4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2021 19:36:08 GMT
The pipe bombs were real. The zip ties were real. The five people who died were real.
I don’t understand why you would ignore that. Why? What is in it for you that you ignore the actual violence that took place?
After all, you don’t have a dog in the race - do you??
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 19:40:26 GMT
well then show me, becasue I have no idea. Educate someone. Oh I do know about the heart attacks and other medical conditions. The allegation about a thrown fire extinguisher is being investigated? The fire extinguisher reminded me of that student demo at Millbank a few years ago, when a very nice chap threw one from about 10 floors up .. IIRC it was treated s a blemish on his impeccable record and should only result in a modest conviction so as to not hamper "a promising career". And that was thrown randomly 10 floors up, randomly hitting te ground to his good fortune. No big deal for the UK press.
Fwiw, I gave up on liberal 'first reaction' media after the stooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube when it became obv. te lmot important thing is not truth or accuracy but to claim the narrative first. Whcih is what the police did that day, telling lie and after ie hours while his family grieved.
He had no weapon, he did not run, he did not jump a barrier, he had no 'wires' hanging from him - I think I'll wait a while before taking a view on the fire extinguisher.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2021 19:46:11 GMT
Five. People. Died. Because. A. Mob. Stormed. The. Capitol.
I’ve already given you reports from the BBC about the pipe bombs.
I’m not going to waste my time looking up more news stories that are in mainstream news outlets - you know how to use Google..
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 19:49:35 GMT
The BBC is not credible. No me a favour - no on with any regard for accuracy believes the BBC.
Lets just call it quits becasue I feel pretty uncomfortable interacting with you anyway. Best go for the 'ignore' function.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2021 19:52:21 GMT
What do you consider a credible news source?
List some examples.
Ignore is a wonderful function. We can all see exactly why you’ve decided to use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 19:59:12 GMT
Well that is fascinating. There is strong academic research now about female violence and how doing the "we think" type thing, the adoption of a group judgement posture, causes self-harming.
Normally seen in teenage girls, of course. It's resulted in huge increases in teenage girls being admitted to A&E after self-harming. Bullying is still bullying, I guess.
"We can all see": Stay classy
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Jan 10, 2021 20:02:29 GMT
kathryn, it's a waste of time, neither you nor anybody else will convince londonpostie or any other Trump supporter of the reality of the situation. It's amazing but many people got totally brainwashed and will never see the events of the past few months in the USA as they are.
|
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 10, 2021 20:11:42 GMT
Ah the, I can't back up my opinions with evidence and no one agrees with be so I'm being bullied stage of the conversation.
So predictable.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 10, 2021 20:16:38 GMT
Let’s calm down please.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 10, 2021 20:24:06 GMT
CNN compulsive viewing again. Been watching all day for the last week.
Going to be dull when he has gone, eh. Anderson Cooper for president
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 20:24:10 GMT
kathryn , it's a waste of time, neither you nor anybody else will convince londonpostie or any other Trump supporter of the reality of the situation. It's amazing but many people got totally brainwashed and will never see the events of the past few months in the USA as they are. Not a "Trump supporter". Where do you get this stuff from. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 10, 2021 20:34:02 GMT
kathryn , it's a waste of time, neither you nor anybody else will convince londonpostie or any other Trump supporter of the reality of the situation. It's amazing but many people got totally brainwashed and will never see the events of the past few months in the USA as they are. Not a "Trump supporter". Where do you get this stuff from. Where is a credible news source though? |
|
|
|
Post by edi on Jan 10, 2021 20:41:22 GMT
kathryn , it's a waste of time, neither you nor anybody else will convince londonpostie or any other Trump supporter of the reality of the situation. It's amazing but many people got totally brainwashed and will never see the events of the past few months in the USA as they are. Not a "Trump supporter". Where do you get this stuff from. OK no worries, I don't know what your opinion is on POTUS so if you don't support him that's your choice. The sentence didn't come out exactly how I intended, what I wanted to say is that once people made up their mind about something it's extremely difficult to change their opinion even if all evidence seems to go against them. I just hope the new president brings in normality and peace. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 20:43:09 GMT
I use a wide variety of news sources, including things like Reuters, AP, the BBC, Sky News, the Guardian, the Independent, and occasionally I'll even watch bits of Fox News to keep up to date with what they're saying. If multiple independent sources are reporting the same thing then it's safe to assume that it's the most reliable information available at the time, no matter what biases the individual sources may have.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 20:52:45 GMT
Imo, no news organisation and no journalists becasue the journalists have to report within the bounds accepted by the org and journos wouldn't be employed in the first place unless they agreed did, and the orgs themselves have become increasingly ideological - witness the BBC during Brexit. UK as a whole is down to 50% watching tv news now, and there is only one main reason for that.
And also you realise 'network news' is a horribly flawed concept; we are asked to believe you can address an issue in 60 second bursts of a journo sitting opposite the newsreader. You can't even summerise in the time allocated.
So it's a legit question that many struggle with. My answer has been (a) to forget the 24-hour news cycle and (b) to take a discerning approach to Twitter. I find it an outstanding tool once you find a groove and constantly prune and look to see if it's worth following the people you are following follow. If you follow .. Looking at it now, it comprises public-facing academics, a bunch of less public-facing academics, think tank bods, ex-SPADS, independent writers with specialties. Great breadth of info and knowledge is there if you invest some time.You certinly don't want to agree with them all, an echo chamber defeats the whole purpose. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 10, 2021 21:00:12 GMT
Imo, no news organisation and no journalists becasue the journalists have to report within the bounds accepted by the org and journos wouldn't be employed in the first place unless they agreed did, and the orgs themselves have become increasingly ideological - witness the BBC during Brexit. So it's a legit question that many struggle with. My answer has been (a) to forget the 24-hour news cycle and (b) to take a discerning approach to Twitter. I find it an outstanding tool once you find a groove and constantly prune and follow new recommendations. Looking at it now, it comprises public-facing academics, a bunch of less public-facing academics, think tank bods, ex-SPADS, independent writers with specialties. Great breadth of info and knowledge is there if you invest some time.You certinly don't want to agree wit them all, an echo chamber defeats the whole purpose. Strange cat you. Asking for trustworthy new source links and then telling us there aren't any. I'm probably the one on here who will agree with a fair bit of what you are saying on this subject. On Brexit I thought the BBC were very bad also. Were we on different sides of that debate? |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 21:04:53 GMT
tbh, I don't care what side someone is on. Everyone has a different life experience, and that will influence your views. The key is honest AND INFORMED discussion. Knowing when ypu are being manipulated. Not regurgitating what you wanted to hear anyway. If you can't critique, what is the point - you're just a tool of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 21:07:19 GMT
Imo, no news organisation and no journalists becasue the journalists have to report within the bounds accepted by the org and journos wouldn't be employed in the first place unless they agreed did, and the orgs themselves have become increasingly ideological - witness the BBC during Brexit. So it's a legit question that many struggle with. My answer has been (a) to forget the 24-hour news cycle and (b) to take a discerning approach to Twitter. I find it an outstanding tool once you find a groove and constantly prune and follow new recommendations. Looking at it now, it comprises public-facing academics, a bunch of less public-facing academics, think tank bods, ex-SPADS, independent writers with specialties. Great breadth of info and knowledge is there if you invest some time.You certinly don't want to agree wit them all, an echo chamber defeats the whole purpose. Strange cat you. Asking for trustworthy new source links and then telling us there aren't any.? You see, it's the dishonesty that bugs me a little. I asked for links, not corporate news links. I don't mind the personal attacks so much becasue people seem to think tat's okay on the internet.
If you ask for a link and someone gives you the BBC, it's not great. Remember Jean Charles de Menezes, or the thousands of others smeared and destroyed in the name of 'impartiality', and all the other guilty people ignored.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2021 21:11:24 GMT
So no source you trust for facts - only for interpretation.
That’s a real source of problems in our society generally - no shared trust in factual sources that are the basis for interpretation.
Edit: But we know about what happened to Jean Charles De Menezes because of thorough follow-up journalism by mainstream media news organisations like the BBC!
I mean, yes the BBC have dropped the ball on Brexit and that is immensely frustrating - but that doesn’t mean they are always wrong about everything, it means you have to seek other sources and perspectives on stories closely linked to a government that threatens their funding.
And it’s not like the BBC are the only ones reporting on this set of facts.
I notice how we have gishgalloped away from the subject of the pipe bombs and the five dead people, by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 10, 2021 21:11:51 GMT
Fwiw, I can put up a list tomorrow if anyone wants somewhere to start from, you can then prune and add accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 21:21:01 GMT
I don't mind the personal attacks so much becasue people seem to think tat's okay on the internet. You've indulged in loads of personal attacks. You attacked me for, as you put it, reacting in "horror" to an image of a gallows that everyone could see was barely able to support its own weight. But in your hurry to insult and belittle me you completely missed the point I was making, which was that the mere fact they would build such a symbol showed that there was nothing remotely reasonable about what you are trying to represent as just a protest. They went in there with the intention to stir up trouble. Regardless of whether they intended to use any of the weapons or bombs or symbolic gallows, having them at all makes it obvious that peaceful demonstration was not the image they wanted to project to the world. And the Trump family themselves, shortly before the trouble started, were expressing the hope that the demonstrators would "have the courage to do the right thing — fight".
It's baffling that you'd equate that to a handful of unarmed people breaking into the House of Commons.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 10, 2021 21:23:22 GMT
Fwiw, I can put up a list tomorrow if anyone wants somewhere to start from, you can then prune and add accordingly. Yes please. What was the point of your stance today? Some strange positions taken, where were you going with them? |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2021 21:25:02 GMT
I use a wide variety of news sources, including things like Reuters, AP, the BBC, Sky News, the Guardian, the Independent, and occasionally I'll even watch bits of Fox News to keep up to date with what they're saying. If multiple independent sources are reporting the same thing then it's safe to assume that it's the most reliable information available at the time, no matter what biases the individual sources may have. Of course we all have to be wary of when multiple news organisations are merely all echoing the same source, rather than independently verifying it - there have certainly been cases of people allowing their biases to get in the way of journalistic best practice. Waiting and withholding judgement on a breaking news story until more information in available is no bad thing. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 10, 2021 21:26:44 GMT
Have to admire your ability to filter out confirmation bias.
Everything I have read here from all participants are riddled with confirmation bias and anything I would add would be similarly tainted.
- Trump, in his rhetoric since the election and the invite to his supporters to Washington on the 6th set up the environment for what happened.
- Five people died
- The swearing in of the elected representative of the people as per the American Constitution was delayed.
Many dots can be drawn between those statements, my opinion and the majority opinion in the US at the moment is that Trump with his rhetoric since the election led and encouraged the actions we saw this week and is therefore culpable.
The fact that we can draw parallels with instances in the U.K. does not diminish the actions only that we may or were wrong in the past.
Other opinions are available and wish I had your ability to be 100% confident that the sources that you select are not biased in any way by your values and politics which I openly admit I can’t.
I look forward to seeing your list and hope that it includes people and institutions from all sectors and includes both supporters and those against the views you hold, one of the biggest weaknesses these days is that we have forgotten the Hegelian dialectic myself included and very rarely seek antithesis against my views to better drive my understanding.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 10, 2021 21:34:16 GMT
I don't mind the personal attacks so much becasue people seem to think tat's okay on the internet. You've indulged in loads of personal attacks. There is a noticeable rhetorical pattern from this poster. I am sure other people have seen this combination of tactics before as well. I will endeavour to leave this thread for at least the rest of the evening and find something cheerful to watch instead. |
|
