General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?

[Sunleader]

Well herein also lies part of the problem. You would have to be careful that this couldn't be used by rich companies or individuals to silence all critical articles about them on the bases that "it's not a proven fact". Such articles would still have to be allowed, but with clarity about the level of proof available so far. Even under today's laws in the UK this can be an issue with large companies attempting to prevent bad publicity through the courts.

Aye.
I am talking about marking.
Not about blocking.

Against the Law should be to report factually wrong knowledge and Against the should be to claim unproven things as facts.
That means anyone can report Opinions if they are marked as such.

Indignant, I said. I said that the comments were ignorant. Of course, you may have a different view of statements like "build a wall to keep them all out".

Argh.
Sorry. I guess its high time I hit the Bed lol.
I read Ignorant xD

 

[Adept]

Hilariously indignant story in The Express about how "meddling" Juncker says Scotland will be at Brexit talks.

ETA - the comments are even more hate filled and ignorant than the article, and that's really saying something.

I couldn't read the comments section for very long. It's too depressing.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I couldn't read the comments section for very long. It's too depressing.

Also in the side bar to that article:

"Did UFO crash on earth? Metal parts found after object leaves burning crater"

"EU must be kidding! Brussels goes to war on British gardens with crackpot new rule"

"1000 Muslims block Londons streets chanting Allahu Akbar to demand Islamic Caliphate"

"Zoo chimp makes [Nasti] salute in shocking video"

"Nuclear waste, state secrets, aliens? Huge convoy moving mystery object sparks speculation"

All of these, for want of a better phrase, 'current affairs articles to inform the public', are going to be read and believed by quite a chunk of the population. Even though the people behind the articles know they are lies, the people who own the paper know it they are lies, and the government and press complaints commission know they are lies.

And due to the public anger stoked up by the likes of this publication the government will enact policies it knows to be poisonous to society, which will cause damage to innocent people. How is this much better than a dictatorship?

 

[Adept]

Also in the side bar to that article:

"Did UFO crash on earth? Metal parts found after object leaves burning crater"

"EU must be kidding! Brussels goes to war on British gardens with crackpot new rule"

"1000 Muslims block Londons streets chanting Allahu Akbar to demand Islamic Caliphate"

"Zoo chimp makes [Nasti] salute in shocking video"

"Nuclear waste, state secrets, aliens? Huge convoy moving mystery object sparks speculation"

All of these, for want of a better phrase, 'current affairs articles to inform the public', are going to be read and believed by quite a chunk of the population. Even though the people behind the articles know they are lies, the people who own the paper know it they are lies, and the government and press complaints commission know they are lies.

And due to the public anger stoked up by the likes of this publication the government will enact policies it knows to be poisonous to society, which will cause damage to innocent people. How is this much better than a dictatorship?

It is one if the great challenges of our time. We'll either clamp down on the spread of disinformation (and tech the public how to recognise ), or we'll perish. We can't afford to continue like this.

 

[Boomer Kay]

It is one if the great challenges of our time. We'll either clamp down on the spread of disinformation (and tech the public how to recognise ), or we'll perish. We can't afford to continue like this.

Dah, having disinformation monopolies in print, then radio, then TV did not make us perish. Seriously, what else is the history of mankind other than a giant disinformation campaign. The written word replacing oral, face to face transmission, the mass communication replacing actual conversation in many parts of society.

It's just time the "Elites" start to get better at trolling. (did you read my comments about my admiration for the "high level" trolling FD does every now and then - things like getting the majority of players to vote for the least popular ship transfer option? hi hi ).


And for the lulz:
"EU must be kidding! Brussels goes to war on British gardens with crackpot new rule"

Raoul Curtis-Machin, horticulture director at the Horticulture Trades Association, said the ban could actually be more damaging to the environment.

He told Express.co.uk: "A sudden ban on controlled release fertiliser coatings would be disastrous for the industry.

Huh?
The "environmental" industry that try to convince garneders following fertilizing instructions is too much of a hassle, when you can just bury some oil byproduct under your plants that will stay there forever and choke that poor thing and turn blossoming gardens into landfills full of plastic?

[wacko]

And to take it a notch further. The english garden and the english lawn are cultural achievements dating ca. 1700-1750. Centuries before plastics or "the environmental industry." So successfull an achievement, even the french imported it and later the germans from the french.
It's the epitome of human labour and human ambition to order a wild nature. It has led to philosophical ideas and other cultural achievements. It is a defining trait for all things "english" across most of the world including Middle Earth's The Shire - and you want to sell it out to some industry that gives you plastic eggs in return? Blimey! Down with Saruman!

 

[Adept]

And to take it a notch further. The english garden and the english lawn are cultural achievements dating ca. 1700-1750. Centuries before plastics or "the environmental industry." So successfull an achievement, even the french imported it and later the germans from the french.
It's the epitome of human labour and human ambition to order a wild nature. It has led to philosophical ideas and other cultural achievements. It is a defining trait for all things "english" across most of the world including Middle Earth's The Shire - and you want to sell it out to some industry that gives you plastic eggs in return? Blimey! Down with Saruman!

I'd rep you if I could

 

[Lianachan]

Brexit clock ticking for Japanese move of banking jobs to Europe.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Dah, having disinformation monopolies in print, then radio, then TV did not make us perish. Seriously, what else is the history of mankind other than a giant disinformation campaign. The written word replacing oral, face to face transmission, the mass communication replacing actual conversation in many parts of society.

We didn't perish because, before now, we couldn't actually make ourselves perish. Old civilizations would rise and fall with regularity, societies would indeed collapse and then rebuild. The problem is that the modern world is so interconnected the next serious collapse could indeed cause the world as we know it to unravel in a more permanent way. Think about this; imagine the ancient Egyptians with nuclear weapons, or the Tudors having the capacity to completely decimate the worlds climate. The current media climate is making us that stupid, and unlike previous stupid societies we are extremely capable of causing formerly unheard of destruction.

Brexit clock ticking for Japanese move of banking jobs to Europe.

Apparently people are having a change of heart. I think it's way way too late to salvage anything though. I don't understand why the Japanese are bothering to wait... unless this is merely a ploy to get concessions from the UK government as Nissan did.

 

[Boomer Kay]

The current media climate is making us that stupid, and unlike previous stupid societies we are extremely capable of causing formerly unheard of destruction.

The guys in charge are still the same selfish twits as during the cold war and the nuclear arsenal was way higher back then.
Society is really more about burying yourself in trash by throwing it in your neighbor's garden and getting all uppty when he does the same to you.

Allow me some mild optimism here.

 

[Gortron]

Also in the side bar to that article:

"Did UFO crash on earth? Metal parts found after object leaves burning crater"

"EU must be kidding! Brussels goes to war on British gardens with crackpot new rule"

"1000 Muslims block Londons streets chanting Allahu Akbar to demand Islamic Caliphate"

"Zoo chimp makes [Nasti] salute in shocking video"

"Nuclear waste, state secrets, aliens? Huge convoy moving mystery object sparks speculation"

All of these, for want of a better phrase, 'current affairs articles to inform the public', are going to be read and believed by quite a chunk of the population. Even though the people behind the articles know they are lies, the people who own the paper know it they are lies, and the government and press complaints commission know they are lies.

And due to the public anger stoked up by the likes of this publication the government will enact policies it knows to be poisonous to society, which will cause damage to innocent people. How is this much better than a dictatorship?

The Daily Express is terrible, I can't argue with that. But who do you think you are to tell people what they can and can't read and what they should and shouldn't think? I read it and find it funny, you think that a large chunk of people are going to believe the nonsense in the Express and thus it should be stopped. The mail and express mostly spout utter nonsense, but sometimes they run counter to the norm in ways that wouldn't otherwise be voiced. I've not seen you attack the Huffington post or Mirror even though they also publish nonsense. You can't shut up one type of opinion because it runs counter to your opinion and maintain any sort of balance.

Dictatorships often start with the best of intentions and then as the 'worthy people' rise to the top they stop worrying about the people that aren't relevant or that they are unanswerable too. I mean no offence to Germans or Russians (I'm trying to explain a point to fuzzy) The * did wonders for the Germany economy having done away with democracy and shutting up all opposition. It worked ok until they decided murdering anyone they didn't like or that the unchallengeable government decided wasn't worthy of existence in their opinion was ok.

More people were murdered in Russia under Stalin than the * could have dreamed of inflicting. ~50 million people killed because of one lunatic and an unchallenged ideology.

I would find a referendum on launching a nuclear strike on ourselves less objectionable than most of your ideas Fuzzy.

Frankly it is ridiculous that eveytime I use the actual historical acronym for the party in charge in Germany back then it gets censored to s. I used * to replace it.

 

[Gortron]

I don't have a degree though, so I'm not sure if my opinion has any validity.

 

[Talarin]

... You can't shut up one type of opinion because it runs counter to your opinion and maintain any sort of balance...

Balance isn't a consideration. It seems that people only disagree with the "proper" decision because someone else told them to. Suppressing that is far easier than any other option. Some people put themselves in a position where they don't want to read "bad things" and think that if other people don't read "bad things" either then these bad decisions won't happen in the future. In the age of the Internet, it's an ill-conceived idea in my opinion.

It's interesting (although not directly germane to the Brexit discussion) how the political narrative from what I consider to be the more left-leaning media outlets has shifted in the wake of the referendum and Trump's victory in the US presidential election. Instead of examining actual issues that lead people to either vote deliberately for something considered daft or using a "protest vote"; we're now facing the prospect of it all being "bad medias" fault.

Populism, Post-truth society, fake news, questioning the integrity of news outlets that carry these undesirable pieces of news. These are the new buzzwords and fads which means that we don't have to ask deeper questions about what's going on.

Of course - this all utterly ignores the fact that if people were content with their lot, perceived the evidence of the "good things" themselves (as opposed to relying on nationalised or global statistical statements), had what seems to be a minimum level of education to allow them to distinguish "good" from "bad" etc then not only would the correct decision had been reached; the question probably wouldn't have come up in the first place.

 

[Adept]

Brexit clock ticking for Japanese move of banking jobs to Europe.

And still many in the comments section are "glad to see them go" and going on about the evils of the EU.

 

[Sunleader]

The Daily Express is terrible, I can't argue with that. But who do you think you are to tell people what they can and can't read and what they should and shouldn't think? I read it and find it funny, you think that a large chunk of people are going to believe the nonsense in the Express and thus it should be stopped. The mail and express mostly spout utter nonsense, but sometimes they run counter to the norm in ways that wouldn't otherwise be voiced. I've not seen you attack the Huffington post or Mirror even though they also publish nonsense. You can't shut up one type of opinion because it runs counter to your opinion and maintain any sort of balance.

Dictatorships often start with the best of intentions and then as the 'worthy people' rise to the top they stop worrying about the people that aren't relevant or that they are unanswerable too. I mean no offence to Germans or Russians (I'm trying to explain a point to fuzzy) The * did wonders for the Germany economy having done away with democracy and shutting up all opposition. It worked ok until they decided murdering anyone they didn't like or that the unchallengeable government decided wasn't worthy of existence in their opinion was ok.

More people were murdered in Russia under Stalin than the * could have dreamed of inflicting. ~50 million people killed because of one lunatic and an unchallenged ideology.

I would find a referendum on launching a nuclear strike on ourselves less objectionable than most of your ideas Fuzzy.

Frankly it is ridiculous that eveytime I use the actual historical acronym for the party in charge in Germany back then it gets censored to s. I used * to replace it.

I don't have a degree though, so I'm not sure if my opinion has any validity.

Opinions dont Require an Degree to be Valid. They are Opinions.
Thing is just that People sometimes forget. That Opinions dont require to be Factually Correct to be Valid either.

I for example have the Opinion that if we want to get Afgahnistan Pacified and return towards being an Peaceful normal State. We have to stop with our attempts to get things done without getting our own Hands Dirty.
Equipping Rebels and Easy Corruptible Government Forces with Weapons so they Fight each other without much effect because they are more or less even matched and thus cant get a clear Victory anyways. Will not solve the Problem.
If you want to Pacify a Country after War you have to Occupy it with Massive Forces.
We would require to Send Tens of Thousand Soldiers down there. Having Bases and Patrolling the Cities. To Protect the Civiliians from being Recruited.
Its not Surprising that the Taliban can get ever new Recruits in these Areas. Because our Military is not Protecting these People at all. These People know. I am either with the Taliban or my Family is good as Dead.

After 10 or more years when the Government has Completely Regenerated its own Forces. Has its Economy somewhat running again. And the Terrorists have been mostly Eradicated because they got cut off from Recruits and Money.
THEN you can stop Withdrawing Forces slowly and return Control to the Government.


But see. Thats my Opinion. Others can think Differently.




As for the Statement above.
I would not Shut up anyone.
The Problem is and stays that most Newspapers Report this Nonsense claiming it to be Facts.

The thing that would need to be done. Is to Force Newspapers right away to Clarify wether an Article is doing an Factual Report of something that happened. In which case it should be done in Neutral Report Form without containing opinions. Or if it is an Opinion of an Writer or Company etc etc. Which si Expressed commenting on something.

People Reading Blogger Entries or Facebook Posts etc. Are MUCH MUCH MORE Distrusting and thus dont take everything they read for Facts.
But with newspapers its a different Story. People are used to Newspapers being Reporting Factual Knowledge.
But nowdays too many of them aint doing that. They are Writing Opinions and Comments.

And it should be handled via Law. That everyone has to Properly mark that he is Voicing an Opinion or that he is Reporting Facts.
And Claiming to Report Facts when your stating an Opinion. Should be put under Punishment.
After all Facts can be Checked.


And well.
I am suggesting something like this to be Law.
This would go for all sides.
I am not considering the Huffington Post to be any more Trustworthy than the others mentioned.

But their Rubbish is not having negative effects for us so we aint the ones obliged to attack them.
That doesnt mean we support them. It just means they are irrelevant to us right now.

 

[Yaffle]

Of course - this all utterly ignores the fact that if people were content with their lot, perceived the evidence of the "good things" themselves (as opposed to relying on nationalised or global statistical statements), had what seems to be a minimum level of education to allow them to distinguish "good" from "bad" etc then not only would the correct decision had been reached; the question probably wouldn't have come up in the first place.

It's a fair point you make about slightly left-leaning news outlets banging on about fake news and post-truth. We need to remember that politicians have always lied. They see power as the prize, and any means is fair to get there.

On the 'content with their lot' point, this is impossible to achieve. People always want more, and have a very poor recollection of the past. At a basic level my Gran always went on about how it snowed every Christmas, and in April the sun would shine every day until November when it would start snowing again. It's rubbish. Likewise, the fond look back to the non-EU days of bent cucumbers and no regulations is rubbish. The 1970s was a horrible decade.
Moreover, there is an evolutionary problem. Our mental construct of the world has evolved in a village-type surrounding. In that case we thought we had a grasp on it all. Caveman Ugg goes out with Caveman Ogg, Ogg gets eaten by a crocodile. Ugg says to avoid the things that look like logs in the water. We all learn. This is good. Assuming you live near crocodiles, if not then it's a bit redundant. Now we hear of (say) a child abducted in Aberdeen, which causes parents across the land to search for an abductor on every street corner. The fact that most child abuse occurs from inside the family is ignored, children a 'kept safe' by being passed to Uncle Joe, who then abuses them. Crime is reported a lot on the news. Despite general crime rates falling people see the world as less secure. Our village brain believes that a tragic murder in Bangor is reflective of murder rates and crime everywhere.
Many of us want more. Some of us really do get a rough position, most of us in the UK don't. But we all want more. That's from the footballer on £1M a week after a new sponsorship deal, or the CEO on £1M a year after a 30% payrise while giving nothing to his or her workers, down to a minimum wage single parent scraping together for a Christmas present. Evoking the idea that it was better in some fictional past, and there can be more for everyone is something done for ages by politicians. My parents still go on about Harold Macmillan and 'you've never had it so good' in 1957. Yet since then we have better healthcare, less poverty, better and safer buildings, more food, cheaper power, better transport, longer lives, lower crime... but we think it's far worse. Everyone has a tale of a friend's job being taken by an immigrant, but if you ask for the name and the company it goes very vague very quickly. These urban myths feel true, and are repeated so they now appear true even when in most cases they are not.

Can things be better - yes, of course, they always can. Will voting out of the EU or for Trump deliver all they have promised (well, I say promised, the current line seems to be rapidly distancing themselves from their pre-vote claims) not a hope. There will be change in both the UK and the US, but not necessarily for the better for those who voted for it.

There is an issue when we can't seem to work out that voting for an impossible dream does not make it possible, any more than voting for the status quo makes it acceptable.

 

[Minonian]

Meanwhile, today the advice passed on by the UK's EU Ambassador seems to confirm what everyone except HM Government has been saying - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146

And in those 10 years (at bare minimum!) UK economy going to be as much banged up, as possible.

In addition, UK Wants to quit because of the Immigration from in and outside of the EU, AKA Open borders. The joke is, if they want's to quit and retrain the trade privileges UK must accept the free movement policy, what pretty much means he can't get the only thing why the people in small majority voted to quit. And if they accept this than UK going to have all the negatives of EU membershio, without the positives such as saying in the Eu policy, voting rights, ects ects...

So be honest! What's the point of the whole mess? Anyone can tell me?

Edit; About the fact Theresa May not invited to the work dinner? Let's just say it was a very strong not so diplomatic message and tells you have zero saying about how UK exit from EU going to be happened, and if you quit, than you will be simply threw out.

 

[Gortron]

Balance isn't a consideration. It seems that people only disagree with the "proper" decision because someone else told them to. Suppressing that is far easier than any other option. Some people put themselves in a position where they don't want to read "bad things" and think that if other people don't read "bad things" either then these bad decisions won't happen in the future. In the age of the Internet, it's an ill-conceived idea in my opinion.

It's interesting (although not directly germane to the Brexit discussion) how the political narrative from what I consider to be the more left-leaning media outlets has shifted in the wake of the referendum and Trump's victory in the US presidential election. Instead of examining actual issues that lead people to either vote deliberately for something considered daft or using a "protest vote"; we're now facing the prospect of it all being "bad medias" fault.

Populism, Post-truth society, fake news, questioning the integrity of news outlets that carry these undesirable pieces of news. These are the new buzzwords and fads which means that we don't have to ask deeper questions about what's going on.

Of course - this all utterly ignores the fact that if people were content with their lot, perceived the evidence of the "good things" themselves (as opposed to relying on nationalised or global statistical statements), had what seems to be a minimum level of education to allow them to distinguish "good" from "bad" etc then not only would the correct decision had been reached; the question probably wouldn't have come up in the first place.

Interesting points. It is a little odd that instead of accepting something might have gone wrong with the scope of the EU and/or the way political entities engage with the people that they are supposed to represent, there is this huge and obvious attempt to misrepresent the intention, motivation and commitment of people that voted to leave the EU. At least (in fairness to them) the government is apparently trying to do what they were told to do despite all the democracy denial. My personal favourite bit of democracy denial/spin is that people voted for Brexit because they wanted supremacy of parliament. Yes they did, supremacy of UK parliament over the EU parliament/commission. Not parliaments supremacy over the will of the people they are supposed to represent when they have been given an instruction by referendum.

 

[Adept]

My personal favourite bit of democracy denial/spin is that people voted for Brexit because they wanted supremacy of parliament. Yes they did, supremacy of UK parliament over the EU parliament/commission. Not parliaments supremacy over the will of the people they are supposed to represent when they have been given an instruction by referendum.

Denial? Sounds like denial alright, but not like you think

Tell me though, why exactly does this "supremacy of the UK parliament over the EU parliament" matter to people exactly? It seems rather abstract. In general people care about peace, prosperity, security... Not which lot of distant politicians is in charge of what abstraction.

Are you quite sure that was what mattered to the voters? Oh, and you may want to read about denial in the psychology section of Wikipedia.

 

[Minonian]

Populism, Post-truth society, fake news, questioning the integrity of news outlets that carry these undesirable pieces of news. These are the new buzzwords and fads which means that we don't have to ask deeper questions about what's going on.

Nah! This is the way how conspiration theorists and other nutjobs always worked, made his way against truth. Questioning the validity of news questioning truth. And after it making wild claims, posed as truth. Degagrating truth, and elevating lie. So for a spectator with superficial glance, without in depth knowledge / keen eyes they are pretty much looks alike.

After all, if the validity of truth are in question, it's blackened, or at least the person who spokes the truth made looks bad, what you got? A questionable truth, against wild claims. Their worth are equal. in such circumstances whom going to win the debate? The one whom can rally more support, shouts louder, so better heard. Or whom you want to believe.

 

[Gortron]

And in those 10 years (at bare minimum!) UK economy going to be as much banged up, as possible.

In addition, UK Wants to quit because of the Immigration from in and outside of the EU, AKA Open borders. The joke is, if they want's to quit and retrain the trade privileges UK must accept the free movement policy, what pretty much means he can't get the only thing why the people in small majority voted to quit. And if they accept this than UK going to have all the negatives of EU membershio, without the positives such as saying in the Eu policy, voting rights, ects ects...

So be honest! What's the point of the whole mess? Anyone can tell me?

Edit; About the fact Theresa May not invited to the work dinner? Let's just say it was a very strong not so diplomatic message and tells you have zero saying about how UK exit from EU going to be happened, and if you quit, than you will be simply threw out.

Immigration doesn't bother me but the customs union does. If the UK can do trade deals without the EU but we have accept free movement of people then that is OK with me, so long as pass porting for financial services remain in place.

The Theresa may not invited to dinner thing is utterly counter productive to the British psyche. It will almost certainly provoke belligerence. It is incredible that anyone could think that was a good idea. It is the political equivalent to jumping a queue or knocking a pint out of someone's hand. Never back a Brit into a corner.... this clip describes what I mean. In the film, just after the where the clip ends he says (while sipping his tea) "It's unforgivable, I lost my temper".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymFSzyTqfe0