A recommendation for conspiracists/people who understand things the rest of us don't

[Terry - Somerset]

but Trump supporters are using the above points as "evidence" it is happening in Springfield

I immediately assumed that the "Springfield" referred to was the home of the Simpsons. It came as no surprise that the Trump supporting community might regard Homer, Marge, Bart etc as "real"

 

[Blackswanwood]

Nope, your flow chart description falls down at point 1. - in a false equivalence fallacy which conflates the acceptance of donations to be the sleazy behaviour in question.

That's simply dishonest.

No, many voters felt the Tories were sleazy. Accepting inappropriate donations or gifts are easily regarded as sleazy behaviour so "no false equivalence fallacy".

The ACTUAL sleazy behaviour was, for example, a minister acting unlawfully for the benefit of a donor to proactively and knowingly avert them paying £45million in tax. The catalogue of sleaze over the past 10 years is huge.

For the avoidance of any doubt "accepting donations" was never on anyone's RADAR as "sleazy". Because it just isn't. The two things are separate and distinct.

Yes, we could come up with a long list of sleaze. Accepting donations has been firmly on the radar - one example perhaps being Boris and his wallpaper. Inappropriate donations are sleazy.

Also for the avoidance of doubt, the nation's collective conscience has only just been awakened to the issue of donations by what can only be described as a forced narrative within some of the media and that forced narrative has attempted to do, and in some respects successfully, falsely conflate the acceptance of donations and sleazy behaviour.

Perhaps if Kier Starmer had not made a big thing about how he was going to be whiter than white or had actually been more thoughtful about accepting such an inappropriate level of gifts it would not have troubled the nation's collective conscience?

You may well have had the previous mindset that donations to politicians = fundamentally bad, however, my question to you and others will always be the same: When did you first put your mindset into writing on a forum or on social media? You may well be in a vanishingly small minority that previously have done so, but it is dishonest to declare that the forced narrative has always been an issue for those organisations and individuals who are now flooding the media space with their forced narrative.

I've certainly not held back on my views about Tory sleaze. Strangely I never felt Boris and co were hypocritical about it - it was almost expected. I actually believed Starmer would be true to his word. The press mirrors politics with a left and right wing leaning. "Forced narrative" is a rowlocks claim put forward by ether side when they are criticised.

The outlets that are forcing the narrative have always, always been actively and acutely aware of donations taking place to politicians (they even did it themselves...), however, they have singularly failed to take that to print in the past and it is only now that it is suddenly a thing? Pull the other one.

Google "Boris wallpaper" or "Tory Sleaze" - plenty of coverage.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

No, many voters felt the Tories were sleazy. Accepting inappropriate donations or gifts are easily regarded as sleazy behaviour so "no false equivalence fallacy".

But there is a false equivalence fallacy at work here, even if you deliberately try to double down on denying it.

The fact is that the donations to Kier, that you are implying as sleaze, or somehow "inappropriate" all took place in the past 4 years whilst in opposition, and the only reason that you know about it is because he recorded it all as required. And who is defining what is and what is not "appropriate"? Would that be you? Or would there be some underlying key to what is and what is not acceptable. Some kind of rules based system, perhaps, which individuals use as their yardstick for what is defined as appropriate or acceptable behaviour?

Deferring your critique and only telling someone that *you think* something is inappropriate by several months or years is not a valid viewpoint or honest behaviour.

Besides, the issue about sleaze that Starmer et al were critical about was not the acceptance of donations or gifts - it was the evidenced rule-breaking and unlawful behaviour that went on for so long previously - as a close follower I remember sometimes new stories or rule-breaking and unlawful behaviour by Tory ministers broke on a daily basis. This is the sleaze that people rail agaimst. This is the sleaze that Starmer railed against.

For *you* to then say that Starmer is "hypocritical" is factually incorrect, since it wasn't donation accepting that Starmer was critical of - it was the unlawful and rule-breaking behaviour that went on so very often. (I've no need to google Boris Wallpaper or any other story - although I will remind you that gifts and donations to Ministers are different from broader MPs, treated under different rules within the Ministerial Code)


Simply the acceptance of gifts didn't appear on anyone's RADAR when it was actually taking place and being recorded over the past 4 years, so why has it become an issue now? If people really DO think of donations as sleazy, then some time during the last 4 years was the APPROPRIATE opportunity to bring it up, and categorically not in retrospect, when it is something that you ought to have known (if it bothered you) prior to the election.


If we then link back the previous question of "appropriate" and "your" view - well, this too takes us back to prior to the election, if it had been such an issue at the time. Which it fundamentally could not be, because it is rule-based and Kier broke no rules. Which then brings us back to the "your opinion" discussion - which really has no place in the discussion of ACTUAL SLEAZE and the discussion of "hypocrisy" - since there was, in world of observable reality and of facts. no hypocrisy at play.


This illustrates categorically that the timing is purely under a belated forced narrative false equivalence.


And when you imply that press and media have both left and right leaning balance, I call BS - because, again using that phrase "in the world of observable reality and of fact" the press are at least 75% controlled and biased towards the right. I've pointed this out myself before, and somebody else later has too, that billionaires both Rupert Murdoch (not just right wing, but actively anti-left) and the 4th Viscount Rothermere, Jonathan Harmsworth (hereditary aristocrat) maintain a stranglehold on the vast majority of media output - so much so that their forced narrative of misinformation has had so much coverage and shall we say "success"? Those two alone have had unparalleled and unfettered access to the Tory Cabinet and Tory Leadership that you cannot with any credibility claim that the press are not dominated by right wing bias. There is simply no left counter-balance.

Your opinion is of course, your own, and you're free to hold it and to wield it as you see fit. We are all different and I value that. However, when an opinion strays into the realms of being factually incorrect, it no longer remains an "opinion" but becomes something else entirely.

 

[Blackswanwood]

But there is a false equivalence fallacy at work here, even if you deliberately try to double down on denying it.

The fact is that the donations to Kier, that you are implying as sleaze, or somehow "inappropriate" all took place in the past 4 years whilst in opposition, and the only reason that you know about it is because he recorded it all as required. And who is defining what is and what is not "appropriate"? Would that be you? Or would there be some underlying key to what is and what is not acceptable. Some kind of rules based system, perhaps, which individuals use as their yardstick for what is defined as appropriate or acceptable behaviour?

Obviously he received the gifts when in opposition - he wouldn't have had time to cram all those concerts and football matches into the short time he's been PM.

I know you struggle with the concept of opinions but a quick look at the opinion polls shows what the public think of it.

Deferring your critique and only telling someone that *you think* something is inappropriate by several months or years is not a valid viewpoint or honest behaviour.

Strangely I don't check the register of interest every week. You do seem a bit obsessed with claiming people are being dishonest just because they see things differently to you.

Besides, the issue about sleaze that Starmer et al were critical about was not the acceptance of donations or gifts - it was the evidenced rule-breaking and unlawful behaviour that went on for so long previously - as a close follower I remember sometimes new stories or rule-breaking and unlawful behaviour by Tory ministers broke on a daily basis. This is the sleaze that people rail agaimst. This is the sleaze that Starmer railed against.

Can you point me to exactly what Starmer said on the issue? When I check back he had a lot to say (quite rightly) across the broad range of sleazy stuff that was going on. Sleaze covers a multitude of things - some illegal and some not.

For *you* to then say that Starmer is "hypocritical" is factually incorrect, since it wasn't donation accepting that Starmer was critical of - it was the unlawful and rule-breaking behaviour that went on so very often. (I've no need to google Boris Wallpaper or any other story - although I will remind you that gifts and donations to Ministers are different from broader MPs, treated under different rules within the Ministerial Code)

I disagree that it's factually incorrect. If you check back on the previous thread I set out the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. No need for the reminder but thank you anyway.

Simply the acceptance of gifts didn't appear on anyone's RADAR when it was actually taking place and being recorded over the past 4 years, so why has it become an issue now? If people really DO think of donations as sleazy, then some time during the last 4 years was the APPROPRIATE opportunity to bring it up, and categorically not in retrospect, when it is something that you ought to have known (if it bothered you) prior to the election.


If we then link back the previous question of "appropriate" and "your" view - well, this too takes us back to prior to the election, if it had been such an issue at the time. Which it fundamentally could not be, because it is rule-based and Kier broke no rules. Which then brings us back to the "your opinion" discussion - which really has no place in the discussion of ACTUAL SLEAZE and the discussion of "hypocrisy" - since there was, in world of observable reality and of facts. no hypocrisy at play.

Well it's an issue now as it's come to light. I've always acknowledged rules have not been broken. Starmer set himself a higher standard than the rules though. You don't need break the rules to be hypocritical. The phrase "observable reality" that you keep using doesn't add any weight to your argument. The only "observable reality" is that we have different opinions which does not imply dishonesty on either of us.

This illustrates categorically that the timing is purely under a belated forced narrative false equivalence.

Wow - can you not weave a few more buzz words into that sentence. If you mean it's a bit late to be complaining well I don't agree. If someone had told me about it earlier I'd have complained then.

And when you imply that press and media have both left and right leaning balance, I call BS - because, again using that phrase "in the world of observable reality and of fact" the press are at least 75% controlled and biased towards the right. I've pointed this out myself before, and somebody else later has too, that billionaires both Rupert Murdoch (not just right wing, but actively anti-left) and the 4th Viscount Rothermere, Jonathan Harmsworth (hereditary aristocrat) maintain a stranglehold on the vast majority of media output - so much so that their forced narrative of misinformation has had so much coverage and shall we say "success"? Those two alone have had unparalleled and unfettered access to the Tory Cabinet and Tory Leadership that you cannot with any credibility claim that the press are not dominated by right wing bias. There is simply no left counter-balance.

Yes, that as a couple of twits that I don't think should be trusted with running newspapers. Didn't Murdoch via The Sun back Labour this time? Anyway, both ends of the political spectrum moan about press bias so while I've not studied the balance of coverage feels like both have mouthpieces.

Your opinion is of course, your own, and you're free to hold it and to wield it as you see fit. We are all different and I value that. However, when an opinion strays into the realms of being factually incorrect, it no longer remains an "opinion" but becomes something else entirely

Well you've left a cliff hanger there but I can assure you it is an opinion. I hope you weren't going to call me dishonest again ...

I'm not anti-Starmer. I didn't vote for him but I hope he does well for the UK now he's in power. If the noise is stripped away I actually think he's put more good things in motion since being appointed than he's had credit for. I do think he made a big error of judgement here and would have done better to put his hands up, find a form of words that said he was sorry if people felt let down and commit to not accept any more gifts. I also feel that just falling back on "no rules were broken" fundamentally misses the point - he held himself out as having higher principles than the rules.

 

[Delaney]

1. The term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA to discredit anyone who didn't buy into the official JFK assassination (or was it? https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864). Whatever it's origin, the term is used in a smugly disparaging way to confirm the boundaries of right-thinking and "wrongthink" or more accurately "crimethink". It's all very orwellian. Accuse someone of being a "Conspiracy Theoriest" and you have immediately destroyed their argument, without actually addressing any of their arguments.

2. The desire to conform is strong in many people, and especially strong in British culture. Us and Them is a very important way of understanding who you are and where you might fit in to society, and having swivel-eyed loons and gammons trying to tell you that black is white and up is down is, frankly, unsettling. Especially when you know, for a proven fact, that they are deranged imbeciles, which rather presupposes that the facts your certain knowledge is based on are valid and truthful facts. This brings me on to the next point:

3. Narrative control. (See point 1 above, also). There are numerous groups who want to keep you believing in certain things, and not believing in certain other things. You can tell it's a narrative by the endless, redundant repetition. I am sure we can all come up with examples, but just a couple for ironic effect: "illegal and unprovoked invasion", and "the right to defend itself". I'm sure you know who these two are applied to, but just for fun try swapping the names of the countries, and see what happens...

Governments spend a lot of time and effort getting you to belive a narrative, rather than facts. Entertainingly, there are so many different groups vying for control of the narrative that they now make up the bulk of the comments on many fora (I prefer "forums", but we need to pretend to speak Latin to show our off edumication - status again). The half dozen "real" posters get swamped by all the crazy. Flat-earthers tend to turn up wherever there is anything controversial to sidetrack the conversation. Global warming is another favourite. Vitriolic antisemitism is often used by the worldwide Jewish Internet mind control network (Hasbara, anyone?) to rapidly stop any sensible debate. It will be interesting to see who's cages I rattle here.

A resent trend in journalism is to stop reporting facts, and create "stories" tha make you feel. It doesn't really matter what emotion the stoŕy conjures up, as long as you do lots of emotion rather than logic. The BBC website has devolved into an irrelevance of touchy-feely reporting that is heavy on things to make you emotional, but little if anything factual to let you know what is actually going on. Apparently you are more likely to click on a link if you are angry, so the majority of news reports are designed to make you angry, for clicks. Try not reading any news for a week, and see if your mental state improves.

That's quite enough for one post - I stopped posting here a couple of years ago, mainly because I couldn't cope with the enforced group think, jingoism and racism that is built into british society and extremely visible here. Apologies if that includes you, but take comfort in the knowledge that it's not your fault - you are a product of your society. I used to be, but 25 years of living abroad has given me a certain distance with which to view things. I don't know if I will reply again, (I am mentally much better off for not being involved in sharpening squabbles), but have at it. Debate is the search for knowledge, is it not?

I reported your post for the deliberate use of racially motivated slurs.

Given that you seem to be very concerned about racism, that makes you quite the hypocrite.

A classic case of projection.