I said earlier, it seems like we as a society have found ourselves in a bit of a mess right now.

Wonders will never cease...we live in strange times indeed.

Truth be told, ye could remove the politics entirely and we all just a bunch of gamers on a gaming forum talkin bollox to each other...and I mean that in the nicest way. Im in agreement with things you guys say sometimes too, but I dont always communicate that well.

The world scares me in this day and age...we all over the place with no apparent middle ground and two polar opposites politically. We talk/argue about not making the same mistakes of the past when the reality is, we already have...and its not a recent developement either ^

 

[Arry]

Said that Earlier.
The Law needs to Explicitly Prohibit the Publishing of Factually Wrong Information.
This needs to be Controlled by an Ministry and needs to have Penalties and Legal Consequences.
This of course needs to be done after the Fact. Which means the Ministry must never Prohibit Publishing of something. But must be able to Enact Punishment if the Information is Proven to be Wrong.

Its harder done than said tough.
Education is Fairly Good to be Honest.
You cant 100% Educate People about everything.

I am pretty well Educated on Tons of things. But even I have to Look things up over and over.
What they would need to teach People. Is how to get Reliable Information themselves.




I am somewhat Impressed that someone besides me is using the word "mate" this is usually an Unique trait of mine ^^
Its even been reported to the Mods in other Forums because People tended to feel like I wanted to mock em with it xD


I think. The Importand Question is if there is something that can be Voted.
Right now. In Germany I am considering for the First time in over 10 Years to Vote the SPD.
Martin Schulz has some weight to me as an Candidate.

But I often enough lately had the Situation that there really was not a Single Party that would be Worth receiving a Vote from me.




Thats an False Friend Mate.

GDP of the USA in 1980 was 2.800 Trillion
In 2015 it was over 18.000 Trillion

Sure the Welfare Cost has Increased by 400%
But lets Face it. The Economy has Grown by over 600%
So the Share of the Social Welfare has Actually been Shrinking.

This becomes even more Obvious when you Check the Inflation Rates. Because the Inflation since then has been even more Drastic.
In Total Value. The Social Welfare Received has actually been Halfed compared to 1980.




Its Unfair to Blame them Alone.
But them being Blamed is alright.

Everyone has the Option to Inform himself.
If People dont use it. And just believe the First guy they Hear. Thats not exactly Adult behavior.
I mean sorry. But do you Believe every Random Tele Marketer ? Or do you consider it Adult when someone just believes everything the Telemarketer says to him ?


Voters do have a certain Responsibility as well. They hold a considerable Power with their Vote. So they need to make sure that they meet Information with the Adequate Distrust and Confirm Information.
The State needs to Support em in this by trying to Remove Factually Wrong Information and attempt to Provide Factual Information as far as that is Possible.
But the State cannot take away this Responsibility from the Voter. Otherwise the whole Concept of the Voter having the Vote would not make sense as he would not hold the Power of the Vote anyways.

Not everyone can be as informed or enlightened as you are.

Trump relied on the fact that many people have become distrusting of what politicians have to say. Unfortunately, they didn't understand that this is a man, who has perfected this art-form, for most of his life.

Although it is human nature to 'question everything', society also dictates that we listen and learn from those in positions of respect and authority and should not have reason to question their example. Not to do so, would ultimately cause anarchy. Unfortunately over the last 100 years or so, too many have abused these positions of respect and have been able to continue to do so.

 

[Toumal]

Careful, lest you call for government to regulate what "truth" is. You'll end up with a ministry of truth.
There are certainly grey areas at times. Some things can be interpreted this way or that way.

However, the problem we have atm is that what's proclamated as "alternate facts" is just lies, or at the very least the willful ignorance towards hard and concrete evidence.

And when a speaker of the white house, or a government official stands before the press and utters a lie, he/she should be called out on it. The problem is, this doesn't seem to happen, right then and there.

Dear journalists: When someone claims that a terrorist attack happened when in fact it did not, ASK THE PERSON WHY SHE'S MAKING STUFF UP. Don't be quiet.

 

[Arry]

Careful, lest you call for government to regulate what "truth" is. You'll end up with a ministry of truth.
There are certainly grey areas at times. Some things can be interpreted this way or that way.

However, the problem we have atm is that what's proclamated as "alternate facts" is just lies, or at the very least the willful ignorance towards hard and concrete evidence.

And when a speaker of the white house, or a government official stands before the press and utters a lie, he/she should be called out on it. The problem is, this doesn't seem to happen, right then and there.

Dear journalists: When someone claims that a terrorist attack happened when in fact it did not, ASK THE PERSON WHY SHE'S MAKING STUFF UP. Don't be quiet.

We need to remove; by simply refusing to accept or use, the phrase 'alternative facts'. Get it out of the public psyche, because all the time it is there, it can be used and miss-understood.

 

[Toumal]

You mean, we should apply scientific rules to how we view the world? I'm all for it! Trouble is, there's plenty of people who don't agree with that, and prefer to go with what they *feel* is right.

Like this fellow here:

[video=youtube;t7BfSw3GgJk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BfSw3GgJk[/video]

Juicy quote: "I'll go with how people feel, and I'll let you go with the theoretitians (sic)"

I get the same when the topic gets to guns, and people who absolutely are against any form of private, legal gun ownership try to tell me that me having a gun at home is just about how insecure I supposedly feel.

Trouble is: Facts don't care how people feel about them. They just are.

 

[verminstar]

Although it is human nature to 'question everything', society also dictates that we listen and learn from those in positions of respect and authority and should not have reason to question their example. Not to do so, would ultimately cause anarchy. Unfortunately over the last 100 years or so, too many have abused these positions of respect and have been able to continue to do so.

See...this I can agree with absolutely 100%. We are constantly told this and that by the so called experts who then make boo boos and get caught with their fingers in the till skimming off the top. Politicians are constantly being caught out over one thing or another which leads us to believe they all corrupt, which I believe to be factually correct. Many real examples can be supplied and only a fool will deny otherwise.

So who exactly do we believe when two experts give totally contradictory opinions? Especially when opinions are exactly that and cannot be backed up with actual facts...they base their opinions on what they believe which is what others say we shouldnt do...but its fine fer experts to do just that. This is double standards and hypocrisy at its best because it leaves everyone confused...which then leads those to believe they are all in it fer personal gain only, so they are ignored entirely even when they right. Mistrust in a system which has been guilty of all sorts of corruption and backroom deals throughout the years...these are the experts who we are supposed to believe?

Think about it. Its gotten so bad over decades of abuse and when we dont take them at their word, we are accused of anti intellectualism. Know what? Maybe if they werent so self obsessed with screwing us over in the past, this would never have happened. The remain camp have done everything they could to blame us fer all the issues when the way many see it is that the big businessesand the banks and the politicians created this whole can of worms. The mistrust we have for them didnt happen overnight...it was moulded and shaped by decades of being caught out and exposed.

How they fix this and get us trusting them again, I dont know. There is no quick fix because what broke the trust took a long time, ergo the fix will either be force or complete collapse and rebuild from scratch. Using force will merely delay something worse in the long run. Perhaps admitting that what we have had simply not working fer too many of us would be a good start...trying to shift the blame onto people who are angry and feel forgotten and persecuted already just makes things worse. How this can be used to restore faith in a broken system is something that simply aint gonna happen whether ye like it or not.

Anarchy? Not exactly when I say tear it all down and rebuild...if it was anarchy it would be tear it down and keep it down, then dance a jig on the grave. We need a different establishment...by the people for the people. Right now its business just out to serve their own interests and to hell with the people...and its backfired spectacularly.

 

[Javert]

^^ - So you want to tear everything down by force and build it up again, but at the same time you say that you believe factually that all politicians are corrupt (including Nelson Mandela or Ghandi for example even?)

So if that's the case, what are you going to replace politicians with? If all politicians are corrupt, presumably you want to abolish politics and have no politicians? That being the case, who is going to organize things, or if it's nobody, how it is going to work?

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Also not all modern politicians are corrupt, Sanders, Warren in the US, Corbyn in the UK (allthough i'm not a Corbyn fan). Those guys and gal are pretty anti corruption, i'd keep the system and vote for people like them.

 

[Don Alvarez]

Thats an False Friend Mate.

GDP of the USA in 1980 was 2.800 Trillion
In 2015 it was over 18.000 Trillion

Sure the Welfare Cost has Increased by 400%
But lets Face it. The Economy has Grown by over 600%
So the Share of the Social Welfare has Actually been Shrinking.

I haven't checked, but as a percentage of the GDP, you're probably right that its share is shrinking.

This becomes even more Obvious when you Check the Inflation Rates. Because the Inflation since then has been even more Drastic.
In Total Value. The Social Welfare Received has actually been Halfed compared to 1980.

I find inflation since 1980 in the US has been a shade under 200%, and since 2000 roughly between 45 and 50%, so in terms of absolute dollars the welfare spending is still increasing. I found it curious when looking at these numbers that the sharpest increase seems to have taken place under the Bush administration.

 

[verminstar]

^^ - So you want to tear everything down by force and build it up again, but at the same time you say that you believe factually that all politicians are corrupt (including Nelson Mandela or Ghandi for example even?)

So if that's the case, what are you going to replace politicians with? If all politicians are corrupt, presumably you want to abolish politics and have no politicians? That being the case, who is going to organize things, or if it's nobody, how it is going to work?

The tearing down of the old ways began with brexit and continued with trump...I have a feeling its not completely over either as the general unhappiness and anger exists in more places than the UK and the US. Might not as profound as those two things, but it will be fer those countries who have a slap in the face coming to them.

I never claimed to want to tear down the old ways by force...thats just your interpretation. The establishment has been rocked to their core and left reeling like a boxer who just caught a strong right hook and never saw it coming...thats my interpretation of starting to tear down the old ways and it hasnt been done with force. It was done with the very tools they have used to control us...democracy.

As fer what to replace it with? Something different of course...ye want specifics then go into politics and find out yerself what lies work and which ones dont. Im not a politician, Im just one of the voters with the ability to tell them that the course aint a good one and it has to change. The referendum asked a simple question based on in or out...there was no questions asked about what we thought those new directions would be because we arent qualified to answer that question. If we were, wed be counting those who voted for us, not making the vote ourselves.

Of course, if ye think going back to the way it was then go you...hasnt exactly worked out fantastically well so far though, has it? Its made the gap between the haves and have nots wider and created virtual cesspools of resentment over a very wide demographic. Wanting to go back to the way things were is akin to sticking yer head back in the sand and ignoring the complaints entirely ^

 

[Toumal]

So if that's the case, what are you going to replace politicians with? If all politicians are corrupt, presumably you want to abolish politics and have no politicians? That being the case, who is going to organize things, or if it's nobody, how it is going to work?

Simple solution: We build Colossus and let him take control. ^^

 

[Arry]

^^ - So you want to tear everything down by force and build it up again, but at the same time you say that you believe factually that all politicians are corrupt (including Nelson Mandela or Ghandi for example even?)

So if that's the case, what are you going to replace politicians with? If all politicians are corrupt, presumably you want to abolish politics and have no politicians? That being the case, who is going to organize things, or if it's nobody, how it is going to work?

In 84 Elite, the Corporate state was higher and more stable than democracies. It would work, if the corporation, took care of all the people, from birth to death.

i don't think that we should 'tear it all down', because that would just cause anarchy. However laws do need to be put in place to bring the political con-men to book. It is true, that not all that go into politics, are corrupt and a few will remain that way. However: These few individuals, rarely get anywhere to make a difference, because they refuse to be a part of the, 'one hand washing the other status quo'.

 

[Adept]

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Now we have Fuzzy arguing for abolition of universal suffrage, Adept arguing for the abolition of free speech, and me finding myself in agreement with verminstar.
.

I would argue against that characterisation of my position, but I realise you're making a joke.

The Freedom of Speech is all too often misunderstood to mean that people (including news organisations) are allowed to spew hatespeech without any consequences.

It doesn't mean that. It means there is no censorship. You're free to print and say what you want, but there will be consequences if you misuse this.

 

[Adept]

He couldn't close Gitmo, because the moment you put these accused before a real court of law, the judge will throw out the case because 1) the defendant was pre-judged, 2) the defendent's rights were abused to the utmost degree, 3) the evidence was gathered via illegal means (torture, then-illegal wiretapping, etc) or 4) there is no evidence (Point in case: the so-called "casio-evidence")

And a few of those in Gitmo definitely aren't innocent, closing Gitmo would mean you set them free. The real problem is that Bush and Co were stupid and blind and didn't care about "any of that legal crap", which is what got us into this stupid situation.

One could argue that even the "definitely not innocent" have actually faced a cruel and unusual punishment for a very long time. If they are given a truly fair trial, I expect that most are due some significant compensation from the US government.

I hope they aren't kept in Gitmo until they die of old age or suicide. That would be inexcusable.

- - - Updated - - -

We need to remove; by simply refusing to accept or use, the phrase 'alternative facts'. Get it out of the public psyche, because all the time it is there, it can be used and miss-understood.

It's the most dripping satire I've seen for a while. Do you think some people are actually accepting the Newspeak at face value?

- - - Updated - - -

The tearing down of the old ways began with brexit and continued with trump...

It's nothing of the sort though. They both represent a hard-right takeover of their respective countries. The trick was done by riding a wave of populist resentment, but the result is nothing like "the masses taking back control".

Both Brexit and whatever Trump is supposed to be represent a social-conservative backlash against the modern world.

It's not anything to celebrate. Going back to the 1950ies should be a repellent idea to any decent person.

 

[verminstar]

It's nothing of the sort though. They both represent a hard-right takeover of their respective countries. The trick was done by riding a wave of populist resentment, but the result is nothing like "the masses taking back control".

Both Brexit and whatever Trump is supposed to be represent a social-conservative backlash against the modern world.

It's not anything to celebrate. Going back to the 1950ies should be a repellent idea to any decent person.

So whats the reason for the resentment? And do you genuinely believe going back to the way things were will make everything right again?

Two simple questions that no doubt will have a great many answers depending on the individuals answering them. Take a moment and consider this...do you know what its like at the bottom of the food chain? When ye have to work with a budget so tight, that there will be days ye just feel like giving up? Then some suit threatens ye that if ye dont vote fer them to keep their gravy train, that things will get very bad.

Really? Ye wanna define bad and see if it matches up to my definition of bad?

Im not celebrating anything...I hate that its come to this at all but it happened because up until that vote, we were ignored utterly. We tried to tell them our concerns and were called racist simply fer trying to discuss it...just shut up and accept that the suits are making a mint and the rest of us really should be more understanding and sympathetic. And when the banks and the politicians mess up, as they always do sooner or later, we end up paying fer their mistakes.

I dont enjoy whats happening any more than you do, even though Im happy to be getting out of the EU. Thing is, if the establishment had faced upto the issues instead of just blanketing every attempt with accusations of racism and xenophobia to name just two of the nicer ones, then this might never have happened...and I seriously do mean that.

But they didnt listen and didnt care and pushed on ahead with their plan, not ours...then gave us a vote and tried to bully us into voting for them.

Ye might not agree with the result but surely ye can at least understand why it happened. If not, then I really dont know what else to say. I see this as the establishment self harming and entirely their fault...and not one single argument to the contrary has convinced me Im wrong. If anything, past statements from some here have done nothing more than make me more certain than ever...well, here and in real life with some people who take snobbish elitist attitudes to a whole new level of selfishness. And these are the ones who tried to make out they only ever had our best interests at heart...ha! Why should I care about them when they clearly never cared fer anyone else other than themselves? Dont make me laugh ^

I literally have no idea what else ye want me to say here...nothing anyone has said or argued on any of half a dozen threads and countless real life debates has been enough to change my mind. There is a reason fer that and that reason is that not one single person has actually tried to tackle the root causes without resorting to the name calling and the innuendos...a civil discussion simply isnt possible with these people so why should I keep my cool if they cant? We won, they lost...not upto me to make concessions or compromises...its upto those who lost and remaining meant no compromising, no concessions and they continue to ignore us. Hindsight is a wonderful thing yes?

 

[FuzzySpider]

Im not celebrating anything...I hate that its come to this at all but it happened because up until that vote, we were ignored utterly. We tried to tell them our concerns and were called racist simply fer trying to discuss it...just shut up and accept that the suits are making a mint and the rest of us really should be more understanding and sympathetic.

The problem is that none of your problems have been caused by immigration.

Well... except for one immigrant...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...s-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron

Hows that "kicking elites" working out for you?