Forum Replies Created
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
Maybe Peter Swann isn’t planning on building flats in place of Glanford Park. He’s wanting to turn it into a Gulag. :-O
1 user thanked author for this post.
NI hasn’t posted an ad-hominem. It’s not addressing any argument of yours. It’s a quote of Gandhi’s opinion.
1 user thanked author for this post.
We did warn them about how he has all the loyalty of a serpent. :-)
1 user thanked author for this post.
A reason why conspiracy theories appeal is because they reduce what are complex topics into a distilled and simple worldview which is easy to understand and reduces uncertainty. The problem with trying to deal with complexity is that the solutions are not easy, nor are they without issues. Making it all because of a insidious group’s bidding makes it easier to pin down, reducing the anxiety.
As Deerey says, a lot of the issues over our lives and how free we are come down to technology. However, this isn’t complex. There have been many wonders of technology, which has led to breakthroughs in science and medicine, helping us to live longer lives. However, the ability of our phones to store information has made us easy to track and monitor, which can be abused by authoritarian regimes. The improvement of AI has allowed countries like China to monitor dissidents far easier and restrict freedom. Growing access to social media has connected us to the world and has enabled us to easily talk to friends or family who live far away, and make friends we never would have normally made pre-internet. However, people have siphoned off into their echo chambers, where they surround themselves with people who agree with them on most things, so don’t expose themselves to challenging thought. Information is readily available from the search of Google. However, various groups of all stripes send disinformation across social media and the internet, allowing people to comfort their own opinion than truly challenge it with evidence based dissent.
There are many problems here which affect people to be free. However, the idea that it’s all some neo-Marxist plot takes some believing. I am aware you say that it’s not traditional Marxism, BPG, but what you are referring to is still stemming from Marxism (according to the proponents of this) and of the left. Yet, many countries and societies are losing freedom from the right. Facebook aren’t harvesting data from you for some neo-Marxist conspiracy; they do it, because it makes them a profit from who they sell it to. Hungary, Russia and India* are losing their freedoms to dissent because of a right wing ideology. Of course leftist dictatorial states still exist (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba), but to portray all of modern problems as a simplistic, good v bad narrative, where only a leftist faction is to blame is rather fanciful.
*And they justify their turn to tyranny as opposition to cultural Marxism.
2 users thanked author for this post.
I know the portrayed difference; you have specified. It’s still stupid and the idea of it leading to deaths and misery, as suggested, is only believed by the gullible.
1 user thanked author for this post.
There doesn’t need to be for someone who is talking about catastrophic deaths from Marxism in the UK during 21st century. It’s too stupid to bother with, and taken seriously by those more credulous than a lemming.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Ah, yes, the insult to intelligence. Yet you provide zero evidence for this grand plot, so I am going to take such with a pinch of salt. If you cannot back up your conspiracy, then it will be dismissed. You seem to think you’re standing on firm ground, intellectually, but it’s just a castle made from sand. ;-)
2 users thanked author for this post.
I find the idea that some obscure academics theorising about social development is evidence of some global plot fanciful.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’ve got drawn in again, Deerey .. I should go to bed.
First .. there’s much that can be truthfully said to be negative about Trump’s character and presentation. No dispute from me. Having said that I actually don’t agree with you regarding his intelligence.
In terms of my comment at the time of the last election it was definitely a comment regarding a stark directional choice the US electorate was facing. Yes … the abortion issue would be one that would influence me greatly for the reasons outlined above… as well as other policy issues which concerned me from the Democratic Party. They may be wrong .. but I think the millions who have tasted this new direction and who reject it in the upcoming midterms will bear testimony that many have come to share my concerns.
If I had my way I would probably hope for Trump to endorse one of the several very able potential candidates for the 2024 election and not run again. Let’s see.The problems facing the US are manifold. However, I do laugh at the idea of other able candidates. The Republicans have lost all connection with democratic norms, as their yapping about vote rigging and attempts to excuse or even support the Jan 6th insurrection supports. There may be many people won over by them, but that’s the concerning thing about a radicalised population, who drive a large chunk of this.
And, no, I don’t care about hurting their feelings if they don’t like the bluntness of this. We care too much about being ‘reasonable’ about people who believe in Qanon nonsense, vote rigging conspiracies, homophobic and much racist rhetoric. Of course these won’t apply to all, but they apply to a significant number of Republican voter base now, as evident by all the idiots in the party catering to this rhetoric. Heck, even more ‘reasonable’ Republicans like Marco Rubio daren’t stray far from this, because it would risk anger. This is the Republican party now, and it’s deeply concerning. I am wary of things like anti-Semitism from ‘the Squad’ in the Democrats, so it’s not that I think they are perfect, but the rot is far more ingrained in the Republicans.
2 users thanked author for this post.
It’s definitely an emotional subject, Siderite so terms like ‘murder’ may well tend to inflame … as might repetitions of ‘ridiculous’ if you don’t like the argument.
I’d like to ask if it just Christian pro lifers that you have problems with … Or all pro lifers? And also whether you are sure that there is no ongoing care and concern from Christian groups and charities who take a pro life stance. I support a Christian charity that is definitely pro life yet also offers a range of services and resources to support mothers and children … and offers therapeutic counselling to the many women ( and some men) who come to find relief from pained consciences after an abortion which, in some cases, have plagued them for years. It is not the only Christian charity I know of which does the same. Maybe they are rare exceptions to your rule … but I don’t think so.I am against any belief infringing upon the rights of others. I have nothing against Christian groups (or any other religion) preaching their beliefs, such as anti-abortion beliefs, to the pulpit. I have nothing against them forming such charities, though I am sceptical about their methods and beliefs. I have no right to interfere with their beliefs, so long as it doesn’t impact the rights of others.
However, my main gripe is that the reciprocation isn’t there. It’s perhaps understandable why they do it, but the influence over state law is too much. They are entitled to their beliefs, but law shouldn’t be based on Christian, Islamic or any other religious belief. That’s what leads to misery for those of use not of that religion.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Who cares? We may be one of the few nations who take women’s football more seriously, but that’s damning of other nations that don’t.
We have beaten the best side in women’s European history today, and the first team to beat them in a final. Let’s celebrate that. We don’t need to compare it to men’s football. Of course the men would beat them; their biology makes it so. That doesn’t make the achievement any less valid or worthy. We have won the tournament, and it doesn’t matter about the difference between the sexes. We have a men’s game and women’s game because the latter won’t be able to compete with the men, so they can achieve. We should be proud that our country is one of those who have taken the women’s game more seriously (in more recent years, in particular) and the Lionesses have done the country proud. They did the country proud and that game was far more enjoyable than the Italy game last year. I felt they were far more willing to push for the win.
Three lions on a shirt. Jules Rimet still gleaming. No more years of hurt! We can drink it in tonight!
8 users thanked author for this post.
We need to showcase the game to the footballing hotbed of Qatar! It was absolutely vital that FIFA found an accommodating time period, when the temperature isn’t too high, for this important nation to host the tournament. It would have been unfathomable to look for an alternative location which is more suited and wouldn’t have as many dead migrant workers (the show is more important than their safety, they should realise that), because we would be starved of seeing football in the glamour of Doha! Oh, and FIFA wouldn’t have made as much money from bribes!
1 user thanked author for this post.
