Jump to content
Carol the Dabbler

The Political Thread

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:
9 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... that's just how people are … they tend to form self-reaffirming groups in order to shut out anyone they don't agree with.

Dear me, yes!  I suspect that's either the cause or a direct effect of the current polarization in US politics. 

I blame the Internet. :smile: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I blame the Internet.

We may be repeating ourselves here, but I think the fall of the Soviet Union may also be a factor.  We no longer have an external threat to unify against, so we're turning against each other.  It does seem to be human nature (and a good survival factor under primitive conditions) to be wary of people who are different from us.

The internet has certainly aided and abetted, though -- no question about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but then tribalism can be so negative too...just look at Brexit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Brexit just tribalism, though?  I've read that the anti-Brexit faction was portraying it that way, but I can imagine that a number of people were pro-Brexit for a variety of other reasons, such as not wanting certain EU regulations forced on the UK (and I can certainly sympathize there, if the regs I've read about on gardening forums are at all typical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I tried to smother a laugh, there.

Gardening?!

The EU brought massive human rights and really pushed the Green agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Arcadia said:

...that's just how people are … they tend to form self-reaffirming groups in order to shut out anyone they don't agree with.

I get your hidden message my fellow member! I don't need to be Sherlock to read that. So let's throw shoes to people who dislike BBC/BC Sherlock then. :angel:

I don't know much about politic, but is it a trend with world leaders lately to choose those with bad hairs and very questionable logical ability?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really say that about my PM(and believe me, it pains me to have to address him as that.)

He is very clever.

I just don't vote for the party he represents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, besleybean said:

Sorry, I tried to mother a laugh, there.

Gardening?!

The EU brought massive human rights and really pushed the Green agenda.

What I meant was, if the gardening-related regulations were anything to go by, I can only imagine what the other regulations might be like.

While I'm quite willing to believe that the EU has been a generally a good thing for many countries, I don't believe that the UK has ever considered itself to be a part of Europe as such, and therefore having its policies determined by "the mainland" might not be in its best interests.  Just because tribalists presumably tended to be pro-Brexit, that doesn't make Brexit inherently tribalistic.  Different people have different reasons for wanting the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of us are full on Europeans and appreciate the benefits membership of the EU have brought.

Whatever ones view of farming...

UK farming is gonna be f-d post-Brexit.

The Farming lobby will be even more demanding of the gov than they are now.

Thing is Carol, we are all lied to and to a certain extent people did not know what they were voting for.

None of us knew the deal we would get...and we still don't!

Many would vote differently now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, besleybean said:

... we are all lied to and to a certain extent people did not know what they were voting for.

Yup, that's politics -- you listen to two (or more) people lie, then you pick one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to feel the lies were very one-sided, in this case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you feel that way, but folks on the other side might be saying the same thing (or would be, if they had lost the election).

It's my observation that politicians always emphasize things that support their point of view and conveniently ignore those things that don't, plus they always put their own slant on things, to the point where they could easily be accused of lying.  But I doubt that most of them think of what they say as lies, merely as making their position clear.  It's people on the other side that perceive it as lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some cases were proven lies: regarding images of refugees, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that.  But I suspect you got most of your information from sources that tended to agree with you (which nearly everyone does, of course).  If you had spent an equivalent amount of time following sources that supported the other point of view, you might well have come across substantiated reports of lies coming from your camp.

I can't say for sure, of course, since I wasn't following the issue closely, but politics is politics, and I'd be very surprised if either side was sticking to pure fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can't in the sense that Europe holds the upper hand.

As it should do.

We are the ones leaving the club.

 

 

AS an aside!  I have just noticed your fave episode choices.

I had no idea anybody considered TAB as part of S 4.

It's a one off, Victorian Xmas special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, besleybean said:

I had no idea anybody considered TAB as part of S 4.

It's a one off, Victorian Xmas special.

That's what they told us before it was broadcast, yes.  But then it turned out to be an epilogue to His Last Vow with a bunch of Sherlock's drug-induced deductions added.  It could just as logically be considered a part of S3, but since it was aired closer to S4, some people (and IMDb) consider it sort of a prequel to that -- kinda like Happy Returns and S3, I guess.

And I like it better than any of the three main S4 episodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last episode is always my favourite, as it brings us up to date with the story.

I  live in fear that TFP will remain my favourite! 

I mean I absolutely love it, but obviously I want  more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 10:55 AM, Van Buren Supernova said:

I get your hidden message my fellow member! I don't need to be Sherlock to read that. So let's throw shoes to people who dislike BBC/BC Sherlock then. :angel:

And then torture them with bad puns.

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 10:55 AM, Van Buren Supernova said:

I don't know much about politic, but is it a trend with world leaders lately to choose those with bad hairs and very questionable logical ability?

:rofl:

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 1:17 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

I'd be very surprised if either side was sticking to pure fact

Does such a thing even exist? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, in terms of numbers:  of either refugees or funds available for a particular project.

Both of which were lied about before the Brexit vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long more until gun control is needed?

Eta: I phrased it not accurately. It should be 'how long more until he thinks gun control is needed?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel for American cousins...

just don't want the UK to ever to follow your example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, please don't.

There's apparently another effort afoot to try to ban assault rifles. I heard on the news tonight that the National Rifle Association was saying they'd fight any legislation that threatened the rights of law-abiding citizens. Where, where, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that citizens have a "right" to own weapons of mass destruction? Insanity...…...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

... where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that citizens have a "right" to own weapons of mass destruction?

Just curious -- where would you draw the line between Constitutional and non-Constitutional weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me personally? If I ruled the world, there wouldn't be any weapons at all. But I believe "the right to bear arms" refers to  the kinds of weapons available at the time the words were written. I think the Founding Fathers would be horrified to learn we now use it as an excuse to permit the use of weapons of mass destruction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.