homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » UK General Election June 8th 2017 (Page 33)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
how are you defining gross misrepresentations?

I think that's a homonym for 'lie'. If you're an adult needing help with that concept, then we've reached a pretty poor state.
A lie directly states something untrue. For example, that leaving the EU will mean £350 per week more for the NHS.
A gross misrepresentation for example might state something that is true but leave out context that gives the other interpretation.
A different evaluation of all the salient information is another matter yet again.

I think a lot of Guardian columnists were clearly wrong about Corbyn's electability, but I don't think they were misrepresenting the available evidence.

I think 'Owen Smith and other Labour MPs didn't oppose the Tory welfare reforms' is a gross misrepresentation. I'm not sure it's quite a lie. It reports one single fact. It just omits to mention what they did immediately before that fact.

If I think the best that can be said for Corbyn's handling of Brexit is that it would be a little less disastrous than May's (let alone Johnson's) someone might disagree but I don't think they could reasonably call it a misrepresentation.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The tabloid press has had its day. People, especially young people, saw through them this time.

As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
Young people get their news from twitter and Facebook. Not from the Mail or the Sun.

You might not like it. You might decry the journalistic standards of websites such as the Canary. But that's what happened, and will continue to happen. Labour, and Corbyn especially, outflanked the (almost universally hostile) press and did something different. Please acknowledge that.

Ah, you got my reference to the Breitbart of the Left.

It depends what you mean by 'acknowledge'. Yes they did it. Yes it delivered results. But it is and remains illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to criticise ones opponents for doing something, but to regard it as OK when your own side do it.

In the war of words, it's the same as 'our boys syndrome' in Northern Ireland. The other lot are wrong, horrible people and bloodthirsty terrorists. Yes our lot have done things we'd politely really rather they didn't, gone a bit far, but they're always 'our boys' and that makes it all right.

No. Either 'all's fair in love and war' in which case stop complaining when other people do it to you, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody, your friends as well as your enemies.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, okay. As soon as the internet makes it possible for the Left to organise some sort of fight back against decades of Right-wing abuse of the press, it's time to call for temperance and self-control.

No.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, okay. As soon as the internet makes it possible for the Left to organise some sort of fight back against decades of Right-wing abuse of the press, it's time to call for temperance and self-control.

No.

I'm genuinely struggling to parse this as anything other than two wrongs making a right.

*Anyone* on *any* side not calling for temperance and self control is part of the problem not the solution.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's as if the damage done to the body politic by decades of Right-wing hegemony in the press never happened. The lack of self-awareness on your part is truly astounding.

It's as if the kid you'd been bullying throughout school has suddenly planted one on your nose, and you run to Teacher because he had the temerity to hit back.

Let's do a deal. You sort your side out first. When you've disarmed the Mail and the Sun, then we can talk. Certainly not before.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ye gods. Steve Langdon, if you are reading this, don't bother watching the declaring of the official opening of Parliament in the Lords.

Establishment writ large.

[ 13. June 2017, 13:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's as if the damage done to the body politic by decades of Right-wing hegemony in the press never happened. The lack of self-awareness on your part is truly astounding.

It's as if the kid you'd been bullying throughout school has suddenly planted one on your nose, and you run to Teacher because he had the temerity to hit back.

Let's do a deal. You sort your side out first. When you've disarmed the Mail and the Sun, then we can talk. Certainly not before.

Er, I think that's any talking off the table for a while then - my *side*????

I've got the self awareness to know that no party last week represented what I wanted. But that bits of everyone's manifesto did.

Self awareness? For shame.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Self awareness? For shame.

Dude, you even seen your avatar?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, okay. As soon as the internet makes it possible for the Left to organise some sort of fight back against decades of Right-wing abuse of the press, it's time to call for temperance and self-control.

No.

Not to mention that social media, such as Facebook and Twitter are tools for tools, as well as the left.

[ 13. June 2017, 15:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone who thinks Facebook, Mr Murdoch or Mr Dacre are on anyone's side but their own is sadly deluded.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Anyone who thinks Facebook, Mr Murdoch or Mr Dacre are on anyone's side but their own is sadly deluded.

The difference being Facebook is used by the right and left. Murdoch and Dacre are in it for their own good, but their perceived good is on the right and their media presence is for and by the right.
The former is an open pit in which one might find shit or a flower.
The latter are shit all the way down.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Ah, you got my reference to the Breitbart of the Left.

People making this comparison make me think that they've never read Breitbart (not even the headlines).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Ah, you got my reference to the Breitbart of the Left.

People making this comparison make me think that they've never read Breitbart (not even the headlines).
Well, the Canary are a bit OTT. But the Right far outdo the Left in crazy, lying media.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the Canary told me a man had bitten a dog, I'd say "well, it's the Canary, so I'll look for corroboration". If the Mail told me a dog had bitten a man, I'd be wondering whether it was even true that dogs had teeth.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the Canary told me a man had bitten a dog, I'd say "well, it's the Canary, so I'll look for corroboration". If the Mail told me a dog had bitten a man, I'd be wondering whether it was even true that dogs had teeth.

[Overused]

The criticism of the established media that Social media lacks journalism - in the sense of researched stories, critical writing - is a reasonable one. At least, in the sense that for the most part, the resources of the mainstream media are far greater and allow (in theory) a much higher quality of reporting.

It all falls down of course when you see what is done with those resources. The Sun has a truth problem - they will print whatever sells. The Mail has an agenda problem - they will print whatever pushes their distorted world view. (There is some cross over).

Thus I don't think it surprising that despite the weakness of Internet sources, people increasingly turn to them for news. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing but the answer is for our established media to put their house in order. I am not holding my breath.

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

Thus I don't think it surprising that despite the weakness of Internet sources, people increasingly turn to them for news. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing but the answer is for our established media to put their house in order. I am not holding my breath.

More to the point they watch real time videos. So they can see and hear the politicians in action - which will show up those who are not genuine people and give a far truer picture than second hand reporting can. The newspapers miss out on our 'instant news' generation by a mile - for better or worse.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, the Canary are a bit OTT. But the Right far outdo the Left in crazy, lying media.

Yes, and really the proper comparison would be with something like Guido Fawkes against which the Canary looks relatively sober, and of course Paul Staines is regularly featured in the print and broadcast media, and his fellow traveller - Iain Dale - has gone on to more prominent things.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

Thus I don't think it surprising that despite the weakness of Internet sources, people increasingly turn to them for news. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing but the answer is for our established media to put their house in order. I am not holding my breath.

More to the point they watch real time videos. So they can see and hear the politicians in action - which will show up those who are not genuine people and give a far truer picture than second hand reporting can. The newspapers miss out on our 'instant news' generation by a mile - for better or worse.
I think we now have three or four different types of news source (depending on the line drawn between some of the options below) - a differentiation between "internet" and "newspaper" is not all that helpful.

  1. We have the traditional newspapers. The medium prevents inclusion of video (unless the editor had been a student at Hogwarts), and there is a delay between the story and the print run, and a further delay for distribution.
  2. We have TV news, now 24h with on-demand options as well. Obviously with video, and also much closer to real time reporting.
  3. We have the websites for the traditional newspapers and TV news channels. This allows carrying of breaking news and video for the print media, and additional extensive coverage (especially for the TV news channels).
  4. We have internet only newspapers, with staff reporters much as a traditional newspaper just that they never actually put anything on paper. Personally I'd roll that in with the internet sites for traditional newspapers, you may think differently.
  5. Finally we have social media.
1-4 have one common feature - they have editors. Someone decides what to cover, the reporter is selective in what they say. That will inevitably introduce a bias in what is reported. This may be political, it may be a bias towards what celebrities are up to, or to sports coverage ... what ever.

The difference with social media is that usually this is sharing of news from a very wide range of sources, mostly from 2-4 above but also personal accounts of people involved, live streaming from normal people, etc. And, quite often commentary on the stories as they are shared. There is still a bias, of course, reflecting the views of each individual as they share what they see as important or interesting, and reflecting the sites they personally visit and/or what their friends share. This has the strength that stories from (relatively) obscure sources (eg: a small local newspaper) can be seen by many, which traditional approaches might skip over as unimportant (an editorial decision). It also has the weakness that it's almost impossible to check the facts reported are correct - traditional media has the resources to do that (whether they actually do so is another matter).

What Jeremy Corbyn has managed to do is harness the power of social media to bypass the editorial positions of the traditional media. The likes of the Canary have helped, but mostly by providing material that can be shared. The number of people who visit the Canary to get the news over breakfast, analogous to those who get a paper delivered, would be very small, and so their direct impact is very small. It's the effect of individuals picking up those stories and sharing them with friends that has the impact.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Last year I asked my general studies Year 11 class where they primarily got their news and they *all* said social media.

The social media generation will not go back to buying newspapers however good they are.

What we need are high quality, trusted internet sources that are also free at the point of delivery (otherwise few will read them).

Conceivably established sources could carve out a social media presence.

Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715

 - Posted      Profile for wabale   Author's homepage   Email wabale   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

  1. We have the traditional newspapers. The medium prevents inclusion of video (unless the editor had been a student at Hogwarts), and there is a delay between the story and the print run, and a further delay for distribution.
  2. We have TV news, now 24h with on-demand options as well. Obviously with video, and also much closer to real time reporting.
  3. We have the websites for the traditional newspapers and TV news channels. This allows carrying of breaking news and video for the print media, and additional extensive coverage (especially for the TV news channels).
  4. We have internet only newspapers, with staff reporters much as a traditional newspaper just that they never actually put anything on paper. Personally I'd roll that in with the internet sites for traditional newspapers, you may think differently.
  5. Finally we have social media.
1-4 have one common feature - they have editors. Someone decides what to cover, the reporter is selective in what they say. That will inevitably introduce a bias in what is reported. This may be political, it may be a bias towards what celebrities are up to, or to sports coverage ... what ever.


That explanation sounds right to me.
However, I keep hearing people attacking ‘media’, especially newspapers. We need to be careful, I think, not to undermine The Fourth Estate. Personally I spit teeth every time I see The Daily Mail. However, a few years ago it was the only source of information about what Michael Gove was planning to do to the school History Curriculum. Tory newspapers are sometimes also responsible for investigative journalism, which is a vital task in our democracy, and is partly down to money. It’s also down to good journalistm. Journalists seem much alike, whatever their political persuasion: they would all do anything for a good story. My brother started on ‘The East Cheam Bugle’ (as Tony Hancock called it) and later moved to The Guardian and The Telegraph: at any point in his career he would have sold his grandmother for a story if one had been available. Later he lectured in journalism, but has never quite got round to writing his book about how journalism replaced RUMOUR. He did make the point to his students, he told me, that at the end of the day newspapers have to make money - in order to pay journalists for stories. It’s the journalistic hunger for a good story that we are in danger of losing unless newspapers and other news sources can re-invent themselves.

Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but our local corner shop's newspaper rack seems to be almost entirely patronised by the over-60s (who buy the Daily Heil, Daily Distress, Sun with big knockers etc. [Disappointed] ). One rarely sees any of the local young mums buying a paper.

Well, how could they, with one hand holding the kids, and the other holding the mobile phone to their ear?

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
Later he lectured in journalism, but has never quite got round to writing his book about how journalism replaced RUMOUR. He did make the point to his students, he told me, that at the end of the day newspapers have to make money - in order to pay journalists for stories. It’s the journalistic hunger for a good story that we are in danger of losing unless newspapers and other news sources can re-invent themselves.

This would be a great book and I hope he writes it eventually. You could perhaps think of social media as giving a huge shot in the arm to RUMOUR as opposed to journalism.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:

That explanation sounds right to me.
However, I keep hearing people attacking ‘media’, especially newspapers. We need to be careful, I think, not to undermine The Fourth Estate. Personally I spit teeth every time I see The Daily Mail. However, a few years ago it was the only source of information about what Michael Gove was planning to do to the school History Curriculum. Tory newspapers are sometimes also responsible for investigative journalism, which is a vital task in our democracy, and is partly down to money.

Up to a point. The idea that we could undermine The Fourth Estate can be used to stop any criticism about the press ever.

To a large extent they are in the middle of undermining themselves and reverting back to the Gilded Age model of newspapers being run as the mouthpieces of rich oligarchs, with reputations being gradually run down and newspapers like the Telegraph being asset stripped year on year to fund the lifestyles of their owners.

Taking the Daily Mail as an example - yes they do some real journalism (and push public campaigns on a fairly idiosyncratic basis). However the wardrobe-malfunction and outrage formula that they push the rest of the time, is not the necessary and sufficient condition which makes this take place.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe. But my money is still on BBC Radio 4.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Maybe. But my money is still on BBC Radio 4.

I've a lot of time for Eddie Mair - his interviewing style is very searching, and his pauses to pay out the hanging rope are works of art.

Humphreys is almost unlistenable to due to his trigger-reflex interruptions. Husain and Montague are mostly okay. Laura Kuennsberg, Nick Robinson less so. I've heard them give senior Tories so much slack recently, compared with their grillings of Labour politicians, that it's almost as if they've given up the pretence of being impartial.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've heard them give senior Tories so much slack recently, compared with their grillings of Labour politicians, that it's almost as if they've given up the pretence of being impartial.

Their foreign coverage will generally be thorough (for the same reason the FT and Economist will be thorough - it's hard to make money/decisions on the back of inaccurate information).

Their analysis will tend to be shaded from their biases - taking cues from the establishment, both in terms of acceptable explanations, and acceptable explainers. [As an example - At some point it was 'decided' by the PTB that economics trumps industry and around the same time the Beeb gradually phased out their 'industrial correspondents' - these days 'industrial news' will almost always be covered by their economics correspondent, with a supporting cast of city economists, and random people from the IEA/Adam Smith Institute/CBI etc.]

I assume the present views of the Labour party are seen as outside the establishments overton window, and the people who hold them aren't the kinds of grandees to which they are likely to show much respect - which leads to the behaviour you describe above.

[ 14. June 2017, 16:40: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Farron quits. Interesting: I thought he had quite a good campaign.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Farron quits. Interesting: I thought he had quite a good campaign.

It's quite sad. As a liberal evangelical, he was probably one of the few politicians who I thought shared the majority of my values and opinions. Loved his reference to Isaac Watts in his resignation speech.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A good friend of ours, a liberal evangelical who lives in Oxford, says she gets it in the neck from liberals who are very sceptical that evangelicals can be liberal, and from more traditional evangelicals who seem to see "liberal evangelical" as meaning something like "boiling ice".

Bloody stereotyping. Hate it.

[ 14. June 2017, 18:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.

Firstly what mr cheesy said. Secondly in the case of 2010 we only know about this second hand - at best - and therefore we don't know what level of seriousness was attached to that plan.
Is that so relevant? If the DUP are so toxic (and I'm not saying they aren't) then presumably to even broach a deal with them would be unthinkable? According to the Hillary Clinton e-mails, an 'economic package' was discussed. One of the men in and around those meetings (Alastair Campbell) is one of those now touring TV studios telling everyone how awful the prospect of a pact with the DUP, hence my pondering.

quote:
Lastly, it's the Conservatives that have run with the argument that a vote for Labour was actually a vote to be governed by the interests of a smaller part of the UK (in that case Scotland) and most recently that a vote for Labour was a vote to be governed by people with ties to terrorism.


This is true. I suppose - very paradoxically - they were right. After all, if more people had voted Tory we wouldn't be in this mess...

quote:
I assume your previous arguments re terrorism a few pages back were making an emotive point for political purposes, rather than anything more substantive.
Not at all.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The tabloid press has had its day. People, especially young people, saw through them this time.

As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
Young people get their news from twitter and Facebook. Not from the Mail or the Sun.

You might not like it. You might decry the journalistic standards of websites such as the Canary. But that's what happened, and will continue to happen. Labour, and Corbyn especially, outflanked the (almost universally hostile) press and did something different. Please acknowledge that.

I've always been a bit sniffy about social media and elections, but it certainly seems that i) Labour produced far better social media pieces / products* and ii) used it far more effectively to reach voters and actually encourage them to get out and vote. It'll be interesting to see whether this is a trend that continues. 2017 could be a game changer.

*is there a generic term for a piece of social media?

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
*is there a generic term for a piece of social media?
I can't think of one. "Tweet" seems to be the preferred word for something sent out on twitter, but for Facebook and other such sites I think people just say "post" or "posting".
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is that so relevant?

On the one hand 'no', because I don't carry a torch on for the Blairites. On the other hand, yes, because we don't know the provenance of the claim.

quote:

This is true. I suppose - very paradoxically - they were right. After all, if more people had voted Tory we wouldn't be in this mess...

Right, so as a result of not enough people voting Tory, the Tories are forced to enact the very strategms they warned against in very shrill terms. [Killing me]

quote:
Not at all.
I look forward your upcoming pages of posts with suitably serious furrowed brow on the topic of the Tory pact with the DUP.

[ 14. June 2017, 23:22: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tim Farron would have been well-advised to echo a more prominent (and perhaps wilier) Christian - 'Who am I to judge?'

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anglican't:
quote:
After all, if more people had voted Tory we wouldn't be in this mess...

Hello totalitarianism!

If the Tories had not made it distressingly obvious in both their manifesto and their election campaign that they didn't give a toss about education, or the NHS, or any of the other things that the electorate is actually concerned about, then more people might have voted for them. I expect they have the Sun and Daily Heil's backing to thank for the votes they did win.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Tim Farron would have been well-advised to echo a more prominent (and perhaps wilier) Christian - 'Who am I to judge?'

This is exactly what he tried to do, but he was not permitted to do it. He was criticised for not making a judgement, and forced to pronounce on an issue he would rather not have made any judgement upon.

In fact he was attempting to "keep religion and politics separate"; something which many of his critics say they are in favour of. But it turned out that they were not as much in favour of it as they said they were.

Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed: if he had something along the lines of "I personally am against gay sex, which is one of several reasons why I don't engage in it, but I won't stop anyone else from doing it or deny them equal marriage rights", then the media wouldn't have been satisfied with that either, doubtless.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is probably the case. The problem is that the whole topic is extremely toxic; LGBT+ people and their allies have reason to be suspicious of the political ambitions of anyone who considers their sexual relationships to be inherently sinful; history tells them to be wary.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think he was at fault in any way. The media got hold of the fact that he's an evanglical Christian, which he's never hidden and has never before been an issue, made the classic rookie mistake of "evangelical = wants to make homosexuality illegal" (a mistake because a) not all evangelicals consider homosexuality sinful, of those that do the vast majority do not consider the church has any role in defining what is or isn't legal). Once the more rabid elements of the media had that in their teeth they were never going to let go, no matter how much time and effort he put into trying to explain his position (which, almost by definition, he would have reached after considerable thought and would be fairly nuanced - especially compared to the straw man the media produced), time and effort that he really wanted to spend in promoting the manifesto and priorities of the LibDems in an election campaign. Unfortunately it's unlikely that the media will change, and if he'd remained as leader it would be a constant thorn in his side and a distraction from the LibDem message - hence his decision to step down.

Now, if only the media would go after Mrs May (who also confesses to being a Christian) about her views on feeding the poor, defending the weak against the powerful, healing the sick etc.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is probably the case. The problem is that the whole topic is extremely toxic; LGBT+ people and their allies have reason to be suspicious of the political ambitions of anyone who considers their sexual relationships to be inherently sinful; history tells them to be wary.

True, but it seems rather arcane to judge a man by a standard that he obviously doesn't live by. He has voted for gay marriage (amongst other liberal causes), so why is there a problem if he is personally/spiritually squeamish about it?

As I've said before, I believe gambling is disgusting, evil and sinful. If I was an MP and didn't vote against or abstain in votes about the way that the gambling and lottery laws work, am I being dishonest?

If I am, one might want to consider what is happening in Parliament at the moment. Not only are a large number of MPs who have no connection to Christianity swearing oaths on bibles (which, one might think, is a bit of a problem if one does actually believe in the contents), a number who profess to be republicans are affirming allegiance the Queen.

Why isn't this news? Why go after someone who has a personal faith position which is obviously not affecting his voting record rather than all of those people who are lying in public (sometimes even saying that they're doing so) and in one of the most important promises that they'll ever make.

[ 15. June 2017, 11:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because they knew it would get people talking and attract traffic?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because they knew it would get people talking and attract traffic?

I'm pretty sure it is virtue signaling. Easier to go after an individual about his personal faith position than to examine voting records.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Might be worth looking at the viewpoint of people who are actually (1) gay and (2) lib dems who have to work in his party

Brian Paddick resigned and David Laws has this to say


Tolerance not enough

quote:
But as a gay man, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views.

Homophobic attitudes have done enormous damage to our society and to so many millions of citizens over many years. Children are bullied, and some have even taken their lives, and still do. These attitudes are wholly unacceptable to a true liberal – as unacceptable as racism or sexism.

You do not remove homophobia from society by communicating as a political leader that same sex relationships are immoral, but should be “tolerated”.

It is immensely sad to me, as someone brought up in the Christian faith, that Tim cites his Christianity to defend his views on these issues. The Christianity that I know and respect has at its very heart the overriding principle: “love your neighbour as yourself”.

Ultimately to be a party leader, you need to model what your party believes in and show that you think it's good idea and that you're positive about it. Suppose you lead the Green Party and you won't say that fracking is wrong, however hard you're pressed, indeed you have shares in a company that fracks, and personally you never recycle and think it's a waste of time, though it's fine if other people want to do it...

Party leaders are not there to 'tolerate' core values of their parties, they're there to passionately advocate for them. Farron couldn't enthusiastically advocate for a core value in his party - so he wasn't a good fit for his party members and voters.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Might be worth looking at the viewpoint of people who are actually (1) gay and (2) lib dems who have to work in his party

Brian Paddick resigned and David Laws has this to say


Tolerance not enough

quote:
But as a gay man, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views.

With all possible respect to that author, it seems to me that this is exactly what Farron did. He did put his respect for human equality before his religious views.

[ 15. June 2017, 13:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Ultimately to be a party leader, you need to model what your party believes in and show that you think it's good idea and that you're positive about it. Suppose you lead the Green Party and you won't say that fracking is wrong, however hard you're pressed, indeed you have shares in a company that fracks, and personally you never recycle and think it's a waste of time, though it's fine if other people want to do it...

This is nonsense.

The liberal idea of society is that we have to get on with people we each - individually - find offensive. In a liberal society, we seek rules which are to the benefit of all - including those we disagree with and/or who have lifestyles we personally find disgusting.

The alternative is to say that evangelicals are not allowed to be part of mainstream society because their views are so abhorrent, no matter how often they've voted positively for the rights of everyone. Including those whose lifestyles they find disgusting.

quote:
Party leaders are not there to 'tolerate' core values of their parties, they're there to passionately advocate for them. Farron couldn't enthusiastically advocate for a core value in his party - so he wasn't a good fit for his party members and voters.
Tummy rot. In what sense was he somehow unenthusiastic about gay marriage.

This is really a case of shooting your friends because they happen to have chosen to support you for the wrong reasons.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618

 - Posted      Profile for TomM     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?

Farron apparently has a 'pro' voting record.

It is less clear that can be said for the leader of another major party...

Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?

In the words of the summary of his voting record on TheyWorkForYou, "generally": he voted against back in 2007, but has been pretty consistent in voting in favour since, with one absence in 2013 (which was before he became party leader).

ETA: x-posted with TomM

[ 15. June 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Stejjie ]

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?

Farron apparently has a 'pro' voting record.

It is less clear that can be said for the leader of another major party...

Being poor on human rights is already factored in if you're voting Tory.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
DaleMaily
Apprentice
# 18725

 - Posted      Profile for DaleMaily   Email DaleMaily   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm completely torn on the Farron issue (full disclosure: I am a Lib Dem (lapsed member) who voted for him as party leader, a full year before I became a Christian). My instinct is to agree with Ian Dunt, and this defence of Farron has actually helped me be a lot more tolerant and understanding of Christians who I know are either incredibly conflicted (as I suspect is the actual case with Farron) or who are totally "anti-Gay", but then when I read what David laws has just written I question myself again.

Where I completely agree with Farron is that I do not want my political leaders to be theologians or to lecture me about faith, and the bit that sticks in my throat the most is the hypocrisy of not going round asking every single Christian MP and peer (let's not let the Bishops of the hook!) what they think about it all. I don't want that to happen, but either you do it to everyone or you do it to no-one, right?

--------------------
The more I get to know the less I find that I understand.

Posts: 48 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2017  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools