By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The split in the far-right vote on 08:09 - Feb 19 by StokieBlue
Why don't you counter the point and prove him wrong by actually answering peoples questions rather than making a childish remark?
People are fed up with you posting one-line soundbites. You've repeatedly been asked to back up things with evidence and refuse.
Any pushback you're getting is of your own making.
SB
Really don't think indulging him and making every thread possible about him is good for the board. He's been doing it for years, before and after bans.
He's got no interest in anything beyond making as much as possible about him whatever the context.
The split in the far-right vote on 23:45 - Feb 18 by JackNorthStand
Ha ha thats a fair point.
I read the article you shared, some of which I can agree with and some I don’t. My post was legitimate about questioning the value of the article with what I read about hope not hate.
And yet you've used Mallard UK as your source for suggesting Hope Not Hate might not be a reliable source. Mallard UK is a right wing, somewhat fringe source. Yet you don't seem to have subjected that source to any scrutiny whatsoever. Why?
The split in the far-right vote on 23:50 - Feb 18 by StokieBlue
You're just proving my point.
You've not provided any evidence of it not being balanced, your just questioning the balance as it doesn't support your world view.
SB
A source, of which the authoring organisation is known for left wing political activism is not a balanced source. We may disagree but that part isn’t up for debate.
Someone pointed out that Mallard UK isn’t either as it’s known for right wing bias - which after looking into I can also accept.
Because we disagree on certain things doesn’t mean every part of every post has to be disagreed with.
Also, you don’t need to sign off your posts with your usernames initials, I can see your username with the post in case you weren’t aware.
-5
The split in the far-right vote on 08:52 - Feb 19 with 654 views
The split in the far-right vote on 20:57 - Feb 18 by JackNorthStand
Thanks for sharing. I looked into hope not hate and can see they are left wing political activists so I’m unsure how balanced the article is.
“Hope Not Hate is a self-described “anti-fascist” pressure group based in the United Kingdom. It was founded in 2004 by communist-affiliated Nick Lowles after the antecedent group, Searchlight, of which Lowles was a co-editor, abused its charitable status by engaging in political activism.”
Source: Mallard UK
Do you think "anti-facist" is a bad thing?
edit: I see this question has been adequately posed in the meantime! (if not answered for some reason)
[Post edited 19 Feb 8:58]
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
The split in the far-right vote on 08:52 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
A source, of which the authoring organisation is known for left wing political activism is not a balanced source. We may disagree but that part isn’t up for debate.
Someone pointed out that Mallard UK isn’t either as it’s known for right wing bias - which after looking into I can also accept.
Because we disagree on certain things doesn’t mean every part of every post has to be disagreed with.
Also, you don’t need to sign off your posts with your usernames initials, I can see your username with the post in case you weren’t aware.
So you've accepted the view of one biased source over another you perceive to be biased based on your own biased source. Righto.
The split in the far-right vote on 08:52 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
A source, of which the authoring organisation is known for left wing political activism is not a balanced source. We may disagree but that part isn’t up for debate.
Someone pointed out that Mallard UK isn’t either as it’s known for right wing bias - which after looking into I can also accept.
Because we disagree on certain things doesn’t mean every part of every post has to be disagreed with.
Also, you don’t need to sign off your posts with your usernames initials, I can see your username with the post in case you weren’t aware.
"A source, of which the authoring organisation is known for left wing political activism is not a balanced source. We may disagree but that part isn’t up for debate."
Once again this isn't the point. You need to engage with the content rather than attack the source. I am glad you realise your own source also has bias but it doesn't mean you shouldn't engage in the content of the link that was posted.
"Also, you don’t need to sign off your posts with your usernames initials, I can see your username with the post in case you weren’t aware."
Not really up to you what I do and given I've been doing it for nearly 30 years on here I think I'll carry on thanks. I do notice that when people don't actually want to debate they go straight for this point though, good to see that rule holds true.
SB
5
The split in the far-right vote on 09:07 - Feb 19 with 598 views
The split in the far-right vote on 08:52 - Feb 19 by NthQldITFC
Do you think "anti-facist" is a bad thing?
edit: I see this question has been adequately posed in the meantime! (if not answered for some reason)
[Post edited 19 Feb 8:58]
If the author is engaged in political activism, it would be fair to suspect the article is biased to align with their political views. Would you say that’s fair ?
0
The split in the far-right vote on 09:08 - Feb 19 with 594 views
The split in the far-right vote on 23:51 - Feb 18 by reusersfreekicks
It really isn't legitimate. Your source was shit We should all be thankful for the work hope not hate do in exposing extremists with a penchant for violence. You are considering voting for people who would have had us siding with Hitler in the 30s. If that's what you believe we should have done fill your boots
What makes you think restore Britain would “ have us siding with hitler in the 30s” ?
0
The split in the far-right vote on 09:10 - Feb 19 with 585 views
The split in the far-right vote on 08:59 - Feb 19 by StokieBlue
"A source, of which the authoring organisation is known for left wing political activism is not a balanced source. We may disagree but that part isn’t up for debate."
Once again this isn't the point. You need to engage with the content rather than attack the source. I am glad you realise your own source also has bias but it doesn't mean you shouldn't engage in the content of the link that was posted.
"Also, you don’t need to sign off your posts with your usernames initials, I can see your username with the post in case you weren’t aware."
Not really up to you what I do and given I've been doing it for nearly 30 years on here I think I'll carry on thanks. I do notice that when people don't actually want to debate they go straight for this point though, good to see that rule holds true.
SB
I did engage and said I agree with some points and not others. Listing all would be exhaustive and we could go on forever.
As I said just because we disagree on some things, doesn’t mean mean we need to disagree on all parts of every post. There will be some common ground somewhere.
0
The split in the far-right vote on 09:12 - Feb 19 with 582 views
The split in the far-right vote on 09:07 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
If the author is engaged in political activism, it would be fair to suspect the article is biased to align with their political views. Would you say that’s fair ?
I'm not sure biased is the right word. One sided is fair, but that's where the individual has to look into the other side.
You aren't challenging whether what they say is true or not. Why? Why are you dismissing it without looking? If they are wrong then it would be easy to cut them down.
Having an agenda doesn't mean they are lying, especially when it's an agenda of simply not being tw@ts to fellow humans.
6
The split in the far-right vote on 09:22 - Feb 19 with 560 views
The split in the far-right vote on 09:07 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
If the author is engaged in political activism, it would be fair to suspect the article is biased to align with their political views. Would you say that’s fair ?
I'm guessing on that basis you don't believe any of the press or TV outlets like GB News given that they are all, to some extent, engaged in political activism by actively pushing their political agenda. Or is political activism only s problem when it's not your politics being pushed?
The split in the far-right vote on 09:07 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
If the author is engaged in political activism, it would be fair to suspect the article is biased to align with their political views. Would you say that’s fair ?
Almost all sources are biased, it is very difficult not to be. There's nothing wrong with that if said bias is backed by an evidence based, credible argument.
4
The split in the far-right vote on 09:46 - Feb 19 with 493 views
Restore brings to mind this song by Woody Guthrie.
And I bet you didn't know that Guthrie wrote a song about Trump's father because of his racist housing policies. As the saying goes, like father, like son.
[Post edited 19 Feb 11:40]
0
The split in the far-right vote on 10:45 - Feb 19 with 430 views
The split in the far-right vote on 09:23 - Feb 19 by Herbivore
I'm guessing on that basis you don't believe any of the press or TV outlets like GB News given that they are all, to some extent, engaged in political activism by actively pushing their political agenda. Or is political activism only s problem when it's not your politics being pushed?
I understand your point about biased sources, but I would say that media outlets and campaign groups are totally different.
Political activism isn’t a problem, but back to the original reply linking me to a hope not hate article on restore Britain, I suggested this may be a one sided view. Which is a fair.
I stated that I agree with some parts of the article from hope not hate and some I did not agree with. To elaborate a little on that, some parts of the article are fact based and others opinion based
I then agreed with another poster that mallard UK may not be the best source, as the poster pointed out this is known for being very right.
I’m not really sure where else you want to go with this ?
0
The split in the far-right vote on 10:50 - Feb 19 with 409 views
The split in the far-right vote on 08:31 - Feb 19 by Herbivore
And yet you've used Mallard UK as your source for suggesting Hope Not Hate might not be a reliable source. Mallard UK is a right wing, somewhat fringe source. Yet you don't seem to have subjected that source to any scrutiny whatsoever. Why?
[Post edited 19 Feb 8:33]
I’d never heard of them and it’s hard to find out much information about them or who funds them. Their writers appear to be very young Turning Point UK types. I’ve only searched for a few of them, as life’s too short!, but none I’ve found seem to be writing for anywhere else. I only found one with a public profiles and he has a day job in Marks and Sparks:
The split in the far-right vote on 10:51 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
Being right or far-right alone, doesn’t make somebody a Nazi.
No, but politically it puts you a lot closer to the fascists than it does to western liberalism or social democracy. Back in the 30s nobody knew that the Nazis were looking to commit genocide and there were British political parties back then who look an awful lot like Reform and Restore do now who were aligning themselves with fascist movements across Europe, including in Germany and Italy.
The split in the far-right vote on 09:08 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand
What makes you think restore Britain would “ have us siding with hitler in the 30s” ?
If genuinely interested, look up the reporting around jews and immigrants just before world War Two by the same newspapers and the words used and the encouragement by similar politicians at that time. It is history repeating. A quick Google for reference as it's not an area I'm expert in suggests:
Use of the term 'alien' was crowned and popularized.
Immigrants from the war were deemed criminals and a burden
Fears that immigrants would subvert the systems
Migrants taking jobs, use of influx and wave
Talk of being full up and at capacity
Preoccupation with national purity, racial homogony and different races being a threat to national stability.
"In summary, pre-WWII reporting on immigration in Britain was rarely neutral, often serving to justify restrictive legislation through the framing of immigrants as an economic or security threat. "
They alligned perfectly with many of the nazi tropes, and it's exactly what the likes of restore and reform at the very very least constantly dog whistle at.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
