should politics be banned on the forum?
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
What has happened in the last ten years is the Scottish Independence vote, Brexit and the current iteration of the Conservative party.
John
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
With the benefit of the internet, it's possible to make all manner of connections previously requiring a remarkable memory or prodigious research effort.
I've recently been reminded by another thread of Samuel Johnson's views on epitaphs. A check to confirm my memory of what he is supposed to have said took me to Jacob Rees Mogg, which was not my intention
FWIW, JRM was apparently using that quote to defend being economic with la réalité (fibbing) in text messages
I've recently been reminded by another thread of Samuel Johnson's views on epitaphs. A check to confirm my memory of what he is supposed to have said took me to Jacob Rees Mogg, which was not my intention
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57513415But Mr Rees-Mogg replied: "There's a great line from Dr [Samuel] Johnson, that in lapidary inscriptions [engravings in stone] a man is not on oath.
FWIW, JRM was apparently using that quote to defend being economic with la réalité (fibbing) in text messages
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
In 2007 I watched a BBC TV programme (actually a series of 2) called 'Saira Khan's Pakistan Adventure'. It examined various aspects of Pakistan including the way Islam is interpreted. I had never heard of Saira Khan so googled her. It turned out I had never heard of her because I had never, then or now, watched 'The Apprentice'.
What I had not been prepared for was the amount of Muslim/Islamic vitriol being spouted about her. On fora this was sexist, violent, disgusting, revolting, misogynistic and had death threats, and this just the English comments I could understand, there were comments in other languages/scripts I could not understand.
This was in 2007, none of things you have just described above had happened. People have a capacity for anonymous hatred and violence that they use social media to express, the idea that it is just our current politics is false. In fact blaming it on our current political state is dangerous and unwarranted.
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
Was the previous famous usage "economical with the actualite?thirdcrank wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 11:26am With the benefit of the internet, it's possible to make all manner of connections previously requiring a remarkable memory or prodigious research effort.
I've recently been reminded by another thread of Samuel Johnson's views on epitaphs. A check to confirm my memory of what he is supposed to have said took me to Jacob Rees Mogg, which was not my intention
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57513415But Mr Rees-Mogg replied: "There's a great line from Dr [Samuel] Johnson, that in lapidary inscriptions [engravings in stone] a man is not on oath.
FWIW, JRM was apparently using that quote to defend being economic with la réalité (fibbing) in text messages
As you note, the internet greatly helps research.
Further reading reveals the example I was most aware of; the Spycatcher Trial.That was only the beginning of the prosecution’s troubles.
On 5 November, Alan Clark, by now out of Parliament, was
cross-examined about his 1988 meeting with the MTTA.
In one of the most extraordinary exchanges in recent British
political history Clark admitted that he knew the Iraqi
orders would be used to make munitions. Asked about the
DTI note of the meeting, which recorded him as saying that
the orders would be used for general engineering purposes,
he answered,
Well, it’s our old friend being economical, isn’t it?
Q. With the truth?
A. With the actualité. There was nothing misleading or
dishonest to make a formal or introductory comment that
the Iraqis would be using the current orders for general
engineering purposes. All I didn’t say was ‘and for making
munitions’ . . .
Q. You didn’t want to let anyone know that at this stage
these machines and their follow up orders were going to
munitions factories to make munitions?
A. No.
Q. And the emphasis on peaceful purposes and general
engineering and so on would help keep the matter
confidential?
A. I do not think it was principally a matter for public
awareness. I think it was probably a matter for Whitehall
cosmetics.2
Clark’s evidence sank the prosecution case. The trial was
adjourned until 9 November, when Alan Moses, the chief
prosecution counsel, announced that the prosecution would
be abandoned. The defendants were then acquitted
"Economical with the truth" became a political catchphrase in the United Kingdom in 1986 during the Spycatcher trial in the Australian Supreme Court of New South Wales, when Robert Armstrong, the UK Cabinet Secretary, was questioned by then-barrister Malcolm Turnbull, and described a letter thus:[1][16]
Q: So that letter contains a lie, does it not?
A: It contains a misleading impression in that respect.
Q: Which you knew to be misleading at the time you made it?
A: Of course.
Q: So it contains a lie?
A: It is a misleading impression, it does not contain a lie, I don't think.
Q: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?
A: You are as good at English as I am.
Q: I am just trying to understand.
A: A lie is a straight untruth.
Q: What is a misleading impression – a sort of bent untruth?
A: As one person said, it is perhaps being economical with the truth.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
To be pedantic "No" It's spelt actualitéWas the previous famous usage "economical with the actualite?
(FWIW, you can get é with ctr+Alt+e)
So yes, I can no longer rely on my memory when quoting liars.
==========================
PS I've a feeling that at least one person who used the phrase was edging towards perjury - fibbing in the witness box
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
Thanks for the tip.thirdcrank wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 12:01pm To be pedantic "No" It's spelt actualité
(FWIW, you can get é with ctr+Alt+e)
Pedantry (mine that is) always invites a pedantic riposte.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
I don’t post in any of the political forums, primarily as my political leanings are at odds with what appears to be a majority here.
Happy to let those who want to debate to do so as it doesn’t impact where I choose to post.
Happy to let those who want to debate to do so as it doesn’t impact where I choose to post.
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
Ben@Forest wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 11:44amIn 2007 I watched a BBC TV programme (actually a series of 2) called 'Saira Khan's Pakistan Adventure'. It examined various aspects of Pakistan including the way Islam is interpreted. I had never heard of Saira Khan so googled her. It turned out I had never heard of her because I had never, then or now, watched 'The Apprentice'.
What I had not been prepared for was the amount of Muslim/Islamic vitriol being spouted about her. On fora this was sexist, violent, disgusting, revolting, misogynistic and had death threats, and this just the English comments I could understand, there were comments in other languages/scripts I could not understand.
This was in 2007, none of things you have just described above had happened. People have a capacity for anonymous hatred and violence that they use social media to express, the idea that it is just our current politics is false. In fact blaming it on our current political state is dangerous and unwarranted.
Good point and thanks. Perhaps it is social media? I am not on Facebook or indeed any other place except here and Instagram so I will no doubt have missed this and similar.
John
- Philip Benstead
- Posts: 1954
- Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
- Location: Victoria , London
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
IMHO
As I have said before people under thirty are becoming very strait-laced, but I should have said this is inflecting older people as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=strait- ... e&ie=UTF-8
This tendency means you cannot question anybody view e.g., Boris is great PM OR Boris in a clown, both comments upset somebody.
Regarding Brexit, why should this issue be banned, then answer the question why is it difficulted obtaining certain good from aboard?
Well Brexit so was Brexit a good thing? That could upset somebody.
Regarding questions, asking for advice and comments about cycling tours that uses an airplane, well that goes against the views expresses by CTC memebers to ban the promotion of flights for cycle touring.
00
As I have said before people under thirty are becoming very strait-laced, but I should have said this is inflecting older people as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=strait- ... e&ie=UTF-8
This tendency means you cannot question anybody view e.g., Boris is great PM OR Boris in a clown, both comments upset somebody.
Regarding Brexit, why should this issue be banned, then answer the question why is it difficulted obtaining certain good from aboard?
Well Brexit so was Brexit a good thing? That could upset somebody.
Regarding questions, asking for advice and comments about cycling tours that uses an airplane, well that goes against the views expresses by CTC memebers to ban the promotion of flights for cycle touring.
00
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
I don't see any problem with criticising eg Boris Johnson or anybody else, especially party politicians, but banging on can become monotonous
- Philip Benstead
- Posts: 1954
- Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
- Location: Victoria , London
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
DITTOthirdcrank wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 12:44pm I don't see any problem with criticising eg Boris Johnson or anybody else, especially party politicians, but banging on can become monotonous
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
I think it is more complex than that. Social media is not simply the medium; it itself exacerbates and amplifies anger, hatred and bitterness in ever growing feedback loops.Ben@Forest wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 11:44am This was in 2007, none of things you have just described above had happened. People have a capacity for anonymous hatred and violence that they use social media to express, the idea that it is just our current politics is false. In fact blaming it on our current political state is dangerous and unwarranted.
Pre-internet one person might voice their anger about an issue to a group of friends, and that would largely be the end of it. Now, many more people will do so online, and enough of them will do so using speech, memes or video that is engaging (at least to those pre-disposed to agree with them), that what they say will be shared by thousands or tens of thousands or more. And those people in turn will be encouraged to search for more such material online and share or create more of it.
Just as cycling, gardening and DIY forums will bring together large numbers of people who might have very few - if any - friends or acquaintances locally with whom they share their passion, so too will areas of the internet bring together like-minded people with strong views and prejudices. As individuals their impact will tend to be almost non-existent among their real life acquaintances, but as part of a large group of like-minded people encouraging each other on the internet, they have a hugely damaging effect both in spreading their views and also in inciting some to act, resulting in people being injured or killed.
This pattern is not only inherent to the nature of formats like Facebook and Twitter, but also something which the owners of those formats are very deliberately exploiting and encouraging to maximise clicks and profit, e.g. by the way in which Facebook suggests that users look at so-and-so's Facebook page based on their interests and friends.
Parts of mainstream commercial media have copied aspects of this in order to maintain and increase their profits and their influence, e.g. the Daily Mail's "Enemies of the People" headline to describe the Supreme Court.
Government and politicians have to take a substantial degree of responsibility for this state of affairs, because only they have the power to pass legislation and use the powers of Government to control the actions of online platforms and other forms of social media. That is something which is not easy to do, because it involves developing laws, rules and guidelines which strike a balance between censorship and allowing vigorous debate, and providing sufficient resources for their enforcement. Not only have politicians and Government shown themselves unwilling and unable to confront this issue, many of them have instead chosen to exploit the internet in the same way, e.g. including Cambridge Analytica, the deliberate promotion of 'culture wars', and the particular use of Twitter by some politicians.
It is not the particular political issue being discussed that is the problem, it is the manner in which it is discussed and debated that determines whether the discussion is illuminating and useful, or divisively toxic. Much social media tends towards the latter despite individual participants starting with the best intentions, and discussion descends into an unproductive spat with people taking ever more entrenched positions. Many posts in political threads on this forum add little to the discussion, and are actively harmful to the debate.
- Philip Benstead
- Posts: 1954
- Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
- Location: Victoria , London
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
A Point of View: Why we should defend the right to be offensive
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34613855
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34613855
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
If you were enjoying a cafe stop with your local cycling club and some people started discussing something you were not interested in, most people would not bother joining in that discussion and instead talk about something else with others. If with same group in same cafe stop you demanded that they must not talk about that subject because you were not interested in it and in fact because you were not interested all future discussion around that area be banned ... would you be invited back for subsequent rides?
Ian
Ian
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: should politics be banned on the forum?
There's perhaps a wider point here in that people with worthwhile views may be cautious about posting if they feel their spelling/ grammar etc leave them vulnerable to ridicule. (Feel free to correct me btw)Mike Sales wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 12:03pmThanks for the tip.thirdcrank wrote: ↑18 Oct 2021, 12:01pm To be pedantic "No" It's spelt actualité
(FWIW, you can get é with ctr+Alt+e)
Pedantry (mine that is) always invites a pedantic riposte.
In this context, the Bogbrush feature in Private Eye is an élitist example of what I mean (It's a caricature of an internet forum.) The "ignorance" of some of the imaginary posters is illustrated by their poor literacy.
======================================================
PS
I think that the difference with face-to-face discussions is that it's very easy to go away with the idea that all the audience agreed when in reality they didn't want to argue, whereas on the internet, there's generally somebody without inhibitionsIf you were enjoying a cafe stop etc