Post-truth society

[matty_f]

I've seen this phrase used a lot recently, and it begs the question - how on earth did we get to a point where a proven (repeatedly) liar is given the top job in the country? It seems to be that politicians can lie at will about stuff now, and it's just batted off or dismissed.

Surely politicians are exactly the people who should be the standard bearers for honesty, rather than the ones who view the truth as an inconvenience?

How did we reach this point, and should honesty now be viewed as a forgotten concept?

[One Day Soon]

I've seen this phrase used a lot recently, and it begs the question - how on earth did we get to a point where a proven (repeatedly) liar is given the top job in the country? It seems to be that politicians can lie at will about stuff now, and it's just batted off or dismissed.

Surely politicians are exactly the people who should be the standard bearers for honesty, rather than the ones who view the truth as an inconvenience?

How did we reach this point, and should honesty now be viewed as a forgotten concept?


For whatever reason(s) we are now in an age where the strongest politicians are the ones who can deliver performance art. So those with the strongest personal brand get prominence and are rated, those still engaged in 'retail' politics and focused more heavily on ideas, policy and dull things like facts are squeezed out.

Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed.

[danhibees1875]

Maybe because the truth is just a little bit too daunting for everyone now. :dunno:
Growing inequalities, huge strains on public services, an aging population, being made obsolete by technology, and a world nearing the brink of environmental ruin which noone is willing to take responsibility for because the person next to them isn't either.

Any politician who is truthful about the struggles we're facing and could present a credible plan to steer us through them (if one could even be found) would be far too negative to get any votes.

Blissful ignorance is more appealing.

[matty_f]

Maybe because the truth is just a little bit too daunting for everyone now. :dunno:
Growing inequalities, huge strains on public services, an aging population, being made obsolete by technology, and a world nearing the brink of environmental ruin which noone is willing to take responsibility for because the person next to them isn't either.

Any politician who is truthful about the struggles we're facing and could present a credible plan to steer us through them (if one could even be found) would be far too negative to get any votes.

Blissful ignorance is more appealing.

Could be :agree:

I think the amount of voter apathy and disengagement with politics might have a hand to play in it as well.

A politician can lie about something today to get what they want, and then shrug their shoulders when it comes to delivering it, knowing that the folk who should hold them to account (i.e. the electorate) can't be hooped or aren't aware in sufficient enough numbers to stop them.

If there isn't already, I think a law should be passed to prevent someone who is evidently dishonest from holding a position in Parliament. It should be a criminal act to lie to the electorate.

[McSwanky]

Could be :agree:

I think the amount of voter apathy and disengagement with politics might have a hand to play in it as well.

A politician can lie about something today to get what they want, and then shrug their shoulders when it comes to delivering it, knowing that the folk who should hold them to account (i.e. the electorate) can't be hooped or aren't aware in sufficient enough numbers to stop them.

If there isn't already, I think a law should be passed to prevent someone who is evidently dishonest from holding a position in Parliament. It should be a criminal act to lie to the electorate.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you re apathy and disengagement. The GE turnout has steadily increased since the Blair days, and I'd say politics is more a topic of conversation in everyday life than it has been in a long time (mainly due to the recent referenda mind you!)

As for the lies, I'm totally with you. I despair at the spin we are forced to try and find our way through. The whole nonsense with '50,000 more nurses' is a great example: the Tories were trying their damnedest to make the journalists/reporters etc look like they were making a petty point, when it was obvious to all they were pulling them up for lying. Utterly depressing.

I guess the spin has always been there in some shape or form, and we have to put up with the fact that a good proportion of MPs are in it for personal gain (career or financial). It doesn't mean there aren't good MPs out there though, folks that really are in it for the bigger picture.

Social media 'outrage' has a lot to do with it too: I think the world is becoming more polarised, and people seem to jump from opinion to opinion so quickly. Sport's a great example - at the end of the day, people posting on Social Media (and I include this place in that) are generally the ones with the strongest opinions, which results in a massively polarised debate. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it difficult not to come down on one side when such a debate is taking place, particularly if one of the protagonists is being unreasonable.

Enough rambling from me, safe to say I despair at the current situation. I'd love to say I could see a way out where reasonable people will come to the fore again, but I think things might get a while lot worse before they get better.

[Onceinawhile]

I've seen this phrase used a lot recently, and it begs the question - how on earth did we get to a point where a proven (repeatedly) liar is given the top job in the country? It seems to be that politicians can lie at will about stuff now, and it's just batted off or dismissed.

Surely politicians are exactly the people who should be the standard bearers for honesty, rather than the ones who view the truth as an inconvenience?

How did we reach this point, and should honesty now be viewed as a forgotten concept?

Because in general, people are terrible.

Terrible people go into the system and make their way to the top.

Anyone who wants to be an MP, is pretty much the type of person who shouldn't be allowed to be an MP.

[Future17]

If there isn't already, I think a law should be passed to prevent someone who is evidently dishonest from holding a position in Parliament. It should be a criminal act to lie to the electorate.

There is currently no such law and I strongly doubt there ever will be as, in order for it to happen, politicians would have to vote for it. The best liars are unlikely to vote to ban lying. :greengrin

I wonder what it says about our society and electoral process, that it's a criminal offence to lie about another candidate, but not about anything else.

[Glory Lurker]

Maybe because the truth is just a little bit too daunting for everyone now. :dunno:
Growing inequalities, huge strains on public services, an aging population, being made obsolete by technology, and a world nearing the brink of environmental ruin which noone is willing to take responsibility for because the person next to them isn't either.

Any politician who is truthful about the struggles we're facing and could present a credible plan to steer us through them (if one could even be found) would be far too negative to get any votes.

Blissful ignorance is more appealing.

100% this. The sacrifices we need to make to save us from ruin are too much of an inconvenience to too many people. Sadly they damn us all.

[lord bunberry]

For whatever reason(s) we are now in an age where the strongest politicians are the ones who can deliver performance art. So those with the strongest personal brand get prominence and are rated, those still engaged in 'retail' politics and focused more heavily on ideas, policy and dull things like facts are squeezed out.

Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed.
I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time. A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like. I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post. This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate. The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem. When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them.

[One Day Soon]

I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time. A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like. I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post. This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate. The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem. When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them.

I think you're letting your desire to defend your icons cloud your judgement of what I actually posted.

"I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time."- I can't help that, my views are my views.

"A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like." - Is it? I'm quite a big fan of Jess Phillips. I think Sturgeon is a very effective politician whose politics I completely disagree with. Salmond - prospective trial and associated issues aside - is certainly one of the top British politicians of my lifetime alongside Blair, Thatcher and Brown. Despite his politics I have never, unlike some, found him personally dislikeable, if that is a word.

"I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post." - Perhaps silence implies consent? :wink:

"This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate." I know, that's why I posted about what I think is the changing way in which the electorate regards, thinks about and evaluates politicians.

"The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem." I agree it is bang on, but I think your problem with what I posted is more that it goes on to include two Nat figures that you don't want to see bracketed with the others than anything else.

"When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them." The notion that we can discuss truth and the state of politics without bringing into the discussion the contemporary politicians who characterise the age is not sensible. If politics is full of dishonesty, that is because of the politicians who animate our politics with their words, speeches, action and inaction. Without those politicians there is no honesty or dishonesty, there are just political beliefs.

Look at what I said: "Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed." My point here is not what I think you have taken it to be - that all in the list are shallow liars with big personalities or big public personas. It is that you can be Richard Leonard, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else with bags of policy (good or bad) but if you don't have the public persona part of the equation then all the policy in the world is not going to get you anywhere in the social media age.

You have assumed, I think, that I am also stating that all in the list are only personalities and no policy substance. I'm not. We are now moving or have moved from an age of retail politics 'here is what we have for sale, it's much better than the other guy, choose us' to an age of personality brand politics 'Vote for me because I transcend traditional politics and make you feel you are like me or that you get me'. You can't win in this new political fight without having both personal brand and a good offer.

And right there in the emergence of personal brand politics is where the capacity to be a stranger to truth and facts becomes so much less of an electoral liability. In Messiah politics, you have to buy into the cult of the leader completely, no half measures. That's why you can be threatening to die in a ditch one minute annd then blanking your previous bravado the next and get away with it.

[lord bunberry]

I think you're letting your desire to defend your icons cloud your judgement of what I actually posted.

"I’ve read your post a few times and it’s angered me every time."- I can't help that, my views are my views.

"A very good thread with a serious point to be made is cheapened by your list of people you obviously don’t like." - Is it? I'm quite a big fan of Jess Phillips. I think Sturgeon is a very effective politician whose politics I completely disagree with. Salmond - prospective trial and associated issues aside - is certainly one of the top British politicians of my lifetime alongside Blair, Thatcher and Brown. Despite his politics I have never, unlike some, found him personally dislikeable, if that is a word.

"I’ve noticed everyone has so far ignored your post." - Perhaps silence implies consent? :wink:

"This is about politics in general and how politicians are viewed by the electorate." I know, that's why I posted about what I think is the changing way in which the electorate regards, thinks about and evaluates politicians.

"The first part of your post is absolutely bang on, but then you spoil it completely by listing politicians that are in your opinion are part of the problem." I agree it is bang on, but I think your problem with what I posted is more that it goes on to include two Nat figures that you don't want to see bracketed with the others than anything else.

"When you are talking about the truth and the state of politics, the minute you bring individuals into the argument you will get disagreements from people that support them." The notion that we can discuss truth and the state of politics without bringing into the discussion the contemporary politicians who characterise the age is not sensible. If politics is full of dishonesty, that is because of the politicians who animate our politics with their words, speeches, action and inaction. Without those politicians there is no honesty or dishonesty, there are just political beliefs.

Look at what I said: "Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Phillips, Salmond, Sturgeon - all have very developed (and usually very marmite) public personas whether you like or dislike them. Try running against any of them with all policy and no 'character' and you are stuffed." My point here is not what I think you have taken it to be - that all in the list are shallow liars with big personalities or big public personas. It is that you can be Richard Leonard, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else with bags of policy (good or bad) but if you don't have the public persona part of the equation then all the policy in the world is not going to get you anywhere in the social media age.

You have assumed, I think, that I am also stating that all in the list are only personalities and no policy substance. I'm not. We are now moving or have moved from an age of retail politics 'here is what we have for sale, it's much better than the other guy, choose us' to an age of personality brand politics 'Vote for me because I transcend traditional politics and make you feel you are like me or that you get me'. You can't win in this new political fight without having both personal brand and a good offer.

And right there in the emergence of personal brand politics is where the capacity to be a stranger to truth and facts becomes so much less of an electoral liability. In Messiah politics, you have to buy into the cult of the leader completely, no half measures. That's why you can be threatening to die in a ditch one minute annd then blanking your previous bravado the next and get away with it.
You could have just said the words in bold in your first post as it would have reflected your view on the topic. You chose though to after making a very valid point to then as I said to cheapen it with a list of names. Your reply is very much the same. I like ???? but I disagree with them on ??? That’s ultimately making it about particular politians and their policies rather than the general distrust of politicians and as the op suggests their lack of honesty.

[jonty]

Some good analysis on how fake tweets spread
Fake news claiming the sick boy on the hospital floor was staged:
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/status/1204183081009262592

Fake news claiming Labour activist punched Matt Hancocks advisor.
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/status/1204149569082331137

[One Day Soon]

You could have just said the words in bold in your first post as it would have reflected your view on the topic. You chose though to after making a very valid point to then as I said to cheapen it with a list of names. Your reply is very much the same. I like ???? but I disagree with them on ??? That’s ultimately making it about particular politians and their policies rather than the general distrust of politicians and as the op suggests their lack of honesty.


No, it would not have reflected my view. It would have reflected yours.

It's impossible to to divorce the politicians from the quality and characteristics of our current politics and trying to do so to protect particular individuals from any responsibility deadens the discussion.

My reply is not "very much the same". You claimed that I had listed people because they are "people you obviously don't like" - I have demonstrated that in the case of two of them - and now three, below - what you have said is patently not true.

In any event you are missing my point completely, largely I suspect because you seem so defensive of those you support being brought into the discussion.

To return to the OP, how did we reach the point where politicians can now view the truth as an inconvenience and lie at will? In my view we have reached it because personal brand 'messiah' politics has displaced retail party politics and that is demonstrated by the rise of Johnson, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Jess Philips, Salmond, Sturgeon, Blair, etc. They are not all as uniformly bad as one another but the advent of the personality cult - rocket fuel powered by social media - makes acceptance of post-truth politics by the voting public much, much easier.

[One Day Soon]

Some good analysis on how fake tweets spread
Fake news claiming the sick boy on the hospital floor was staged:
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/status/1204183081009262592

Fake news claiming Labour activist punched Matt Hancocks advisor.
https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/status/1204149569082331137


Not a surprise but chilling to see it all laid out in black and white like that.

Our democracy is being eaten alive from the inside in this and a variety of other ways and most people aren't even aware of it. The parties are all complicit in this with their own direct and indirect social media operations and their various distanced dark ops programmes. It's all so easy and also provides a perfect Petri dish for foreign actors to engage in a very cheap form of disruptive and relatively invisible warfare too.

[Pretty Boy]

I would argue that rather than living in a post truth society, we live in a self truth society.

The rise of 'new media', social media and what is essentially unlimited access to data, sources and information is in many ways a wonderful thing. However in a society increasingly looking for affirmation from our peers there is a down side. If you go looking for it there is likely to be a stat, a report or a study that backs up what you are already thinking. Condense that into a quirky soundbite or a vaguely amusing meme and you have a problem that can snowball. I'm not sure it's an entirely new problem, it's arguably just more obvious now. The art of debate used to be characterised by an ability to both talk and listen. Now people are not only unwilling to listen to or consider alternative viewpoints but they get angry or affronted when you suggest that they should. How can a rounded opinion be formed if you only immerse yourself in content you agree with?

When it comes to political discussion it's arguable there is no absolute truth. Stats and personal stories paint a picture but the answers as to how we got into such positions are open to debate and discussion. Ultimately the truth, as we understand it, is what we hold to be true and in turn what we have chosen to dismiss as irrelevant or untrue.

[One Day Soon]

I would argue that rather than living in a post truth society, we live in a self truth society.

The rise of 'new media', social media and what is essentially unlimited access to data, sources and information is in many ways a wonderful thing. However in a society increasingly looking for affirmation from our peers there is a down side. If you go looking for it there is likely to be a stat, a report or a study that backs up what you are already thinking. Condense that into a quirky soundbite or a vaguely amusing meme and you have a problem that can snowball. I'm not sure it's an entirely new problem, it's arguably just more obvious now. The art of debate used to be characterised by an ability to both talk and listen. Now people are not only unwilling to listen to or consider alternative viewpoints but they get angry or affronted when you suggest that they should. How can a rounded opinion be formed if you only immerse yourself in content you agree with?

When it comes to political discussion it's arguable there is no absolute truth. Stats and personal stories paint a picture but the answers as to how we got into such positions are open to debate and discussion. Ultimately the truth, as we understand it, is what we hold to be true and in turn what we have chosen to dismiss as irrelevant or untrue.

This reflects my much deeper worry which is that consensus may no longer really be possible in Western democracies. In which case we are rather ****ed.

[JeMeSouviens]

Not a surprise but chilling to see it all laid out in black and white like that.

Our democracy is being eaten alive from the inside in this and a variety of other ways and most people aren't even aware of it. The parties are all complicit in this with their own direct and indirect social media operations and their various distanced dark ops programmes. It's all so easy and also provides a perfect Petri dish for foreign actors to engage in a very cheap form of disruptive and relatively invisible warfare too.

To an extent, but Cummings and his vote leave crew have taken it to another level entirely. Johnson is just a willing stooge who would have hitched himself to any wagon that would get him to Downing St.

[jonty]

And now when caught out, claim their accounts are hacked.
These people have no accountability and take zero responsibility.

James Mitchinson
@JayMitchinson

BREAKING: Sheree Jenner-Hepburn claims she was hacked. Knows not a soul in Leeds, she says. So, that 'good friend' that was used to debunk our story was - according to her - a fabrication.

[Ozyhibby]

Good analysis of yesterday’s biased reporting and lies from Peston and Kuensberg. Both will have to be watched carefully during indyref2.
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/12/10/trolls-sock-puppets-and-useful-idiots-an-anatomy-of-an-election-disinformation-campaign/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

I've just read the following on Facebook, which I did instantly decide was likely a load of nonsense based on the little bits I had heard from the story.

"Very interesting. A good friend of mine is a senior nursing sister at Leeds Hospital - the boy shown on the floor by the media was in fact put there by his mother who then took photos on her mobile phone and uploaded it to media outlets before he climbed back onto his trolley. He was on a hospital trolley in the paediatric A&E having been seen within 20 minutes. I am a nurse myself and am so pissed off with fake news, yes the NHS is a mess mainly caused by people misusing it and lack of elderly care. Think of the nurses and Doctors who are doing their jobs instead of constantly slagging them off. another Momentum
Propaganda story. Disgraceful"

The above article Ozy has posted saying that the hospital themselves apologised for the incident was a timely read considering, and suggests that the quote is completely made up.

What chance do people have to know the truth? :dunno:

[JeMeSouviens]

I've just read the following on Facebook, which I did instantly decide was likely a load of nonsense based on the little bits I had heard from the story.

"Very interesting. A good friend of mine is a senior nursing sister at Leeds Hospital - the boy shown on the floor by the media was in fact put there by his mother who then took photos on her mobile phone and uploaded it to media outlets before he climbed back onto his trolley. He was on a hospital trolley in the paediatric A&E having been seen within 20 minutes. I am a nurse myself and am so pissed off with fake news, yes the NHS is a mess mainly caused by people misusing it and lack of elderly care. Think of the nurses and Doctors who are doing their jobs instead of constantly slagging them off. another Momentum
Propaganda story. Disgraceful"

The above article Ozy has posted saying that the hospital themselves apologised for the incident was a timely read considering, and suggests that the quote is completely made up.

What chance do people have to know the truth? :dunno:

The source of that facebook post claims her account was hacked:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/10/woman-says-account-hacked-to-post-fake-story-about-hospital-boy

[jonty]

And now when caught out, claim their accounts are hacked.
These people have no accountability and take zero responsibility.

James Mitchinson
@JayMitchinson

BREAKING: Sheree Jenner-Hepburn claims she was hacked. Knows not a soul in Leeds, she says. So, that 'good friend' that was used to debunk our story was - according to her - a fabrication.

I've been looking at BotSentinel on twitter.
It does some analysis on accounts to check if they exhibit troll style activity

The first one it has flagged up is @RealDonaldtrump !

[danhibees1875]

The source of that facebook post claims her account was hacked:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/10/woman-says-account-hacked-to-post-fake-story-about-hospital-boy

Thanks - I seen something on BBC about them being scammed by a fake friend or something similar but didn't quite follow it. It still points to a problem we have in society with lies/truths.

Even once deleted it still gets shared and re-shared over and over so the job is done. Hacked or not, you have a story painted as being a genuine first hand account of what happened circulated to thousands. On this occasion, I didn't think the story was believable but it could easily have went other way; and clearly has done for some/many.

[matty_f]

I've just read the following on Facebook, which I did instantly decide was likely a load of nonsense based on the little bits I had heard from the story.

"Very interesting. A good friend of mine is a senior nursing sister at Leeds Hospital - the boy shown on the floor by the media was in fact put there by his mother who then took photos on her mobile phone and uploaded it to media outlets before he climbed back onto his trolley. He was on a hospital trolley in the paediatric A&E having been seen within 20 minutes. I am a nurse myself and am so pissed off with fake news, yes the NHS is a mess mainly caused by people misusing it and lack of elderly care. Think of the nurses and Doctors who are doing their jobs instead of constantly slagging them off. another Momentum
Propaganda story. Disgraceful"

The above article Ozy has posted saying that the hospital themselves apologised for the incident was a timely read considering, and suggests that the quote is completely made up.

What chance do people have to know the truth? :dunno:

That were definitely fake accounts tweeting to discredit the story, there are lots of tweets showing the exact same tweet from different accounts. It's a shambles, we're being manipulated on an industrial scale - real stories are being shot down so not even are we being lied to but we have people actively discrediting the truth when we're told it.



Really this is where you need an impartial source of news. The BBC *should* fulfill that role but even they have been shown to be biased and ultimately untrustworthy. Where do we go from here?

[Hibrandenburg]

This is the kind of slanted rubbish we're dealing with:

I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.

I've obviously taken into consideration what I consider to be the following swaying points on the two main parties.

On the one hand the Conservative Boris Johnson is a bit of a rascal with the ladies and can sometimes bend the truth a bit, he’s also a bit posh.

And on the other hand..

Labours Jeremy Corbyn Invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing.

Attended Bloody Sunday commemoration with bomber Brendan McKenna.

Attended meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond McCartney.

Hosted IRA linked Mitchell McLaughlin in parliament.

Spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson.

Attended Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly.

Chaired Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan MacFarlane.

Attended Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists.

Stood in minute’s silence for IRA gunmen shot dead by the SAS.

Refused to condemn the IRA in Sky News interview.

Refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time.

Refused to condemn IRA violence in BBC radio interview.

Signed EDM after IRA Poppy massacre massacre blaming Britain for the deaths.

Arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bomber’s co-defendants.

Lobbied government to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers.

Attended Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain.

Hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant.

Hired another aide closely linked to several convicted IRA terrorists.

Heavily involved with IRA sympathising newspaper London Labour Briefing.

Put up £20,000 bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin McAliskey.

Didn’t support IRA ceasefire.

Said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends“.

Called for Hamas to be removed from terror banned list.

Called Hamas “serious and hard-working“.

Attended wreath-laying at grave of Munich massacre terrorist.

Attended conference with Hamas and PFLP.

Photographed smiling with Hezbollah flag.

Attended rally with Hezbollah and Al-Muhajiroun.

Repeatedly shared platforms with PFLP plane hijacker.

Hired aide who praised Hamas’ “spirit of resistance“.

Accepted £20,000 for state TV channel of terror-sponsoring Iranian regime.

Opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS.

Defended rights of fighters returning from Syria.

Said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted.

Compared fighters returning from Syria to Nelson Mandela.

Said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a “tragedy“.

Wouldn’t sanction drone strike to kill ISIS leader.

Voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria.

Opposed shoot to kill.

Attended event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC.

Signed letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects.

Wrote letter in support of conman accused of fundraising for ISIS.

Spoke of “friendship” with Mo Kozbar, who called for destruction of Israel.

Attended event with Abdullah Djaballah, who called for holy war against UK.

Called drone strikes against terrorists “obscene”.

Boasted about “opposing anti-terror legislation”.

Said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are “strange”.

Accepted £5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich.

Accepted £2,800 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation Interpal.

Called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of Interpal, a “very good friend”.

Accepted two more trips from the pro-Hamas group PRC.

Speaker at conference hosted by pro-Hamas group MEMO.

Met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh several times.

Hosted meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad.

Patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign – marches attended by Hezbollah.

Compared Israel to ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.

Said we should not make “value judgements” about Britons who fight for ISIS.

Received endorsement from Hamas.

Attended event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani.

Chaired Stop the War, who praised “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS.

Praised Raed Salah, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel.

Signed letter defending jihadist advocacy group Cage.

Met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers.

Shared platform with representative of extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Compared ISIS to US military in interview on Russia Today.

Opposed proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Attended conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers.

Attended Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of destruction of Israel.

Supported Hamas and ISIS-linked Viva Palestina group.

Attended protest with Islamic extremist Moazzam Begg.

Made the “case for Iran” at event hosted by Khomeinist group.

Photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings.

Photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops.

Said Hamas should “have tea with the Queen”.

Attended ‘Meet the Resistance’ event with Hezbollah MP Hussein El Haj.

Attended event with Haifa Zangana, who praised Palestinian “mujahideen”.

Defended the infamous anti-Semitic Hamas supporter Stephen Sizer.

Attended event with pro-Hamas and Hezbollah group Naturei Karta.

Backed Holocaust denying anti-Zionist extremist Paul Eisen.

Photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences.

Mocked “anti-terror hysteria” while opposing powers for security services.

Named on speakers list for conference with Hamas sympathiser Ismail Patel.

Criticised drone strike that killed Jihadi John.

Said the 7/7 bombers had been denied “hope and opportunity”.

Said 9/11 was “manipulated” to make it look like bin Laden was responsible.

Failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks.

Called Columbian terror group M-19 “comrades”.

Blamed beheading of Alan Henning on Britain.

Gave speech in support of Gaddafi regime.

Signed EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic.

Blamed Tunisia terror attack on “austerity”.

Voted against banning support for the IRA.

Voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times during the Troubles.

Voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11.

Voted against stricter punishments for being a member of a terror group.

Voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism.

Voted against banning al-Qaeda.

Voted against outlawing the glorification of terror.

Voted against control orders.

Voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terrorism.

So it’s a tricky one really

[lapsedhibee]

This is the kind of slanted rubbish we're dealing with:

I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.

...

So it’s a tricky one really
Something of a small miracle that the Tories haven't made "Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up" their official campaign slogan.

[matty_f]

Something of a small miracle that the Tories haven't made "Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up" their official campaign slogan.

Anyone would think that Corbyn favoured discussion over violence to resolve situations.

[ballengeich]

Anyone would think that Corbyn favoured discussion over violence to resolve situations.

Can you list the occasions when he has brought opponents together for discussions?

[matty_f]

Can you list the occasions when he has brought opponents together for discussions?

See above :greengrin

[ballengeich]

See above :greengrin

i.e. none

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is the kind of slanted rubbish we're dealing with:

I'm still a bit undecided about my vote direction this coming Thursday.

I've obviously taken into consideration what I consider to be the following swaying points on the two main parties.

On the one hand the Conservative Boris Johnson is a bit of a rascal with the ladies and can sometimes bend the truth a bit, he’s also a bit posh.

And on the other hand..

Labours Jeremy Corbyn Invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing.

Attended Bloody Sunday commemoration with bomber Brendan McKenna.

Attended meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond McCartney.

Hosted IRA linked Mitchell McLaughlin in parliament.

Spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson.

Attended Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly.

Chaired Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan MacFarlane.

Attended Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists.

Stood in minute’s silence for IRA gunmen shot dead by the SAS.

Refused to condemn the IRA in Sky News interview.

Refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time.

Refused to condemn IRA violence in BBC radio interview.

Signed EDM after IRA Poppy massacre massacre blaming Britain for the deaths.

Arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bomber’s co-defendants.

Lobbied government to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers.

Attended Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain.

Hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant.

Hired another aide closely linked to several convicted IRA terrorists.

Heavily involved with IRA sympathising newspaper London Labour Briefing.

Put up £20,000 bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin McAliskey.

Didn’t support IRA ceasefire.

Said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends“.

Called for Hamas to be removed from terror banned list.

Called Hamas “serious and hard-working“.

Attended wreath-laying at grave of Munich massacre terrorist.

Attended conference with Hamas and PFLP.

Photographed smiling with Hezbollah flag.

Attended rally with Hezbollah and Al-Muhajiroun.

Repeatedly shared platforms with PFLP plane hijacker.

Hired aide who praised Hamas’ “spirit of resistance“.

Accepted £20,000 for state TV channel of terror-sponsoring Iranian regime.

Opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS.

Defended rights of fighters returning from Syria.

Said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted.

Compared fighters returning from Syria to Nelson Mandela.

Said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a “tragedy“.

Wouldn’t sanction drone strike to kill ISIS leader.

Voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria.

Opposed shoot to kill.

Attended event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC.

Signed letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects.

Wrote letter in support of conman accused of fundraising for ISIS.

Spoke of “friendship” with Mo Kozbar, who called for destruction of Israel.

Attended event with Abdullah Djaballah, who called for holy war against UK.

Called drone strikes against terrorists “obscene”.

Boasted about “opposing anti-terror legislation”.

Said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are “strange”.

Accepted £5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich.

Accepted £2,800 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation Interpal.

Called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of Interpal, a “very good friend”.

Accepted two more trips from the pro-Hamas group PRC.

Speaker at conference hosted by pro-Hamas group MEMO.

Met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh several times.

Hosted meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad.

Patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign – marches attended by Hezbollah.

Compared Israel to ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.

Said we should not make “value judgements” about Britons who fight for ISIS.

Received endorsement from Hamas.

Attended event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani.

Chaired Stop the War, who praised “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS.

Praised Raed Salah, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel.

Signed letter defending jihadist advocacy group Cage.

Met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers.

Shared platform with representative of extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Compared ISIS to US military in interview on Russia Today.

Opposed proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Attended conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers.

Attended Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of destruction of Israel.

Supported Hamas and ISIS-linked Viva Palestina group.

Attended protest with Islamic extremist Moazzam Begg.

Made the “case for Iran” at event hosted by Khomeinist group.

Photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings.

Photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops.

Said Hamas should “have tea with the Queen”.

Attended ‘Meet the Resistance’ event with Hezbollah MP Hussein El Haj.

Attended event with Haifa Zangana, who praised Palestinian “mujahideen”.

Defended the infamous anti-Semitic Hamas supporter Stephen Sizer.

Attended event with pro-Hamas and Hezbollah group Naturei Karta.

Backed Holocaust denying anti-Zionist extremist Paul Eisen.

Photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences.

Mocked “anti-terror hysteria” while opposing powers for security services.

Named on speakers list for conference with Hamas sympathiser Ismail Patel.

Criticised drone strike that killed Jihadi John.

Said the 7/7 bombers had been denied “hope and opportunity”.

Said 9/11 was “manipulated” to make it look like bin Laden was responsible.

Failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks.

Called Columbian terror group M-19 “comrades”.

Blamed beheading of Alan Henning on Britain.

Gave speech in support of Gaddafi regime.

Signed EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic.

Blamed Tunisia terror attack on “austerity”.

Voted against banning support for the IRA.

Voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times during the Troubles.

Voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11.

Voted against stricter punishments for being a member of a terror group.

Voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism.

Voted against banning al-Qaeda.

Voted against outlawing the glorification of terror.

Voted against control orders.

Voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terrorism.

So it’s a tricky one really

I assume you have copied and pasted this libelous rubbish? From which right wing nutter/publication does it originate? There are ex-IRA and ex-UDA/UVF bombers who are elected MLAs/MPS/and MEPs, including a number you cite: Anderson, McLaughlin, Kelly; and remember, Martin McGuinness was a Deputy First minister! It was vital to bring Sinn Fein into the political process, so that the conflict could end, and Corbyn was one of those politicians who was ahead of the game in trying to engage with them to that end. Others, such as Tony Benn, did the same, but that doesn't mean they supported bombings and shootings. They were honest and open, whilst the Thatcher/Major governments also spoke to Sinn Fein/IRA via back channels, in the hope of ending of conflict, but lied to the public by denying it.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I assume you have copied and pasted this libelous rubbish? From which right wing nutter/publication does it originate? There are ex-IRA and ex-UDA/UVF bombers who are elected MLAs/MPS/and MEPs, including a number you cite: Anderson, McLaughlin, Kelly; and remember, Martin McGuinness was a Deputy First minister! It was vital to bring Sinn Fein into the political process, so that the conflict could end, and Corbyn was one of those politicians who was ahead of the game in trying to engage with them to that end. Others, such as Tony Benn, did the same, but that doesn't mean they supported bombings and shootings. They were honest and open, whilst the Thatcher/Major governments also spoke to Sinn Fein/IRA via back channels, in the hope of ending of conflict, but lied to the public by denying it.

Think you've been whooshed

[Hibrandenburg]

Think you've been whooshed

That would involve me laying a whoosh trap, I didn't, he's whoosed himself :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Corbyn is an old school Lefty surrounded by Communists (Milne, Fisher, Murray etc.) He danced around the fringes of support for "national liberation" movements because that was how Lenin proposed propagating the revolution. It sounds farcical in 2019 but it's true.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_liberation_(Marxism)

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191211/e492013dbd468341d31a817acffc0b55.png
Tories way out in front when it comes to telling lies.
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/12/11/lies-191211/content.html?sig=IR2t2d7WQSXUPi5Ce9V1zkmoddLP8C-ypBMtd9MQQR0&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=11Dec2019&utm_content=lies



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191211/e492013dbd468341d31a817acffc0b55.png
Tories way out in front when it comes to telling lies.
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/12/11/lies-191211/content.html?sig=IR2t2d7WQSXUPi5Ce9V1zkmoddLP8C-ypBMtd9MQQR0&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=11Dec2019&utm_content=lies



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, they're literally all liars.

[Ozyhibby]

So, they're literally all liars.

Tories are 8 times worse than the snp though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

So, they're literally all liars.

Yes, in the same way that everyone having a weight over 1kg suggests that everyone's overweight.

[One Day Soon]

Tories are 8 times worse than the snp though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Absolutely, but "I don't lie as much as he does" isn't exactly a commendation is it?

[One Day Soon]

Yes, in the same way that everyone having a weight over 1kg suggests that everyone's overweight.

Surely everyone has a weight over 1kg? :confused:

Anyway, it really isn't the same at all. You're either a liar or you're not. A bit like being a virgin or not...

[lapsedhibee]

Surely everyone has a weight over 1kg? :confused:

Anyway, it really isn't the same at all. You're either a liar or you're not. A bit like being a virgin or not...

Everyone has a weight over 1kg, and everyone tells untruths of some sort (perhaps, in extreme cases, only to themselves). To lump Plaid 2 and Conservative 140 in the same camp, as you have done, is to deliberately misinterpret what the chart illustrated clearly. You must be a Lib Dem. :agree:

[One Day Soon]

Everyone has a weight over 1kg, and everyone tells untruths of some sort (perhaps, in extreme cases, only to themselves). To lump Plaid 2 and Conservative 140 in the same camp, as you have done, is to deliberately misinterpret what the chart illustrated clearly. You must be a Lib Dem. :agree:

The chart clearly claims that they all lie, otherwise one or more of them would have a zero or negative score for 'severity of untruth'. The Tories obviously lie way more often or more fundamentally - or both - than the rest given the figures, but nevertheless they all lie. To deny that is to deliberately misinterpret the chart.

[jonty]

The chart clearly claims that they all lie, otherwise one or more of them would have a zero or negative score for 'severity of untruth'. The Tories obviously lie way more often or more fundamentally - or both - than the rest given the figures, but nevertheless they all lie. To deny that is to deliberately misinterpret the chart.

The figures don't consist or pure 'untruths'. Its worth reading the article to get context.


But what, in the context of a hard-fought election, actually counts as an “untruth”?
We have used a broad definition to cover statements or manipulations or misrepresentations where politicians strayed from the truth: ranging from the misleading remark to the outright lie.
Over half of the false claims we scrutinised were straightforward errors or exaggerations about facts. One of the smallest was Jeremy Corbyn’s mistaken claim that the UK is the world’s fifth richest country – it’s recently moved down to sixth (or ninth, depending on which measure you use). Not the worst untruth of the campaign, but still an error that a prospective prime minister probably should not make.
Some of these untruths can be classed as “omissions”: claims that miss out important information, such as Siân Berry’s statement during the ITV leaders’ debate that funding for bus services has been cut by nearly half. Full Fact found that this statistic came from a report that, rather significantly, ignores the full picture.
Then there were the conjectures: things that can be neither proven nor disproven, like the SNP saying that Scotland has subsidised the rest of the UK in most of the last 40-year period. Channel 4 found that lack of data makes this impossible to know either way. Again, not a Nixon-level lie: but still a potentially misleading statement.

[lapsedhibee]

The chart clearly claims that they all lie, otherwise one or more of them would have a zero or negative score for 'severity of untruth'. The Tories obviously lie way more often or more fundamentally - or both - than the rest given the figures, but nevertheless they all lie. To deny that is to deliberately misinterpret the chart.

The chart doesn't really 'claim' that all parties lie. It doesn't have to. The survey does attempt to measure the extent of the lying that goes on, and the presentation of results breaks that down by party, among other things. If it wasn't attempting to compare the results between parties, it wouldn't use a huge circle to represent the Conservatives and a tiny circle to represent Plaid.

[McSwanky]

You're either a liar or you're not. A bit like being a virgin or not...

Are you being serious?

[Hibernia&Alba]

That would involve me laying a whoosh trap, I didn't, he's whoosed himself :greengrin

Sorry, to be clear, I'm not suggesting you wrote it or believe it. I noted the first line of your post; just pointing out that it's a Daily Mail wish list you have quoted that is outrageous and inaccurate.

[One Day Soon]

The figures don't consist or pure 'untruths'. Its worth reading the article to get context.

I would suggest that something that set out to measure everything from a misleading remark through to an outright lie and everything in between and which then dumbs all that down into one graphic titled 'severity of untruths' is, in itself, misleading.

I guess we can conclude however that they all 'untruth' in varying measures.

[One Day Soon]

Are you being serious?

It is a bit difficult to be partly or mostly a virgin...

[McSwanky]

It is a bit difficult to be partly or mostly a virgin...

Very good. You're at the wind up. An appropriate thread for you to be posting on!

[One Day Soon]

Very good. You're at the wind up. An appropriate thread for you to be posting on!

I have literally no idea what you are trying to say.

[McSwanky]

I have literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Ever told a lie in your life? Aye/Naw.

Ever had sex in your life? Aye/Naw.

NB You don't need to answer. I'm just illustrating a point.

You're massively over simplifying the issue to suit your agenda.

100% of people will answer aye to the first question. (Unless they're lying. Again.)

Less than 100% of people will answer aye to the second question.

So equating 'being a liar' with 'being a virgin' is a nonsense.

"You're either a liar or not" is a true statement, but completely irrelevant as everyone is a liar.

You can't lump the guy who told his child Santa exists in with the guy who said he wasn't a mass murderer when he had killed 100s of people. That's just ludicrous - it's a sliding scale.

[One Day Soon]

Ever told a lie in your life? Aye/Naw.

Ever had sex in your life? Aye/Naw.

NB You don't need to answer. I'm just illustrating a point.

You're massively over simplifying the issue to suit your agenda.

100% of people will answer aye to the first question. (Unless they're lying. Again.)

Less than 100% of people will answer aye to the second question.

So equating 'being a liar' with 'being a virgin' is a nonsense.

"You're either a liar or not" is a true statement, but completely irrelevant as everyone is a liar.

You can't lump the guy who told his child Santa exists in with the guy who said he wasn't a mass murderer when he had killed 100s of people. That's just ludicrous - it's a sliding scale.


That's mostly all true apart from the agenda simplifying bit. In the context of this debate, according to the graphic, they have all told 'untruths', whichever way we want to interpret the untruth term. In this context the virgin analogy seems fine to me. Either they are liars or they are not. Once we've established that we can then see who lies worst or least. But they still ALL 'untruth' apparently.

It seems to me that the attempt to simplify things into the graphic is where this all falls down, but then that's social media driven 'fact' consumption for you. It seems there always just HAS to be black and white...

[danhibees1875]

That's mostly all true apart from the agenda simplifying bit. In the context of this debate, according to the graphic, they have all told 'untruths', whichever way we want to interpret the untruth term. In this context the virgin analogy seems fine to me. Either they are liars or they are not. Once we've established that we can then see who lies worst or least. But they still ALL 'untruth' apparently.

It seems to me that the attempt to simplify things into the graphic is where this all falls down, but then that's social media driven 'fact' consumption for you. It seems there always just HAS to be black and white...

:confused:

The graph is showing the scale to which people lie.

If it wanted to be black and white they'd just say "they all lie" and end it and that. :dunno:

[lapsedhibee]

That's mostly all true apart from the agenda simplifying bit.

How can something be mostly all true?

Something's either mostly true or it's all true.

'Mostly all true' would be like being 'mostly a virgin'.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's mostly all true apart from the agenda simplifying bit. In the context of this debate, according to the graphic, they have all told 'untruths', whichever way we want to interpret the untruth term. In this context the virgin analogy seems fine to me. Either they are liars or they are not. Once we've established that we can then see who lies worst or least. But they still ALL 'untruth' apparently.

It seems to me that the attempt to simplify things into the graphic is where this all falls down, but then that's social media driven 'fact' consumption for you. It seems there always just HAS to be black and white...

:confused:

Aren't you the one trying to make it binary? I think most are seeing it in shades of grey. Where most parties are a bit grey to some extent and the Tories are out on their own at almost jet black.

[Ozyhibby]

Not all untruths are equal. Sturgeon got pulled up in the debate for saying that 75% of our energy was from renewables. This is not true, it’s only 75% of our electricity that comes from renewables. Transport and home heating have miles to go yet. So it’s an untruth but it’s not hard to imagine that Nicola Sturgeon maybe made a mistake here rather than deliberately mislead.
When Johnson says he’s going to build 40 hospitals it’s hard to see that as a bare faced lie when he can’t name them or tell us where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

So it’s an untruth but it’s not hard to imagine that Nicola Sturgeon maybe made a mistake here rather than deliberately mislead.
When Johnson says he’s going to build 40 hospitals it’s hard to see that as a bare faced lie when he can’t name them or tell us where.

Ridiculously high bar when you consider that he probably can't name or tell the whereabouts of all his five/six/seven/ish children.

[One Day Soon]

:confused:

The graph is showing the scale to which people lie.

If it wanted to be black and white they'd just say "they all lie" and end it and that. :dunno:


Apparently it isn't. It's showing 'untruths' which are not quite as simple as lies...

I agree, it is showing the scale to which people 'untruth'. But it also shows that they do indeed all 'untruth'.

[One Day Soon]

How can something be mostly all true?

Something's either mostly true or it's all true.

'Mostly all true' would be like being 'mostly a virgin'.


Completely right, terrible grammar on my part. It should have said 'mostly true'.

On the second point, there's a Micky Flanagan sketch on the demise of a certain activity that may have relevance here.

[One Day Soon]

:confused:

Aren't you the one trying to make it binary? I think most are seeing it in shades of grey. Where most parties are a bit grey to some extent and the Tories are out on their own at almost jet black.

Not at all. They all lie according to the graph, but some lie a lot more or a lot worse than others.

[One Day Soon]

Not all untruths are equal. Sturgeon got pulled up in the debate for saying that 75% of our energy was from renewables. This is not true, it’s only 75% of our electricity that comes from renewables. Transport and home heating have miles to go yet. So it’s an untruth but it’s not hard to imagine that Nicola Sturgeon maybe made a mistake here rather than deliberately mislead.
When Johnson says he’s going to build 40 hospitals it’s hard to see that as a bare faced lie when he can’t name them or tell us where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, the severity and quantity of lies varies dramatically. I'd be interested to know where in the middle the bar lies - as it were - for the acceptability of lies. It seems to me that we aren't objective about this, we excuse the lies that come from the mouths we want to hear and we condone, justify or turn a blind eye to the ones that come from those we support.

Don't get me wrong - Johnson, Cummings and co are a serious step-up in high grade lying, manipulative chancers.

[Ozyhibby]

There will be no checks at the Irish Sea border is my favourite. It’s demonstrably untrue and has been proven so but he keeps saying it over and over. And he’s probably going to win so maybe it’s me that’s the fool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

There will be no checks at the Irish Sea border is my favourite. It’s demonstrably untrue and has been proven so but he keeps saying it over and over. And he’s probably going to win so maybe it’s me that’s the fool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't feel bad. I fell for 'once in a generation'...

[Ozyhibby]

Don't feel bad. I fell for 'once in a generation'...

Did you vote yes? How did it affect your vote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mon Dieu4]

Don't feel bad. I fell for 'once in a generation'...

Lots of people fell for "the only way to remain in the EU is to vote no to independence"

Are the SNP using it to their advantage, yes and I'd expect them to, but how anyone could claim it's not a material change is beyond my comprehension

[Pretty Boy]

How do bots on Twitter work when it comes to personal interaction?

I've been in a conversation with someone for the last hour and it all seems a bit odd. Only registered just before the election campaign, stock profile photo. Has no tweets of his own, every interaction is a reply to a reply if that makes sense and every like is an anti Labour tweet.

Do bots interact in real time or is it just a troll?

[Mon Dieu4]

How do bots on Twitter work when it comes to personal interaction?

I've been in a conversation with someone for the last hour and it all seems a bit odd. Only registered just before the election campaign, stock profile photo. Has no tweets of his own, every interaction is a reply to a reply if that makes sense and every like is an anti Labour tweet.

Do bots interact in real time or is it just a troll?

They can act in real time, not saying it's "Russian" but they have ones that are not exactly bots but are actual people who respond, there is evidence that during the US election they were using historic accounts that they change names etc to suit whatever subject(pro gun, immigration etc) and that they tried to set up demonstrations by people with opposing views to be in the same place at the same time to get maximum carnage and discourse

I'd take everything I read online these days with a huge pinch of salt

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Lots of people fell for "the only way to remain in the EU is to vote no to independence"

Are the SNP using it to their advantage, yes and I'd expect them to, but how anyone could claim it's not a material change is beyond my comprehension


It's amazing how often this has to be stated to the "once in a generation" camp.

[matty_f]

I dug up this thread, as i think it’s got worse over the last few months, with numerous claims by politicians in particular going unchecked by journalists - even things like the Dominic Cummings lockdown rule breaking, basically it went away because the prime minister started repeating that people weren’t bothered about it.

We’ve seen the government openly lie about testing figures, deaths, actions they’ve taken and decisions that were made etc.

[Keith_M]

Somebody in an earlier post mentioned Boris' claim that there would be 'no border checks in the Irish Sea'.

Guess what, Boris lied (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/post-brexit-irish-sea-customs-checks-revealed-in-hmrc-report-1-6726535)


Maybe we could now have a regular vote for 'whopper of the week'.

[lapsedhibee]

I dug up this thread, as i think it’s got worse over the last few months, with numerous claims by politicians in particular going unchecked by journalists - even things like the Dominic Cummings lockdown rule breaking, basically it went away because the prime minister started repeating that people weren’t bothered about it.

We’ve seen the government openly lie about testing figures, deaths, actions they’ve taken and decisions that were made etc.

I'll only be surprised now if they contradict themselves within a single sentence.

So
"We started lockdown on 23rd March."
"We started lockdown on 16th March."
- expected, normal.

But
"We started lockdown on 23rd March and on 16th March."
- contender for whopper of the week

[Rocky]

It's really worrying, and it seems like they're realising that no matter how much they lie there's no effective way of calling them out in it. People who can see through the lies never supported them anyway and people who support them don't care about the lies. So they carry on and the lies get more and more outrageous.

Don't get me wrong, there's always been spin and lies in politics but it's really getting quite sinister now. I think a lot of populists have learned from Trump that lying can be really effective, it shifts the news agenda to whichever squirrel he happens to be pointing at on any given day, and the real stories miss out on proper scrutiny.