Turn on thread page Beta

Lefties- if we're not free, what should be banned? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well, not everyone has socialist tendencies, but point taken



    Interesting so, if say Nigel Farage was caught dressing up in SS Uniform in his own home or something that shouldnt be published for intruding on his personal life? What constitutes their personal lives? What about tax affairs?

    Investigative journalism, though it has its bad aspects sure has also helped uncover a number of heinous crimes. If journalists didnt investigate politicians we wouldnt have found out about the vote Rigging in tower hamlets.

    Also, a journalist didnt break into milibands house, they were invited. Whilst I think he was unfairly targetted that episode was his own fault.

    i'd personally be very cautious about just who his arbiter of what are 'the facts'. for instance, whilst obvioulsy not in Labours favour, has anything been misinterpreted or made up in the following article?:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-blunders.html
    I think everyone deserves a private life. Obviously wearing an SS uniform is an extreme example but I don't think that things such as affairs and daft things we say when we are 17 should be brought up nor the number of kitchens or nannies we have. We're all human, we've all made mistakes and I don't like how the media can go through your entire life and air your dirty laundry in public - it's not right and it puts people off going into politics.

    We moan about politicians being like robots and having no personality, yet ones who do are hounded by the media and have their private life put on display - it's not right.

    I refer again to the Corbyn article in which the media has clearly misinterpreted and taken out of context what he's said and turned it into sensationalist headlines.

    I don't feel the media scrutinise the government at all well enough. The Guardian to their credit heavily scrutinised Blair's government like it does Camerons. But the rest really do give the tories a free pass - they don't scrutinise tory bills - they don't offer a balanced review, the reaction in the right wing papers to the trade union bill shows that.

    Most people have busy lives, they work long hours and they don't have time to research everything themselves, they rely on a media to hold the government to account, but when you have the large majority of the press acting as a cheerleader for the government - that just doesn't happen.

    Is the Telegraph doing a piece for Osbourne's top 6 political blunders?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Is the Telegraph doing a piece for Osbourne's top 6 political blunders?
    Youre dodging the question, what was mis information about the new shadow chancellori n my article?

    But to answer your point, if every newspaper had for lack of a better word balance, it would be incredibly dull and more people would not read newspapers (and get their political opinions from the internet, which i doubt would be a good thing. The Guardian does to their credit occasioanlly criticse left wing parties, but it is still favours them hugely, and is often as guily as the telegraph in demonising their opponents.

    Link me to an aticle in a mainstream newspaper where you think Corbyn has been mistreated.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Youre dodging the question, what was mis information about the new shadow chancellori n my article?

    But to answer your point, if every newspaper had for lack of a better word balance, it would be incredibly dull and more people would not read newspapers (and get their political opinions from the internet, which i doubt would be a good thing. The Guardian does to their credit occasioanlly criticse left wing parties, but it is still favours them hugely, and is often as guily as the telegraph in demonising their opponents.

    Link me to an aticle in a mainstream newspaper where you think Corbyn has been mistreated.
    What do you mean by Mainstream?
    The Sun paper today headlined with this :
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/th...ng-says-its-ow
    The source itself then said it wasn't true.

    Yet the headline is huge and many people will believe it, the apology will be tiny and hidden away of a bottom page somewhere.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Leading on from my horseshoe thread I thought I'd post a thread about human freedom and its relatedness to the horseshoe theory.
    I'll post in the other thread soon to give my thoughts. This is probably needless to say but I disagree with horseshoe theory if we follow what I believe to be a more accurate definition of the distinction between left and right.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    In brief, socialists and the far right do not believe we as individuals are free, rational beingsas society is not free by their moral standards- in short, the far more predominant left view that we are shaped by our environment and that we are being enslaved by a culture of say anti immigration, anti welfare and consumerism etc. the authoritarian right meanwhile also feel that we are being enslaved to a pseudo communist, immoral and degenerate society.
    It depends what your definition of freedom you are using. If you are using the definition of freedom that I think you are, which is that about the possibility of being able to make truly free or truly individual choice when you are part of a society, then I disagree that we can ever actually be free in that sense. We grow up and our surrounded in a culture with it's various memeplexes framing our thoughts and perception. However I would not go as far as think that this means that the concept of free will is entirely impossible. People do have the ability to make choices but they can never truly escape their cultural upbringing. I don't think that our society is the way it is because people have been enslaved even if there are a number of institutions in society that mould the way that people think. Our societies are the way they are and people act how they do as a result of their own choices.

    On the point about rationality I would say that human beings are certainly capable of rationality with some more capable of it than others. However we aren't entirely rational and there is an instinctual, more animalistic side to us. I don't know if you are familiar with Carl Jung's theory of psychology but his work places great emphasis on the power of the collective unconsciousness to form and shape human thoughts and therefore human action. This is why religion has been so influential in human history because it draws upon symbology to evoke emotional reactions in human beings. The use of symbology is something we see in many forms of political institutions and activism as well. The symbology of a monarch as a semi-divine ruler, the raised fist of defiance present among socialist activists, the mental image of the victim that we find in politically correct identity politics and so on.

    One of the reasons that I believe that I'm on the right is that I believe that humans have an innate or instinctual desire for leadership and hierarchy and that egalitarianism is therefore a revolt against human nature.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    This is where horseshoe theory comes in: Far left and far right groups wish to change society against the liberal consensus which in short means creating a planned goal for society rather than allowing individuals to achieve their own ends in the present culture- therefore people in the UAF justify silencing anyone they deem to be racist (which seems to be very broad) and the EDL justify intimidating members of ethnic minorities.
    I think you are underestimating how close the UAF are to the "liberal consensus". They are funded by the Labour party, have the support of the current Conservative Prime Minister and Ken Livingstone is an Honorary President. The UAF's and say the likes of bornblue's views are much closer to the "liberal consensus" than mine are.

    If we really did live in a society where we simply allowed individuals to achieve their own ends in the present culture it would be much more libertarian/capitalist than our society is now. I also fail to see how the liberal consensus doesn't have a "planned goal for society" when you have a European Union with enormous power that is seeking greater union and federalisation against the wishes of the population at large.

    What I would consider to be a liberal (in the classical and logical sense) society would look more 1880s Sweden or America.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    So to the Socialist members of this board (and the far fewer authoritarian right wingers) what would you justify banning in order to make an ideal and freer society?
    Ultimately brute state power doesn't work in forcing people to completely change their behaviour. We see this with the drug war where we don't actually get less people taking drugs and you instead just get an increase in violence which decimates the poorest neighbourhoods. If a group of reactionaries seized the state right now then used it to further their agenda then I could definitely see the need for some measures to clear up the media and culture. Most of the real work would actually be just getting rid of the institutions that spread left-liberalism such as the educational system. Ideally the handling of moral matters and education would be taken out of the state's hands almost entirely and more authority on these matters would be given to parents, local communities and the Church.

    However I am under no illusions that this could even work. What would need to change is the culture itself and this would take conscious action of large numbers of people over 2 or possibly 3 generations. I don't believe that this is possible on a national scale especially in a nation of 70 million. Now if there is going to be the shift to the right and away from liberalism that I expect in the next few decades then more and more people will be open to wanting to cultivate a more traditionalist culture but the best chance of actually achieving it is with some form of secession.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Leading on from my horseshoe thread I thought I'd post a thread about human freedom and its relatedness to the horseshoe theory.

    In brief, socialists and the far right do not believe we as individuals are free, rational beingsas society is not free by their moral standards- in short, the far more predominant left view that we are shaped by our environment and that we are being enslaved by a culture of say anti immigration, anti welfare and consumerism etc. the authoritarian right meanwhile also feel that we are being enslaved to a pseudo communist, immoral and degenerate society.
    As others have partially alluded to, you misrepresent socialism. As a libertarian socialist, nothing would be banned in my ideal society.

    My view, as a socialist, is that humans ought to be free, which entails dismantling hierarchical structures and the systems that maintain them: the state, capitalism and organised religion being the three main ones. Humans aren't rational beings, however: that's an empirical fact backed up by decades of research in psychology, by the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and others such as Dan Ariely. Hence, the free-market capitalists who believe that humans are rational agents who should be free to participate in markets are utterly delusional - if markets exist, they need regulation, as financial crises from the Wall Street Crash to the Financial Crisis of 2007-08 have shown.

    Thus, it's perfectly possible to say, and indeed correct to say, that humans are incredibly susceptible to propaganda, and respected establishment intellectuals, from Edward Bernays (founder of the modern public relations and advertising industry, which is what capitalism thrives upon) to Walter Lippmann (founder of modern journalism), have known this for a long time - and have advocated the engineering of consent and the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the masses.

    Is it any wonder, given the biased media in this country, and the propaganda that they spout, that British people are wrong about so many things, from the amount of benefits fraud to the number of immigrants in the country to the amount we spend on foreign aid?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Leading on from my horseshoe thread I thought I'd post a thread about human freedom and its relatedness to the horseshoe theory.

    In brief, socialists and the far right do not believe we as individuals are free, rational beingsas society is not free by their moral standards- in short, the far more predominant left view that we are shaped by our environment and that we are being enslaved by a culture of say anti immigration, anti welfare and consumerism etc. the authoritarian right meanwhile also feel that we are being enslaved to a pseudo communist, immoral and degenerate society.

    This is where horseshoe theory comes in: Far left and far right groups wish to change society against the liberal consensus which in short means creating a planned goal for society rather than allowing individuals to achieve their own ends in the present culture- therefore people in the UAF justify silencing anyone they deem to be racist (which seems to be very broad) and the EDL justify intimidating members of ethnic minorities.

    So to the Socialist members of this board (and the far fewer authoritarian right wingers) what would you justify banning in order to make an ideal and freer society?

    And more to the socialists, why would it not be valid to become more illiberal in order to change the unfair and unfree system: for instance

    a)To end violence should we not end the culture of violence found in video games, you'd, films, books etc?

    b)To end demeaning treatment of women should we ban pornography and s number of inappropriate toys for kids?

    Surely these cultural influences are a far more dire threat than Rupert Murdoch

    ChaoticButterfly Bornblue The_Mighty_Bush Rakas21


    (These guys are not neccessarily far left/ far right!)
    The ideology that I gravitate towards is left wing anarchism. That position holds the only laws that legitimately govern us and control are natural laws.Humans can only maximize their individual freedom by working together.

    a) There a **** tonne of evidence to suggest those things do not cause violence anymore than anything else so it would be moronic to ban them anyway as it would not even have the desired effect. So it's a non issue. Freedom of speech and expression covers people being able to make whatever video games, books, films they want.

    b) again I don't even think that is as simple as it is made out. Sure there is a lot of sexism and bad portray of women in porn. But not all porn has to be like that. What about amateur porn? Is that inherently bad? I don't think porn has to be sexist or bad for society. But sure, regulate the prepositional pron industry and make sure no on is attacked etc and has worker and human rights respected. I don't think it would be right to tell people they can not be filmed having sex and then sell that.

    I don't really get your posts on this. I consider myself very left wing but left wing means different things to different people. My left wing is the seeking out of hierarchies and questioning their legitimacy. I'm more grassroots focused and think change generally comes from pressure form below and society should be ran in a bottom up way (that is worlds apart from fascism and traditional existing socialism). Comparing socialism to fascism makes no sense at all when you look at who Fascists attacked. They attacked left wing working class organizations liken unions, syndicalists and so forth. Any kind of organic direct democracy and autonomous working class islands of economic democracy were crushed. How can Fascism be socialist when it attacks socialists in such a way? You can ask the exact same question about the Lenninists and it's spin offs.The extreme left I pick sides with in history is nothing at all like fascism.


    When it comes to social issues I;m very libertarian. I'm sportive of state interference on economic side of things. I the sense the state is a cage but that the state can be used in such a way increases the floor of the cage. The state can do stuff that makes people more free. I also believe that not having control over your own work constitutes as not being free which is where I see right wing free market ideologies with no regulation as really advocating authoritarian economies. Which is why I really don't like the modern existing right wing neoliberal consensus. We are less free under it.You want to compare things to Fascism? Well the Tories are trying to pass legislation that means picketers have to register and give their name to the police. You couldn't make it up.

    I probably contradict myself in places but I'm a human and am not dogmatic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So today you would have thought all the media headlines and scrutiny would be about the Tories passing through 4.6 billion worth of cuts to tax credits- but nop- Corbyn not singing the national anthem made front page news in every one.

    And people say there is no media bias? The media yet again acting as a cheerleader for the government rather then scrutinising it.

    Many people won't even know about the bill that was passed yesterday because it's hardly been reported yet everyone will know about Corbyn and the national anthem and which one affects society more?

    That's exactly how the media shape public opinion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thorsas)
    Unfortunately I think you have got a poor understanding of the left wing views of most young people today. First of all you are talking more about communism, not socialism. Socialism in a modern context just means 'capitalism for the people' and lies on the centre-left in your linear scale. Don't let the American media enslave your language! That said I do agree some "Socialist" movements can have fairly hardline views. The usage of the term is broader than I'm claiming.

    Most young leftists today are socially liberal. They believe in individualism and self-determination. What we don't like are greed, selfishness and massive inequality. Those problems can be addressed without the Big Red Hand of The State pressing down on its citizens. You would be hard pressed however to find someone who thinks we should all be controlled from above and be dictated to from the Tycoons in the glass towers (whether they are wearing red or blue).

    The whole idea is that you let people do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others, behind closed doors (e.g. gay marriage, cannabis legalisation), and we can all agree on a secular, rational, fair society in public that allows people to prosper from their work but not to reach the point of exploiting others. That is the socialist ideal of today.

    You might be interested in Noam Chomsky's views on Left-Libertarianism. They align closely I'd say with the modern leftist youth.
    Davij038
    Good post. That is what I was trying to say


    It's also close to how Social Democracy has morphed since is first arrived on the scene in the late 1800s. That used to be focused on the replacement of capitalism but socialism. But it no longer is.

    "Contemporary social democracy emerged in the post-war era. In this period, social democrats embraced the idea of reforming capitalism and rejected the goal of replacing capitalism with socialism. Social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a small number of utilities and essential public services under public ownership. In this period, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism, and the welfare state and abandoned the goal of replacing the capitalist system of private property, market-based allocation and wage laborwith a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10]"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

    I think the reason socialist regimes of old can get equated with fascism is that they had to enforce their ideas on the people they ruled over. They were performing "scientific socialism" with the population and no dissent was tolerated. It is totally legit to describe the actual existing Lenninism (The state and revolution doesn't bare much reality over what Lenin actually did) that took hold as sharing a lot with Fascism. Stalin and Hitler presided over regimes that were very similar.

    But I don't agree that extreme left wing ideologies and political forces that actually want to create a new mode of production can all be equated to fascism. Like you said...

    "You would be hard pressed however to find someone who thinks we should all be controlled from above and be dictated to from the Tycoons in the glass towers (whether they are wearing red or blue)"

    The same was with large segments of the Russian Working class that were either not brainwashed and could see what was happening and had the courage to resist in various ways. You had Factory Committees and workers in unions who were very ideologically aware of what they thought socialism was and were not happy with what they saw as a betrayal of the revolution by the ever disappointing regime by the Bolsheviks. You see similar in the Spanish Civil war.

    That's where the left-libertarianism of chomsky ultimately comes from and he defends economic ideologies like anarcho syndicalism. But like other left wing political ideologies it has become more moderate and more reformist and coesting with capitalism. Which is probably more of a practical standpoint from chomsky considering stuff like anarcho syndicalism died in the Spannish Civil war Which is probably good considering that time period was really scary and you get more extremes when there is so much turmoil of all kinds.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)

    It depends what your definition of freedom you are using. If you are using the definition of freedom that I think you are, which is that about the possibility of being able to make truly free or truly individual choice when you are part of a society, then I disagree that we can ever actually be free in that sense. We grow up and our surrounded in a culture with it's various memeplexes framing our thoughts and perception. However I would not go as far as think that this means that the concept of free will is entirely impossible. People do have the ability to make choices but they can never truly escape their cultural upbringing. I don't think that our society is the way it is because people have been enslaved even if there are a number of institutions in society that mould the way that people think. Our societies are the way they are and people act how they do as a result of their own choices.
    I can broadly agree with this


    [/quote]
    On the point about rationality I would say that human beings are certainly capable of rationality with some more capable of it than others. However we aren't entirely rational and there is an instinctual, more animalistic side to us. I don't know if you are familiar with Carl Jung's theory of psychology but his work places great emphasis on the power of the collective unconsciousness to form and shape human thoughts and therefore human action. This is why religion has been so influential in human history because it draws upon symbology to evoke emotional reactions in human beings. The use of symbology is something we see in many forms of political institutions and activism as well. The symbology of a monarch as a semi-divine ruler, the raised fist of defiance present among socialist activists, the mental image of the victim that we find in politically correct identity politics and so on.[/quote]

    Psychology isn't exactly my forte, but M I right in thinking that his work is based mostly on Freud and whilst hugely influential and interesting, pretty much viewed with psychoanalysis as unscientific? I think we are drawn to particular shapes and imagery but I don't see how we should base our civilisation on this.

    One of the reasons that I believe that I'm on the right is that I believe that humans have an innate or instinctual desire for leadership and hierarchy and that egalitarianism is therefore a revolt against human nature.
    Meh. I think it can be argued both ways in regards to human nature. Certainly it changes in regards to its environment. I think we are all in essence not s blank skate but a blank supercomputer with some predetermined programs (genetics) .

    I think you are underestimating how close the UAF are to the "liberal consensus". They are funded by the Labour party, have the support of the current Conservative Prime Minister and Ken Livingstone is an Honorary President. The UAF's and say the likes of bornblue's views are much closer to the "liberal consensus" than mine are.
    I think Cameron's part is more out of expediency- I'm sure he just signed something saying he didn't like fascists - not that he's on good terms with the likes of Licingstone. But yes, in the last part Cameron is closer to Bornblue than you (I'm sure he'll love that!)

    [/quote]
    If we really did live in a society where we simply allowed individuals to achieve their own ends in the present culture it would be much more libertarian/capitalist than our society is now. I also fail to see how the liberal consensus doesn't have a "planned goal for society" when you have a European Union with enormous power that is seeking greater union and federalisation against the wishes of the population at large.[/quote]

    A good point, cheers (although I would dispute the 'against wishes' part: there has always been popular support for a united Europe to some extent)

    Ultimately brute state power doesn't work in forcing people to completely change their behaviour. We see this with the drug war where we don't actually get less people taking drugs and you instead just get an increase in violence which decimates the poorest neighbourhoods. If a group of reactionaries seized the state right now then used it to further their agenda then I could definitely see the need for some measures to clear up the media and culture. Most of the real work would actually be just getting rid of the institutions that spread left-liberalism such as the educational system. Ideally the handling of moral matters and education would be taken out of the state's hands almost entirely and more authority on these matters would be given to parents, local communities and the Church.

    However I am under no illusions that this could even work. What would need to change is the culture itself and this would take conscious action of large numbers of people over 2 or possibly 3 generations. I don't believe that this is possible on a national scale especially in a nation of 70 million. Now if there is going to be the shift to the right and away from liberalism that I expect in the next few decades then more and more people will be open to wanting to cultivate a more traditionalist culture but the best chance of actually achieving it is with some form of secession.
    Yeah good luck with that. If you're a social conservative Peter Hotchens has right, society is broken beyond repair (for one, the current CoE seems to be a recruitment office for the Labour Party.

    Also, you're an atheist aren't you? In essence do you follow Voltaire in thinking that religion us a necessary evil to keep people in line?

    Thank you for your reply, sorry I was late to respond!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I still think anyone who says the media doesn't have a huge impact is absolutely mad... Or a Tory. Or probably both.

    Osbourne makes 4.6 billion in cud to the poorest- doesn't make the front page. Corbyn doesn't sing the national anthem - seanstolnalist headlines on every page.

    They're more concerned with what Jeremy does or doesn't sing then they are with huge cuts to the poorest.

    And you would be forgiven for not knowing they just passed this bill through - because the guardian seem to be the only one who reported about it in any sort of detail.

    It's nothing short of propaganda by the press - rather then scrutinise the government they don't mention stuff like this and instead make personal attacks on Corbyn. They act as a cheerleader for the government rather then holding them to account and it's disgraceful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I still think anyone who says the media doesn't have a huge impact is absolutely mad... Or a Tory. Or probably both.

    Osbourne makes 4.6 billion in cud to the poorest- doesn't make the front page. Corbyn doesn't sing the national anthem - seanstolnalist headlines on every page.

    They're more concerned with what Jeremy does or doesn't sing then they are with huge cuts to the poorest.

    And you would be forgiven for not knowing they just passed this bill through - because the guardian seem to be the only one who reported about it in any sort of detail.

    It's nothing short of propaganda by the press - rather then scrutinise the government they don't mention stuff like this and instead make personal attacks on Corbyn. They act as a cheerleader for the government rather then holding them to account and it's disgraceful.
    Heh, that's actually a fair point. Even I thought the whole anthem thing was ridiculous.

    That said I don't think it's as disproportionate as you make it out to be- whilst the right do largely own the media the left holds sway in universities and the BBC.

    The BBC, whilst perhaps biased against Corbyb is undoubtedly almost cliched in its left wingness. What you may be able to draw is that people on the public sector are more likely to be left wing and private sector more likely to be right wing...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Heh, that's actually a fair point. Even I thought the whole anthem thing was ridiculous.

    That said I don't think it's as disproportionate as you make it out to be- whilst the right do largely own the media the left holds sway in universities and the BBC.

    The BBC, whilst perhaps biased against Corbyb is undoubtedly almost cliched in its left wingness. What you may be able to draw is that people on the public sector are more likely to be left wing and private sector more likely to be right wing...
    I can understand the mail and sun going nuts about the anthem because they're rags but what about the times and telegraph? Both meant to be respectable papers and both came out with sensationalist headlines about Corbyn and the anthem- neither mentioned the cuts.

    The guardian is biased against the Tories for sure but they scrutinise labour, Corbyn and former leaders a fair bit- they are absolutely NOT a cheerleader for the Labour Party unlike the rest of the press who are active cheerleaders for the Tories. It's propaganda and nothing less. And that's why I complain so much about it.

    I think the BBC is more liberal then left wing per se. In fact they too refer to Corbyn as 'left wing' but NEVER precede Cameron with right wing despite the fact he's just cut 4.6 billion from the poorest and hammered workers rights. Even David Davis spoke out against it. Yet Cameron is portrayed by the media as centrist.

    When will they start referring to him as the 'right wing prime minister?'
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Horsehoe theory is silly. A far better idea is the local-global left-right theory.

    Local left-right deals with individuals and small groups of minorities. These are social issues.

    Global left-right deals with society as an entirety, these are economic issues.

    Of course there are links, but there is also separation.

    For example, gay rights is not really having anything to do with economic policy, taxing bankers or taxing land, or subsidising this or that industry.

    In My Opinion the left-wing authoritarian side comes from the economic side of things, the need for strong safety nets, the ultimate of which leads to communism.

    The right-wing authoritarian side comes usually from moral and social judgement, for example the Nazis are a CLASSIC example of this.

    The nazis were actually relatively centre-right economically. A big reason leading to the success of the nazis was the strong sense of moral fibre and national pride (social things) together with economic policies that both cut welfare (right wing) but also protected small businesses from big business links to right wing parties (left wing).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I can understand the mail and sun going nuts about the anthem because they're rags but what about the times and telegraph? Both meant to be respectable papers and both came out with sensationalist headlines about Corbyn and the anthem- neither mentioned the cuts.

    The guardian is biased against the Tories for sure but they scrutinise labour, Corbyn and former leaders a fair bit- they are absolutely NOT a cheerleader for the Labour Party unlike the rest of the press who are active cheerleaders for the Tories. It's propaganda and nothing less. And that's why I complain so much about it.

    I think the BBC is more liberal then left wing per se. In fact they too refer to Corbyn as 'left wing' but NEVER precede Cameron with right wing despite the fact he's just cut 4.6 billion from the poorest and hammered workers rights. Even David Davis spoke out against it. Yet Cameron is portrayed by the media as centrist.

    When will they start referring to him as the 'right wing prime minister?'
    That, my friend, might just be the easiest question I have ever seen posed in my life.

    The answer is of course... never.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    That, my friend, might just be the easiest question I have ever seen posed in my life.

    The answer is of course... never.
    Of course not. Because that's what the press do- they portray a very right wing Tory party as 'centrists' and call those in the Labour Party who call for greater equality and workers rights 'extremists'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Psychology isn't exactly my forte, but M I right in thinking that his work is based mostly on Freud and whilst hugely influential and interesting, pretty much viewed with psychoanalysis as unscientific? I think we are drawn to particular shapes and imagery but I don't see how we should base our civilisation on this.
    No, Jungian psychology is quite different from Freudian. I would agree that much of what Jung says wouldn't pass Popper's test of being empirically falsifiable but then again I think Popper's worldview is reductionist or "scientist".

    Our civilisation, indeed any civilisation, is already based upon certain symbols and memes that effect how we perceive things. See, for example, how closely many ideas and motifs of the left are borrowed from Christianity, often unconsciously. Vigils for refugees, the phenomenon of white guilt as a kind of original sin and the way we can see the moral superiority of the underdog as similar to the words of Jesus that the "meek will inherit the earth".

    A civilisation can only ever be inherited. It cannot be built or rebuilt from scratch in a generation.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Meh. I think it can be argued both ways in regards to human nature. Certainly it changes in regards to its environment. I think we are all in essence not s blank skate but a blank supercomputer with some predetermined programs (genetics) .
    Well making use of your metaphor I would argue that the blank supercomputers often have widely differing processors (i.e. IQ which is largely inherited) and the predetermined programs often shape who people are in vastly different ways (see the differences between the sexes which, contrary to what the feminists argue, are vast).

    (Original post by Davij038)
    A good point, cheers (although I would dispute the 'against wishes' part: there has always been popular support for a united Europe to some extent)
    Put it this way:
    We have less freedom of speech now in 2010s Britain than we did in 1890s Britain.
    We have less freedom to start a business than we did.
    We have less freedom to invest as we wish (not even mentioning that we didn't have fiat money run amok).
    We didn't have DNA databases or CCTV.
    We had more rights to gun ownership.
    We had significantly lower taxes.
    Parents had more of a choice over the education of their children.
    Along with many more that I can't remember.

    If there was a button we could press called "instant Reaction Now!" that would take us back to that time it would turn out that people would actually have more control over how they could live their lifes free from state intervention than we do now. They would have less variety and less comfort sure but more freedom in the sense you were talking of.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Yeah good luck with that. If you're a social conservative Peter Hotchens has right, society is broken beyond repair (for one, the current CoE seems to be a recruitment office for the Labour Party.
    Yes, there is a lot that is wrong from a socially conservative perspective. It's the age of Kali Yuga. However I don't think that the centre will hold because frankly I don't think it can hold. We are already seeing the rise of right-wing parties and I think that shift will become sharper as the demographic situation becomes more visibly dangerous to most people. With that shift to the right, I think we will see a rise in the number of people wanting to live more traditional or religious lifestyles. I could be wrong on that final point but I don't think that there is much of a chance at all that I won't be wrong about changing attitudes to culture, race, immigration etc. that will occur as a result of the demographic situation worsening.

    It would take at least 2 possibly 3 generations for people to become much more traditional or conservative but I don't think it is completely unsolvable with the correct upbringing of children and a general societal swing to the right.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Also, you're an atheist aren't you? In essence do you follow Voltaire in thinking that religion us a necessary evil to keep people in line?
    I was an atheist and grew up in an atheist family but at present I would say that I was "without belief" rather than an atheist. Probably more of an aesthetic difference but that could change in the future.

    It's not so much about keeping people in line. It's more about elevating people in my view and providing them with moral guidance and something to be loyal to. Religion is useful in getting people to see beyond the mere satisfaction of their base desires and for getting them to empathise and respect others. It also has the role in a traditional society of providing justification for the social order thereby not having people be alienated. I think we can see this at work with how working-class people view the monarchy. They envy the self-made capitalist far more than they envy the monarch if they even envy the monarch at all. He doesn't understand why he can't become rich like the capitalist (or perhaps he does deep down but this hurts his ego) but he knows for a fact that he will never be King. I also don't think it is just something for the peasants or anything like that. A entirely uncaring and degenerate aristocracy is a dangerous thing just as a unruly peasant mob.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Thank you for your reply, sorry I was late to respond!
    That is quite alright. I've graduated and got a job now so I'm quite busy anyway!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So today you would have thought all the media headlines and scrutiny would be about the Tories passing through 4.6 billion worth of cuts to tax credits- but nop- Corbyn not singing the national anthem made front page news in every one.

    And people say there is no media bias? The media yet again acting as a cheerleader for the government rather then scrutinising it.

    Many people won't even know about the bill that was passed yesterday because it's hardly been reported yet everyone will know about Corbyn and the national anthem and which one affects society more?

    That's exactly how the media shape public opinion.
    The tax credit cuts were heavily discussed when they were announced. That it was passed through Parliament is no real surprise - it's just the implementation of policy. You might remark that it got surprising cross-bench support, but other than that it was wholly uninteresting. These cuts were both praised and criticised by the media when they were announced. If people won't know about the tax credit cuts, it's because they haven't got a memory that stretches back 2 months.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I still think anyone who says the media doesn't have a huge impact is absolutely mad... Or a Tory. Or probably both.

    Osbourne makes 4.6 billion in cud to the poorest- doesn't make the front page. Corbyn doesn't sing the national anthem - seanstolnalist headlines on every page.

    They're more concerned with what Jeremy does or doesn't sing then they are with huge cuts to the poorest.

    And you would be forgiven for not knowing they just passed this bill through - because the guardian seem to be the only one who reported about it in any sort of detail.

    It's nothing short of propaganda by the press - rather then scrutinise the government they don't mention stuff like this and instead make personal attacks on Corbyn. They act as a cheerleader for the government rather then holding them to account and it's disgraceful.
    Yes, people who say that the media doesn't have a huge impact are wrong however all you seem to think is important is the media while you deliberately ignore the impact of the education system from primary to tertiary in forming public opinion.

    News media is overwhelming consumed by grown adults who have a greater ability to form their own opinions. In the education system you have leftist teachers getting 6 year olds to sign pledges in support of transsexuality. There was even a case in Italy where primary school children were being commanded to cross dress.

    Is this because it doesn't suit your agenda?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    It may seem small but it leads to institutionalisation and leads to it becomes go a cultural norm.
    This actually complete click bait nonsense.
    There have been many long term studies which have show absolutely no causal link between violent video games and real life violence. And two of those studies were 20 years long.

    Why don't we ban any movie with a murder scene in it while we're at it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Hmmm, I'm not so sure: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...e-comfortable/

    Seems to be my experience too.
    .
    Dear lord tell me you didn't just use something from the Speccie to explain socialism and young people :')

    It is far from my experience other than the weirdos in students unions who because they have no real power are reduced to playing around with inconsequential crap like that

    Plus the PC lefties are generally parrotting Blairism and more likely entirely unaware of/insulated from different economic approaches and class consciousness unlike the far left. This identity politics *******s is what passes for a social conscience among pro market centrists like the Blairites and they are absolutely a dying strain of thought not current among today's average student

    One can only imagine you won't be going back to the centrist Lib Dems under Farron with their recent identity politics virtue signalling
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.