Yet could well be re-elected very soon. How do you explain that then? Why would anyone vote for an evil political party Michael?

 

Seriously, you are such a halfwit it's unreal.

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Tawdry Hepburn

Germany voted for Hitler.

 

People are led by false promises.

 

People are easily led, gullible, naive.

 

None of which could apply to MM, of course... :teresa:

None of which could apply to MM, of course... :teresa:

 

He of course needs to learn 'you are not immune to propaganda'. But far less of a problem.

 

That's a typical hard-leftist response - 'I don't want to hear views opposing my own, so lets censor them, and pretend they don't exist'. :nono:

 

Actually, deplatforming is generally very successful at removing hateful and bad faith voices from conversation, they add nothing and cause communities to spiral as people leave rather than argue. Don't mistake that for removing differing views, but remarkably few voices on the right ever act in good faith, and most of the politicians who act that way were recently ejected from the Tory party. Tories have learned that deceitful and lying tactics work better.

Actually, deplatforming is generally very successful at removing hateful and bad faith voices from conversation, they add nothing and cause communities to spiral as people leave rather than argue.

 

I disagree with removing 'hateful and bad faith voices', not because I agree with their often abhorrent opinions, but because it's better that they reveal themselves rather be suppressed, which increases their feelings of persecution, and leading them to believe that violent means is the only way to make themselves heard.

 

Also, I share the view, often misattributed to Voltaire, that 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

The hypocrisy really is pathetic.

 

@1193815813867888641

 

Just imagine if this was Corbyn?

 

@1193712509896798209

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by blacksquare

I disagree with removing 'hateful and bad faith voices', not because I agree with their often abhorrent opinions, but because it's better that they reveal themselves rather be suppressed, which increases their feelings of persecution, and leading them to believe that violent means is the only way to make themselves heard.

 

Also, I share the view, often misattributed to Voltaire, that 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

 

However when they are suppressed they are not able to radicalise anyone else. There are great concerns that impressionable people pick up on views that are tossed out into what's sometimes called the 'free marketplace of ideas' and start parroting them. I mean, that's how hateful bigots are created, hearing someone else who is also a hateful bigot speak to what seems like natural biases but really aren't.

 

When Twitter, or Youtube, or any other big online site bans popular extremists (e.g. Milos Yiannapoulis) from their platform, surprise surprise their following immediately shrinks and is forgotten about. When they are allowed a presence, their ideas are legitimised and we spend a lot of energy debating them which can be used for better things, while they will never concede an inch and are only out there to take advantage of free speech advocates and move people closer to their horrific positions.

also Tories are hypocrites and the Tory-friendly media is manipulating public discourse with propaganda, pass it on.

Remember the ban on fracking that the Tories announced to a great fanfare at the start of the election campaign? You know, the ban that was supposed to scupper the plans of Labour, Lib Dems and Greens to make it a campaigning issue? Well, it seems that the Tory definition of "ban" isn't the one that would be found in the dictionary.

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-joh...election-921414

Hancock today trying to claim our flatlining economy is growing strongly - as if we all can’t read the GDP statistics for ourselves. 🤦‍♂️

Hancock today trying to claim our flatlining economy is growing strongly - as if we all can’t read the GDP statistics for ourselves. 🤦‍♂️

 

 

Well what do you expect him to say during an election campaign? :) :)

Well what do you expect him to say during an election campaign? :) :)

Not an easily disproved lie that has zero grounding in facts. Clearly.

Not an easily disproved lie that has zero grounding in facts. Clearly.

 

It's an election campaign so they will bend the truth slightly. All parties do that.

There’s bending the truth and then there’s delusional with no grip of reality. Hancock and you appear to be closer to the latter than the former

Surprised no-one's mentioned this today. There's uproar over the BBC showing a clip from 2016 of Boris laying his wreath as Foreign Secretary on news bulletins yesterday after people had said on social media that he looked slovenly and didn't bow properly at the Cenotaph in the morning and his coat wasn't buttoned correctly.

 

The BBC admit that they did edit an old clip in to later news bulletins at teatime and late evening and that it was "an editorial decision" made by the senior duty news editor in charge of bulletins yesterday but they have no further comment to make. Some viewers spotted the difference as the wreath looked different and his coat did too.

 

 

So what do you think to that then? They hoped no-one would notice! Complaints being made already to Ofcom that the BBC deceived the public.

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Freddie Kruger

The BBC now saying it was an error and that piece of footage somehow accidentally made it in to the bulletins. :rolleyes: Load of rubbish. How can a similar clip from 2016 get in to film from earlier in the day? They put it in to make Boris look better, probably after being asked to do so by the Tories. Do they think we're stupid? :angry:

 

 

"Today we incorrectly used footage from a Remembrance Day service that was not filmed today.

 

This was a production mistake and we apologise for the error."

 

 

So nobody noticed when the footage was being prepared that May was stood there as PM? lol. Pull the other one BBC.

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Freddie Kruger

Seriously, you are such a halfwit it's unreal.

 

Just a troll. No one is that stupid really. Just don't reply.

This from someone who worked in TV.

 

 

"I've worked in TV for 40 years. The idea that a 'production error' makes a neat cut at exactly the point where the prime minister takes his wreath and cuts back neatly afterwards, inserting 3-year-old footage of that exact same moment is insulting & laughable. Tell the truth BBC"

 

 

Also film from three years ago has to be ordered from the library and just doesn't accidentally appear in the newsroom.

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Freddie Kruger

I'm Just a troll. No one is that stupid really. Just don't reply to me.

 

 

Corrected your post look. Happy to help. :D

Nick Beddowes, former director of BBC News Tweeted this tonight.

 

"It grieves me, as ex BBC TV News director to say that this can't have happened by accident. Heads should roll here."

Edited November 11, 20195 yr by Freddie Kruger

The BBC are claiming that the old footage had been retrieved from the library so that it could be shown ahead of Sunday's ceremony. That doesn't explain why they didn't use footage from last year rather than 2016. It also doesn't begin to explain how it got edited in to a larger sequence showing part of Sunday's ceremony.