| Anyone you know? on 09:44 - Sep 17 with 942 views | bluebud |
| Anyone you know? on 09:07 - Sep 17 by Smoresy |
Is it dying? I'd wager this site is at its most energetic when both sides are nearer full strength, and that plenty "enjoy" reading the rancour. TWTD was more harmonious during the summer suspensions but was it as busy? I didn't notice an upswell in quieter posters filling the void personally, and the view count indicates this is a popular one. |
Have a look at Bloots post above please.
Just because a post has 12 pages on here doesn't mean it's popular. A small band of posters multi posting furiously.
If you use stats for this thread to suggest the site is flourishing then I'd say the tactic is equivalent to view botting on YT/Twitch/Kick |  | |  |
| Anyone you know? on 10:00 - Sep 17 with 847 views | positivity |
| Anyone you know? on 09:17 - Sep 17 by ShortyBlue92 |
I’ve been listening to Charlie Kirk for a few years, personally I would describe him as a Conservative Christian
A very intelligent man who would openly debate with those that did not share his views
Not the behaviour of, what many are saying on here, a fascist |
keep drinking the kool aid.
he didn't openly debate, he tightly controlled them. he didn't display many facets of conservatives and very few of christ, much closer to those that define fascism |  |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:04 - Sep 17 with 829 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 08:47 - Sep 17 by lowhouseblue |
this is the exchange in full (no filleting):
GB in reply to Trequartista:
“Lowhouse was honest enough to post that he knew little to nothing about Charlie Kirk and asked for justification as to why Kirk was branded a fascist. I would imagine 99% of the people throwing around terms such as fascist had ever heard of him before the news broke of his murder either.
The only people I'd trust 100% on this thread when they say they knew about Charlie Kirk and what he stood for are Dan The Man, Kropotkin and Blueschev. Maybe Grizzers as well.
Oddly enough, a number of the people who downvoted me saying that I didn't believe the label fascist was appropriate when describing Charlie Kirk also upvoted Blueschev in a post where he said "I wouldn't call him a fascist". Which goes to show that a lot of people on here don't actually react to what is posted but rather to the people who are posting it and Lowhouse is certainly a victim of this.”
Your reply to GB:
“I did. I've even posted elsewhere where I've watched a debate with him and an Oxbridge student (can't remember if it's this thread or another).
Along with "imagine 99% of the people throwing around terms such as fascist had ever heard of him before the news broke of his murder either" ...you seem to be throwing around a lot of assumptions. Personally I'd imagine people calling him fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?
If you can't see what Lowhouse is doing then that's on you. Lot's of other people can see it.”
i continue to think that your justification for calling him a fascist - "Personally I'd imagine people calling him fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?" is very weak.
gb's initial post, which you replied to, was at two points explaining what i'd posted. you replied and included a further attack on me.
I genuinely have no idea what you're upset about. |
What you've conveniently left out is your initial response to me;
"your justification for the abuse directed to me by the usual crowd so far seems to be "I'd imagine people calling him fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?" - which amounts to "i saw a mob and joined in cos i thought that looked fun".
Your first quote has no relation to the second whatsover... and the third just doesn't make and sense at all. Either explain yourself or stop twisting, obfuscating and removing the context. |  |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:06 - Sep 17 with 815 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 08:52 - Sep 17 by lowhouseblue |
what we have here is a group who are incapable responding to challenge and who instead gang up on anyone whose views differ from theirs. they just post constant low level abuse. we've seen it numerous times in an attempt to bully posters off the site. it's intolerant, closed-minded, play ground stuff. |
There is no gang... other than normal people who don't like BS. | |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:09 - Sep 17 with 800 views | gtsb1966 |
| Anyone you know? on 08:16 - Sep 17 by bluebud |
This thread is TWTD at its absolute worst....full of the TWTD trolls and snipers that put people right off this site. Reductive trash identity politics topics which are pointless debating as there is no solution or most contributors just want to see the other side gone anyway.
Phil, this is why your site is dying. I mean my God man, how many posters on this thread have been banned or suspended multiple times. Get some conviction and drive this once wonderful site forwards again. [Post edited 17 Sep 8:19]
|
But you dont have to read it. If you did i could understand your rant but you dont so this thread shouldn't make any difference to your time on here. |  | | |
| Anyone you know? on 10:22 - Sep 17 with 715 views | lowhouseblue |
| Anyone you know? on 10:04 - Sep 17 by The_Flashing_Smile |
What you've conveniently left out is your initial response to me;
"your justification for the abuse directed to me by the usual crowd so far seems to be "I'd imagine people calling him fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?" - which amounts to "i saw a mob and joined in cos i thought that looked fun".
Your first quote has no relation to the second whatsover... and the third just doesn't make and sense at all. Either explain yourself or stop twisting, obfuscating and removing the context. |
my contention throughout the thread was that people were unable to justify why they were calling kirk a fascist. having pointed that out i was receiving the usual abuse from the usual gang. you then posted "If you can't see what Lowhouse is doing then that's on you. Lot's of other people can see it" apparently on the basis that the "people calling kirk fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?".
to me that felt like joining in with a mob on the basis of a very weak justification. that is what i meant and that is the point i was making. there is no twisting and obfuscating - i posted your exchange with gb in full.
i still can't see what you're not understanding. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:23 - Sep 17 with 731 views | tcblue |
| Anyone you know? on 10:09 - Sep 17 by gtsb1966 |
But you dont have to read it. If you did i could understand your rant but you dont so this thread shouldn't make any difference to your time on here. |
Are you suggesting it is contained within specific threads? | | | |
| Anyone you know? on 10:25 - Sep 17 with 693 views | lowhouseblue |
| Anyone you know? on 10:06 - Sep 17 by The_Flashing_Smile |
There is no gang... other than normal people who don't like BS. |
and again that's just a continuation of the same low level abuse that the same group of posters use again and again. constantly labelling what others post as bs is just abuse. i always set out my reasoning, if you disagree with it show why. don't just throw about labels and insults. | |
| 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 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Anyone you know? on 10:25 - Sep 17 with 716 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 09:17 - Sep 17 by ShortyBlue92 |
I’ve been listening to Charlie Kirk for a few years, personally I would describe him as a Conservative Christian
A very intelligent man who would openly debate with those that did not share his views
Not the behaviour of, what many are saying on here, a fascist |
I wouldn't really call it an open debate when his people would edit the videos afterwards to make him look better.
I asked ChatGPT;
Leaning toward fascism:
Authoritarian admiration: He often praises Trump’s strongman approach, dismisses checks and balances, and frames political opponents as existential threats.
Hyper-nationalism: He pushes a “true Americans vs. un-American elites/immigrants” narrative, which echoes fascist-style populism.
Propaganda & culture war: He uses Turning Point USA to spread a simplified, us-vs-them worldview.
Demonization of opposition: Opponents are not just wrong, but enemies of the nation — that’s a fascist rhetorical move. | |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:30 - Sep 17 with 689 views | wkj |
Long time reader, infrequent commenter
A whole bunch of you need some new material. Its as if debate is the equivalent of repeatedly w*nking off to the same page in the Littlewoods catalogue and then being surprised when nobody wants to read the spunky mess you keep blarting out. |  |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:31 - Sep 17 with 672 views | bluebud |
| Anyone you know? on 10:09 - Sep 17 by gtsb1966 |
But you dont have to read it. If you did i could understand your rant but you dont so this thread shouldn't make any difference to your time on here. |
I know I don't. I read the first 4 pages and a few others.
Though the point is....you don't have to read it if you've been a member of TWTD for a reasonable amount of time to know what it's going to consist of.....that's inescapable my friend.
You know the above paragraph is true and every other poster on TWTD as well as the admins do as well. Do you agree with it too? | | | |
| Anyone you know? on 10:35 - Sep 17 with 644 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 10:22 - Sep 17 by lowhouseblue |
my contention throughout the thread was that people were unable to justify why they were calling kirk a fascist. having pointed that out i was receiving the usual abuse from the usual gang. you then posted "If you can't see what Lowhouse is doing then that's on you. Lot's of other people can see it" apparently on the basis that the "people calling kirk fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?".
to me that felt like joining in with a mob on the basis of a very weak justification. that is what i meant and that is the point i was making. there is no twisting and obfuscating - i posted your exchange with gb in full.
i still can't see what you're not understanding. |
You've just gone back to filleting out all the context again!
"If you can't see what Lowhouse is doing then that's on you. Lot's of other people can see it" was just a comment on your general bad faith posting. It wasn't connected to the quote about why people thought Kirk was fascist. They were nowhere near each other in the post and yet you've removed everything in between to make them so!
I don't have an issue with the full post in exchange with GB. I have an issue with your response to me. The two parts you've linked were not linked, and I didn't make an excuse out of that or anything else, to "join a pile-on." This is a deliberate misreading of a post, filleting out the bits that don't fit, to build a straw man and make yourself the victim.
I've wasted enough time over this. You were wrong, that's the end of it. | |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:37 - Sep 17 with 624 views | baxterbasics |
Not really got much to contribute to this 'enlightening' discussion. Just curious how long we can make it last before thread is either locked or deleted. |  |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:43 - Sep 17 with 595 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 10:30 - Sep 17 by wkj |
Long time reader, infrequent commenter
A whole bunch of you need some new material. Its as if debate is the equivalent of repeatedly w*nking off to the same page in the Littlewoods catalogue and then being surprised when nobody wants to read the spunky mess you keep blarting out. |
I bet you got excited about how clever you are when you thought of that.
My question is, if you don't want to read it, why are you here, reading it? | |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:45 - Sep 17 with 586 views | wkj |
| Anyone you know? on 10:43 - Sep 17 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I bet you got excited about how clever you are when you thought of that.
My question is, if you don't want to read it, why are you here, reading it? |
I wasn't exclusively taking aim at you (or any one person specifically), its just where my reply landed in the thread. The essence of the comment is that this thread is clearly following the usual formula of people having a go at one another but under the shroud of a topic being debated. [Post edited 17 Sep 10:46]
| |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 10:51 - Sep 17 with 543 views | lowhouseblue |
| Anyone you know? on 10:35 - Sep 17 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You've just gone back to filleting out all the context again!
"If you can't see what Lowhouse is doing then that's on you. Lot's of other people can see it" was just a comment on your general bad faith posting. It wasn't connected to the quote about why people thought Kirk was fascist. They were nowhere near each other in the post and yet you've removed everything in between to make them so!
I don't have an issue with the full post in exchange with GB. I have an issue with your response to me. The two parts you've linked were not linked, and I didn't make an excuse out of that or anything else, to "join a pile-on." This is a deliberate misreading of a post, filleting out the bits that don't fit, to build a straw man and make yourself the victim.
I've wasted enough time over this. You were wrong, that's the end of it. |
again, you were replying to a gb post which said "Lowhouse was honest enough to post that he knew little to nothing about Charlie Kirk and asked for justification as to why Kirk was branded a fascist." and "Oddly enough, a number of the people who downvoted me saying that I didn't believe the label fascist was appropriate when describing Charlie Kirk also upvoted Blueschev in a post where he said "I wouldn't call him a fascist". Which goes to show that a lot of people on here don't actually react to what is posted but rather to the people who are posting it and Lowhouse is certainly a victim of this.”
it wasn't unreasonable of me to assume that your reply to gb was intended to be a response to the points he had made. your insult about me could also reasonably be taken to be a response to gb's points about me. what i was 'doing' was disputing people's reasons for calling kirk a fascist - how then could your weak justification of people calling him a fascist, in a reply to a post referencing me, and followed by your insult directed at me, not be relevant?
but this going nowhere. i'm afraid i can't see your logic in this at all. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 11:17 - Sep 17 with 473 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 10:45 - Sep 17 by wkj |
I wasn't exclusively taking aim at you (or any one person specifically), its just where my reply landed in the thread. The essence of the comment is that this thread is clearly following the usual formula of people having a go at one another but under the shroud of a topic being debated. [Post edited 17 Sep 10:46]
|
I didn't take it as aimed at me.
The question remains, why are you reading it if you don't like reading it? It's probably evident where the thread's going 3 posts in, and we're now on page 12! | |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 11:21 - Sep 17 with 439 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone you know? on 10:51 - Sep 17 by lowhouseblue |
again, you were replying to a gb post which said "Lowhouse was honest enough to post that he knew little to nothing about Charlie Kirk and asked for justification as to why Kirk was branded a fascist." and "Oddly enough, a number of the people who downvoted me saying that I didn't believe the label fascist was appropriate when describing Charlie Kirk also upvoted Blueschev in a post where he said "I wouldn't call him a fascist". Which goes to show that a lot of people on here don't actually react to what is posted but rather to the people who are posting it and Lowhouse is certainly a victim of this.”
it wasn't unreasonable of me to assume that your reply to gb was intended to be a response to the points he had made. your insult about me could also reasonably be taken to be a response to gb's points about me. what i was 'doing' was disputing people's reasons for calling kirk a fascist - how then could your weak justification of people calling him a fascist, in a reply to a post referencing me, and followed by your insult directed at me, not be relevant?
but this going nowhere. i'm afraid i can't see your logic in this at all. |
I've explained it really clearly.
You're trying to muddy the waters I've cleared rather than admit you were wrong.
I'm not bothering engaging with you anymore. | |
| |
| Anyone you know? on 11:33 - Sep 17 with 385 views | witchdoctor |
| Anyone you know? on 10:06 - Sep 17 by The_Flashing_Smile |
There is no gang... other than normal people who don't like BS. |
normal people….. [Post edited 17 Sep 11:36]
|  | | |
| Anyone you know? on 11:42 - Sep 17 with 336 views | eireblue |
| Anyone you know? on 22:52 - Sep 16 by lowhouseblue |
jeez. why are you trying to distort this. from the ons population estimates for england and wales published 30th july 2025:
change in population (ie annual increases) of england and wales:
2021 230,080
2022 618,067
2023 821,210
2024 706,881
that's a cumulative increase of some 2.37 million over the four years. obviously it excludes scotland which is why the 2.5 million i quoted earlier is higher. in that period total net migration was some 3 million.
so were it not for net immigration total population would have fallen slightly (births and deaths and i guess covid), but instead it rose by 2.5 million if scotland is included. that's a substantial rise in population entirely accounted for by net migration.
quoting ons statistics is not pandering to anyone - trying to misrepresent the picture and pretending that a country can have net migration of 3 million without total population rising is frankly bizarre.
the article you have linked also includes the ons population projection for the next 10 years. it is:
0.5 million more births than deaths (approx 50,000 a year)
6.1 million net immigration (approx 600,000 a year)
6.6 million increase in total population (approx 650,000 a year).
this is the exact same pattern that the statistics show for the past 4 years. so even the article you've linked shows substantial total population growth which is almost entirely explained by net immigration.
what a strange thing to try to dispute. |
Okay, so you are now agreeing, the correct metric to look at is population growth.
Not an inflated figure, to imply population growth larger than it is.
Why use a particular stat, like OMG 3 Million immigrants, in a short period of time.
Why not, over the last 20 years, population has increased by 8.6 Million.
Or why not use a small accurate number.
Population growth over last 20 years has roughly been at 0.67%
At the moment, it as at about 1%
Yep, look around, for every 100 people you can see today, next year you will see a staggering, 101.
Yep let’s blame that additional 1% for all the countries wows. And conflate that with “illegal” migrants, the majority of which are refugees.
Yep, you carry on pandering to Farage.
How is it going with Benters, is he wavering yet? |  | | |
| Too late…. on 11:49 - Sep 17 with 306 views | Bloots |
| Anyone you know? on 09:44 - Sep 17 by bluebud |
Have a look at Bloots post above please.
Just because a post has 12 pages on here doesn't mean it's popular. A small band of posters multi posting furiously.
If you use stats for this thread to suggest the site is flourishing then I'd say the tactic is equivalent to view botting on YT/Twitch/Kick |
….it got deleted.
Strange given that no posters were mentioned, it was just a comment on the way this site is at the moment.
Maybe it was because a said “div”, perhaps I should have said “c***” cos they don’t get deleted.
Funny old game. |  |
| "Trite Sixth-Form Politics” - TWTD User (Sept 2025) |
| |
| Too late…. on 11:55 - Sep 17 with 285 views | PhilTWTD |
| Too late…. on 11:49 - Sep 17 by Bloots |
….it got deleted.
Strange given that no posters were mentioned, it was just a comment on the way this site is at the moment.
Maybe it was because a said “div”, perhaps I should have said “c***” cos they don’t get deleted.
Funny old game. |
It's just getting very tedious, just having a pop at users you don't like or disagree with without seeking to debate the issue.
Further to that, there does seem a tendency from some to defend the indefensible simply to take a contrary view to posters they don't particularly like. |  | | |
| Well two points…. on 12:08 - Sep 17 with 199 views | Bloots |
| Too late…. on 11:55 - Sep 17 by PhilTWTD |
It's just getting very tedious, just having a pop at users you don't like or disagree with without seeking to debate the issue.
Further to that, there does seem a tendency from some to defend the indefensible simply to take a contrary view to posters they don't particularly like. |
….1. Who did I have a “pop” at?
2. I haven’t defended anything “indefensible” or not.
If you want a selection of posts where people are doing both of those things then I’m sure it could be provided, but I won’t be involved. | |
| "Trite Sixth-Form Politics” - TWTD User (Sept 2025) |
| |
| Well two points…. on 12:10 - Sep 17 with 191 views | PhilTWTD |
| Well two points…. on 12:08 - Sep 17 by Bloots |
….1. Who did I have a “pop” at?
2. I haven’t defended anything “indefensible” or not.
If you want a selection of posts where people are doing both of those things then I’m sure it could be provided, but I won’t be involved. |
1 A group of unnamed posters you spoke about in less than glowing terms.
2 I didn't suggest you did. | | | |
| Anyone you know? on 12:18 - Sep 17 with 135 views | wkj |
| Anyone you know? on 11:17 - Sep 17 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I didn't take it as aimed at me.
The question remains, why are you reading it if you don't like reading it? It's probably evident where the thread's going 3 posts in, and we're now on page 12! |
Simply stated, I am reading because I can and that social issues and politics interest me - and then once I could see that the debate at hand was becoming more obfuscated by personal sniping and prodding, I commented about the situation I could see.
The essence of the post I made is essentially the same as what you are stating here:
[Post edited 17 Sep 12:19]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
