| I was talking to..... on 21:16 - Feb 16 with 2250 views | J2BLUE |
| I was talking to..... on 21:13 - Feb 16 by Herbivore |
What you're saying is your perspective. Other perspectives are available. |
Absolutely.
Begrudgingly I quite like you Herb. |  |
|  |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 21:52 - Feb 16 with 2160 views | DJR |
Who'd've thunk it?
A thread largely concerned with limits on free speech has reached 9 pages. [Post edited 16 Feb 21:54]
|  | | |
| I was talking to..... on 22:02 - Feb 16 with 2103 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
As you asked so nicely.
For many years now this board has had two groups of posters who don't really agree on much politically and perhaps socially. It's a delicate balance. With GB gone and the other side growing in number by the week the board is now not much fun. To join that side it seems you have to leave your personality at the door and become a dour joyless member of the TWTD board police demanding answers and treating the board like it's the House of Commons. It's been sad to see a number of previously excellent posters get radicalised and patrol the board looking for things to be offended by.
They also have an excellent propaganda department where they frequently project their own actions on to the rest of us. The classic being the 'running to Phil' line while they are running to Phil and waving the imaginary yellow cards.
I realise some won't agree but you asked so I answered.
I now wait for the inevitable 12 responses from that side who will completely rewrite history and then pat each other on the back. Bingo card at the ready for all the buzzwords. I'll take disingenuous as my free square.
 |
Just for clarity which group am I/the 6th form in? |  |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 22:35 - Feb 16 with 2003 views | Herbivore |
| I was talking to..... on 21:16 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
Absolutely.
Begrudgingly I quite like you Herb. |
Likewise, although not begrudgingly on my part. |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:00 - Feb 16 with 1953 views | vapour_trail |
John Major is an underrated guy. Achieved more than most PMs of my lifetime in office and has served as more of a voice of reason of any former PM for my money over that period. |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:17 - Feb 16 with 1924 views | Herbivore |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:00 - Feb 16 by vapour_trail |
John Major is an underrated guy. Achieved more than most PMs of my lifetime in office and has served as more of a voice of reason of any former PM for my money over that period. |
Even as a full on commie, I can't help but respect John Major. Did a pretty decent job as PM with moribund Thatcherite Tory party, played a role in the NI peace process, and has expressed a lot of eminently sensible views on the state of politics in his retirement. Regardless of party politics, we could do with a few more like him around now for sure. | |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:33 - Feb 16 with 1890 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:00 - Feb 16 by vapour_trail |
John Major is an underrated guy. Achieved more than most PMs of my lifetime in office and has served as more of a voice of reason of any former PM for my money over that period. |
i think brown has been very good too, but major is head and shoulders over the others! |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I was talking to..... on 23:42 - Feb 16 with 1870 views | positivity |
| I was talking to..... on 21:00 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
I've been specific in the past.
I don't want it to end up in a full scale slanging match where Phil has to come on here on a Sunday and play teacher. We're all adults.
From that post it's pretty clear you don't see everything. Not a criticism, you probably have better things to do but smear implies what i'm saying isn't true.
This site needs an ignore function fit for purpose. That would take some work and I don't expect it for free. Happy to pay either one off or a subscription for a proper ignore function. It would solve a lot of issues. |
i'd also argue that you (and me...) don't see everything too. there's only a handful of posters who deflect, troll and resort to abuse on here, plenty can debate respectfully, but there's also personality clashes.
i've had many disagreements with gb and banksy, but always found them willing to explain and debate. however, put them together and they don't always do that!
most of the more abusive characters or those with nastier views have gone over the years (zapers/darth/europa/callis/paz etc), so phil gets it dead right most of the time! [Post edited 17 Feb 0:04]
| |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:45 - Feb 16 with 1863 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 19:31 - Feb 16 by SWBlue22 |
Wow what a predictable response. |
more predictable is that you weren't able to defend vance's specific comments/lies! | |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:44 - Feb 17 with 1803 views | SWBlue22 |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 23:45 - Feb 16 by positivity |
more predictable is that you weren't able to defend vance's specific comments/lies! |
Why a lot of what he's saying was spot on and it's upset a few people. They do say the truth hurts. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 06:25 - Feb 17 with 1679 views | iamatractorboy |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:44 - Feb 17 by SWBlue22 |
Why a lot of what he's saying was spot on and it's upset a few people. They do say the truth hurts. |
So, stuff like we shouldn't be mean to N*zis? Or have I got it wrong? You'll have to be a bit more specific because I don't want to build a strawman. | | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 08:20 - Feb 17 with 1595 views | Churchman |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:44 - Feb 17 by SWBlue22 |
Why a lot of what he's saying was spot on and it's upset a few people. They do say the truth hurts. |
Some of what hillbilly Vance said had merit.
Where he said to whom, publicly at a forum that was not arranged for that was bang out of order.
It might be refreshing to hear cards on the table stuff but not then, not there. It was rude, boorish and in the long term self harming for the US.
Trump and his fellow mugs have not just given away a country in Ukraine (yes a rump will be retained at European expensed for a short while for the US to plunder for nothing, minerals wise) but has given away trust.
It’s hard to gain trust and easy to lose and once gone you don’t get it back in a hurry if ever. From US perspective, what have the gained by destroying NATO? the only thing I can think of is a better negotiated deal with Putin and China on nuclear weapons and a chance to then save on their own defence budget.
Not much of a return for the loss of US influence and consequently reducing trade around the world. If you were Starmer and had finished reading your Arsenal programme would you be interested in pursuing a trade deal with Trump? I wouldn’t be. He and his peculiar poodles cannot be trusted.
As for his art of the deal, Vance’s rant only bolstered Putin and showed a new reality warts n all to Americas former allies. Add in giving Putin what he wants before even sitting down with him and dealmaker Trump makes pathetic Neville Chamberlain look like businessman of the year for his efforts in 1938.
Back to oafish Vance when alls said and done, thanks for the lecture, but for your rudeness do one. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 08:36 - Feb 17 with 1553 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 00:44 - Feb 17 by SWBlue22 |
Why a lot of what he's saying was spot on and it's upset a few people. They do say the truth hurts. |
which bit was truth?
the bit where he said it was illegal for people to pray in their own homes in scotland?
the bit where he criticised sweden for the fact that it's free expression laws don't give a ‘free pass’ to do or say anything?
you're going to have to help us out here! | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 08:52 - Feb 17 with 1501 views | blueasfook |
| I was talking to..... on 19:39 - Feb 16 by StokieBlue |
I'm getting a bit bored of this narrative being pushed, not a dig at you Swanners but more the fact many didn't see what was going on.
He's gone heavy on a lot of people a lot of times, he's had to apologise to me numerous times and to be honest even after that he continued. Why not ask Phil why he banned him rather than constructing a narrative on the forums?
As for the Dolly incident, he went far more than heavy, realised he was in trouble so deleted it, then posted it again then deleted it again. He did this all the time, the attack then delete methodology was an often seen playbook.
People have been banned for far less than what GB did on a regular basis. Being a long term poster doesn't give you the right to provoke, poke, belittle and in the end attack other posters.
If he comes back after some reflection a new and improved person then so be it but this painting of him as the victim is ridiculous.
SB |
Nothing personal in your point of view here I'm sure. |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:49 - Feb 17 with 1365 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 18:45 - Feb 16 by Kropotkin123 |
No, it's some people that hold a different opinion to you. Not "the shout left", it includes people who demonstrate options from the left and the centre that disagree with you.
Fwiw, as someone who neither agrees nor disagrees with you position on human rights, the way you specifically articulate them and who you choose to defend and posts where you have been absent from doesn't correlated to living in a liberal bubble.
It actually comes across as disingenuous, like you don't care about human rights and only want to use them to defend obnoxious and hateful speech.
The way you display shock when people talk about nuances adds to this disingenuous feel to your posts on human rights. As does creating the left as a straw man to rally against.
Now that may not be your intention. I don't know you or your motivations. But if you genuinely care about advancing or protecting human rights, then seeing a more even distribution of who's human rights you are prepared to go to this level to defend, working within the nuances of debate, and debating the issue not fictitious groups would help your case.
In relation to the issue itself, it doesn't shock me that people on the left, centre or right justify limiting the speech of others because it isn't a left right issue. It is an up down issue. Authority Vs liberty, not cooperation Vs competition. [Post edited 16 Feb 19:04]
|
"In relation to the issue itself, it doesn't shock me that people on the left, centre or right justify limiting the speech of others because it isn't a left right issue."
i made it clear throughout that this isn't a left right issue. authoritarians of all colours want to 'limit the speech of others'.
"only want to use them to defend obnoxious and hateful speech." that's how free speech works. you don't need to defend the right to say uncontroversial things or things you agree with. no one is arguing to limit things they agree with. its is only things that subjectively different people consider "obnoxious and hateful" that they want to limit. if you want to defend free speech you have to defend stuff that others disagree with. didn't voltaire point that out? jeez.
"seeing a more even distribution of who's human rights you are prepared to go to this level to defend" again, i post when i disagree with stuff. on here, thankfully, the only human right that is routinely rubbished is the right to free speech. therefore, i disagree with that and therefore that's what i tend to post in opposition to.
more generally, all my posting on politics tends to be responsive. i don't tend to start threads. i only post when i disagree with something. my posting tends therefore to be a product of what others post - and various people post illiberal and intolerant stuff which i then respond to.
"posts where you have been absent from". jeez. not posting is not an expression of opinion. there is no compulsion to add to every thread, or to approvingly repeat what others have posted. and absence from a thread can't be read as anything other than an absence from a thread. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 10:22 - Feb 17 with 1294 views | lowhouseblue |
| I was talking to..... on 18:46 - Feb 16 by Herbivore |
I think again this is a very idealistic and naive take. You can reason with people, you can offer them evidence, but we're firmly in a post-truth era and lots of people don't care about facts and evidence anymore. If people don't want to engage in debate, don't want to talk about or offer evidence, then how exactly do you begin the debate, let alone win it? |
ok, my final post on this thread (hurrah).
"If people don't want to engage in debate, don't want to talk about or offer evidence, then how exactly do you begin the debate, let alone win it?"
in politics you're never going to convince everyone. you can't achieve 100% compliance with your views. some people are lost to reason. the vast majority aren't. through debate, challenging nonsense, providing evidence, using reason, you will convince a good number of the reasonable majority who are observing the debate. that's all you need to do. if your opponents won't engage in debate that will also be seen.
what i can absolutely guarantee you won't win you the debate is trying to silence those you disagree with. of course their views will still be heard, but they will have the status of being non-establishment and seen as a form of resistance and something those in power want to hide. and, once silenced, they won't be publicly challenged and proven to be wrong.
but we come back to something we've already know we disagree on. you believe "lots of people don't care about facts and evidence anymore". i don't believe that - or at least i believe that we have a large majority of the population who are reasonable and who respond to evidence and logic. there may be some exceptions, but in general, even though they reach conclusions you disagree with, a majority of people, across all socio-economic classes, respond to reasoned debate. the fact that they may not always agree with you isn't evidence to the contrary. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 10:26 - Feb 17 with 1278 views | DanTheMan |
| I was talking to..... on 10:22 - Feb 17 by lowhouseblue |
ok, my final post on this thread (hurrah).
"If people don't want to engage in debate, don't want to talk about or offer evidence, then how exactly do you begin the debate, let alone win it?"
in politics you're never going to convince everyone. you can't achieve 100% compliance with your views. some people are lost to reason. the vast majority aren't. through debate, challenging nonsense, providing evidence, using reason, you will convince a good number of the reasonable majority who are observing the debate. that's all you need to do. if your opponents won't engage in debate that will also be seen.
what i can absolutely guarantee you won't win you the debate is trying to silence those you disagree with. of course their views will still be heard, but they will have the status of being non-establishment and seen as a form of resistance and something those in power want to hide. and, once silenced, they won't be publicly challenged and proven to be wrong.
but we come back to something we've already know we disagree on. you believe "lots of people don't care about facts and evidence anymore". i don't believe that - or at least i believe that we have a large majority of the population who are reasonable and who respond to evidence and logic. there may be some exceptions, but in general, even though they reach conclusions you disagree with, a majority of people, across all socio-economic classes, respond to reasoned debate. the fact that they may not always agree with you isn't evidence to the contrary. |
Your last paragraph is probably the main difference between yourself and people like Herbs or myself. |  |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 10:44 - Feb 17 with 1208 views | Herbivore |
| I was talking to..... on 10:22 - Feb 17 by lowhouseblue |
ok, my final post on this thread (hurrah).
"If people don't want to engage in debate, don't want to talk about or offer evidence, then how exactly do you begin the debate, let alone win it?"
in politics you're never going to convince everyone. you can't achieve 100% compliance with your views. some people are lost to reason. the vast majority aren't. through debate, challenging nonsense, providing evidence, using reason, you will convince a good number of the reasonable majority who are observing the debate. that's all you need to do. if your opponents won't engage in debate that will also be seen.
what i can absolutely guarantee you won't win you the debate is trying to silence those you disagree with. of course their views will still be heard, but they will have the status of being non-establishment and seen as a form of resistance and something those in power want to hide. and, once silenced, they won't be publicly challenged and proven to be wrong.
but we come back to something we've already know we disagree on. you believe "lots of people don't care about facts and evidence anymore". i don't believe that - or at least i believe that we have a large majority of the population who are reasonable and who respond to evidence and logic. there may be some exceptions, but in general, even though they reach conclusions you disagree with, a majority of people, across all socio-economic classes, respond to reasoned debate. the fact that they may not always agree with you isn't evidence to the contrary. |
That last point is where we disagree, for sure. I also don't want to silence people and I don't think anyone is genuinely suggesting that either (which is perhaps another area where we disagree). I'm happy to engage with people I don't agree with but often there isn't much, if anything at all, coming back. Take the poster with a Trump avatar professing agreement with Vance on this thread. He's been asked a few times to elaborate on what he agrees with specifically and why, and how he feels about the things Vance said that are demonstrably false. He's offered nothing in return. That's not an isolated experience, unfortunately, which is why I don't necessarily share your view that the majority of people are interested in evidence and reasoned debate. | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 10:46 - Feb 17 with 1201 views | J2BLUE |
| I was talking to..... on 22:35 - Feb 16 by Herbivore |
Likewise, although not begrudgingly on my part. |
Same here to be honest but we don't want to start being too nice to each other do we?  | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 11:11 - Feb 17 with 1117 views | Herbivore |
| I was talking to..... on 10:46 - Feb 17 by J2BLUE |
Same here to be honest but we don't want to start being too nice to each other do we? |
We don't want to be ostracised from our cliques for being nice to the other side, you massive ballbag.  | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 11:20 - Feb 17 with 1062 views | leitrimblue |
| I was talking to..... on 11:11 - Feb 17 by Herbivore |
We don't want to be ostracised from our cliques for being nice to the other side, you massive ballbag. |
To late your outta the bumfest  |  | | |
| I was talking to..... on 11:48 - Feb 17 with 971 views | DJR |
| I was talking to..... on 10:22 - Feb 17 by lowhouseblue |
ok, my final post on this thread (hurrah).
"If people don't want to engage in debate, don't want to talk about or offer evidence, then how exactly do you begin the debate, let alone win it?"
in politics you're never going to convince everyone. you can't achieve 100% compliance with your views. some people are lost to reason. the vast majority aren't. through debate, challenging nonsense, providing evidence, using reason, you will convince a good number of the reasonable majority who are observing the debate. that's all you need to do. if your opponents won't engage in debate that will also be seen.
what i can absolutely guarantee you won't win you the debate is trying to silence those you disagree with. of course their views will still be heard, but they will have the status of being non-establishment and seen as a form of resistance and something those in power want to hide. and, once silenced, they won't be publicly challenged and proven to be wrong.
but we come back to something we've already know we disagree on. you believe "lots of people don't care about facts and evidence anymore". i don't believe that - or at least i believe that we have a large majority of the population who are reasonable and who respond to evidence and logic. there may be some exceptions, but in general, even though they reach conclusions you disagree with, a majority of people, across all socio-economic classes, respond to reasoned debate. the fact that they may not always agree with you isn't evidence to the contrary. |
As Bill McLaren might have said.
There'll be rejoicing in the streets of Ipswich. [Post edited 17 Feb 11:49]
| | | |
| I was talking to..... on 11:51 - Feb 17 with 955 views | Herbivore |
| I was talking to..... on 11:20 - Feb 17 by leitrimblue |
To late your outta the bumfest |
I thought my WhatsApp notifications had gone a bit quiet. | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 12:11 - Feb 17 with 899 views | J2BLUE |
| I was talking to..... on 11:51 - Feb 17 by Herbivore |
I thought my WhatsApp notifications had gone a bit quiet. |
Knew it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
