Leftfield

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I don't know which debates you've been to, but most of the time there is a mixture of agreements and disagreements- the left is not homogenous or unified. 

In all honesty I think the people complaining about the leftfield being leftwing aren't particularly left wing and want their views represented more, but are kind of missing the point of it. It's like people who say the MOBO awards are racist. Right wing views dominate the media, leftfield gives us left wing people a chance to hang out with like minded people and recharge and share ideas and debate issues that don't get much of an airing. It's not Question Time. 

Think that's totally wrong really, apart from groups on the left being their own worst enemy and being more divisive than the right, lol And the MOBO thing seems a bit extreme, I'm not sure what that's got to do with it - never heard anyone mention than one before. And there's literally TONS of Leftist rags out there, Independent, Guardian (who are the official newspaper too), and the Daily Mirror - all things you can get hold of on a daily basis and dominate the lives of most of the people who go to the festival I bet. I don't see many people on here complaining about it being Leftwing, and their views not represented, but rather they'd prefer a balanced debate, than a bunch of people all slapping each other on the back from one half of the spectrum. I'm about as centrist as it gets really, but only listening to one half of a conversation/debate/discussion, no matter how much you can fragment the left wing side of the spectrum in to parts and claim there's a reasonable debate, isn't really a conversation/debate/discussion. Where's everyone else's chance to recharge and think about the issues than listening to the echo chamber? If it's only for the Leftists, which probably make up the greater number, maybe 70/30 I guess, then it doesn't feel very inclusive and just furthers divisions really

PS. I really like QT as it shows balanced debates and thus gives the listener more to think about - which I thought was the whole point. To think about the issues from all angles.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, simian_mobile_mushrooms said:

Think that's totally wrong really, apart from groups on the left being their own worst enemy and being more divisive than the right, lol And the MOBO thing seems a bit extreme, I'm not sure what that's got to do with it - never heard anyone mention than one before. And there's literally TONS of Leftist rags out there, Independent, Guardian (who are the official newspaper too), and the Daily Mirror - all things you can get hold of on a daily basis and dominate the lives of most of the people who go to the festival I bet. I don't see many people on here complaining about it being Leftwing, and their views not represented, but rather they'd prefer a balanced debate, than a bunch of people all slapping each other on the back from one half of the spectrum. I'm about as centrist as it gets really, but only listening to one half of a conversation/debate/discussion, no matter how much you can fragment the left wing side of the spectrum in to parts and claim there's a reasonable debate, isn't really a conversation/debate/discussion. Where's everyone else's chance to recharge and think about the issues than listening to the echo chamber? If it's only for the Leftists, which probably make up the greater number, maybe 70/30 I guess, then it doesn't feel very inclusive and just furthers divisions really

PS. I really like QT as it shows balanced debates and thus gives the listener more to think about - which I thought was the whole point. To think about the issues from all angles.

Question Time isn't balanced and The Guardian and The Independent aren't particularly left. It's all pretty right leaning these days and a million miles away from being as left wing as either the current Labour party or myself.

[Quark]

2 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

Even people who complain about the echo chamber are making their own echo chamber- the arena they want to create is a recreation of their inner world, where there's nothing too radical, and they can weigh up two conflicting views, leading to a generally centrist conclusion. 

Surely that is, to use the technical term, cobblers? You're confusing beige with being well-informed. The assumption is that comparing and contrasting conflicting views automatically leads to something in the middle. It's entirely possible to read those views and agree with one over the other; the difference is that you've looked at both and, after consideration, decided that one is bollocks.

2 hours ago, Jamie D said:

But before the internet people generally only read one newspaper which supported their viewpoint almost in its entirety. So despite Google's tailored search results, surely it's still better than 20 years ago in terms of the variety of news sources people are being exposed to?

It is in that respect, but the problem for me comes where people think they're taking an approach that will give them a range of views but isn't actually doing so. It then justifies a point of view by saying "well I looked up this story and it was on lots of websites, I've done my research", not because people are being deliberately narrow but because they genuinely believe they've looked into it.

[Amy Lawn]

6 hours ago, amfy said:

 

I went to see Tony Benn (up in the greenfield a - maybe the same year).

Because he was running late due to being old and frail by then, they asked people to get up and speak about things that they felt passionately about. A woman got up and talked about the obesity crisis and the rise of diabetes due to our poor diets. She ended her speech with a rousing ....' SO STOP EATING BISCUITS!' And everybody cheered!

I leant across to my husband and said quietly out of the corner of my mouth 'Did she just get a cheer for telling everyone to stop eating biscuits?' and the bloke behind me leaned in and said 'I know! That's crazy talk!' 

I remember that who interlude where they were just letting any bugger get up on the stage and address the crowd, it was pretty great tbf. Started out a bit nuts, and then just took a journey through all sorts of completely fucking ludicrious or hilariously mundane ramblings. There was a bit when it looked like everybody had expressed literally any thought they could think of and the compere was like "aaaaaannnyyyyyybody who wants to, just come up and address the crowd.... whatever you like..." and this one guy just kept getting up over and over again out of a sense of civic duty/was a barmpot; one of his speeches was about all the world's problems will be solved if everybody just walks on the left all the time from now on, and then another one was his mental limericks he seemed to be making up on the spot. I had a wonderful time.

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

9 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Question Time isn't balanced and The Guardian and The Independent aren't particularly left. It's all pretty right leaning these days and a million miles away from being as left wing as either the current Labour party or myself.

Question time def is balanced, always plenty of greens, libs, cons, the odd ukip guy if any are left knocking around and journos from both sides. The Guardian and Independent are quite clearly left lunging, let alone leaning... lol

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, simian_mobile_mushrooms said:

Question time def is balanced, always plenty of greens, libs, cons, the odd ukip guy if any are left knocking around and journos from both sides. The Guardian and Independent are quite clearly left lunging, let alone leaning... lol

Maybe once.  Not since Lebedev took over.

Perception of what constitutes left and right has all gone to bollocks.  What used to be fairly moderate leftist ideas are now often considered to be the ideas of screaming Trots. The acceptable centre has shifted right over the years.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

Maybe once.  Not since Lebedev took over.

Perception of what constitutes left and right has all gone to bollocks.  What used to be fairly moderate leftist ideas are now often considered to be the ideas of screaming Trots. The acceptable centre has shifted right over the years.

Yeah, exactly my point. Whether QT is centerist all depends on where you think the centre is.

 

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

Just now, Quark said:

Maybe once.  Not since Lebedev took over.

Perception of what constitutes left and right has all gone to bollocks.  What used to be fairly moderate leftist ideas are now often considered to be the ideas of screaming Trots. The acceptable centre has shifted right over the years.

I'm not so sure, their philosophy is still liberal which is more on the Left. It's not the best evidence for political change but if you click on their politics header at the top they're in love with the Greens and Labour and Lib Dems. There's only one article about ol' Tess on there where as the others all get prime spots at the top. I'd still count it as Left leaning for now sure. And I totally agree about the centre shifting right a little bit over the recent years, but thats because I think there's a growing radical left group stretching the spectrum towards the Left and centrists I suppose like myself err on the side of history and tradition. Just my two cents tho

[Mr.Tease]

9 hours ago, Quark said:

Surely that is, to use the technical term, cobblers? You're confusing beige with being well-informed. The assumption is that comparing and contrasting conflicting views automatically leads to something in the middle. It's entirely possible to read those views and agree with one over the other; the difference is that you've looked at both and, after consideration, decided that one is bollocks.

It is in that respect, but the problem for me comes where people think they're taking an approach that will give them a range of views but isn't actually doing so. It then justifies a point of view by saying "well I looked up this story and it was on lots of websites, I've done my research", not because people are being deliberately narrow but because they genuinely believe they've looked into it.

Who does that? Do you know anyone? I think most people are capable of critical thinking (if they are sufficiently interested in the topic and aren't extremely passionate about it) -  if someone proposes a left wing idea, I already know the right wing counter argument (and vice versa) as do you, as do most people. Its very rare nowadays that there will be a completely new issue or debate where you haven't heard the counter argument over the years or can't think of it yourself.

People aren't leftwing, right wing or central because they've never heard the counter argument before, they gravitate towards the argument that resonates with them.

Do you really think that no one in the leftfield tent knows or has heard the counter argument to anything that's being said? 

[Quark]

10 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Who does that? Do you know anyone? I think most people are capable of critical thinking (if they are sufficiently interested in the topic and aren't extremely passionate about it) -  if someone proposes a left wing idea, I already know the right wing counter argument (and vice versa) as do you, as do most people. Its very rare nowadays that there will be a completely new issue or debate where you haven't heard the counter argument over the years or can't think of it yourself.

People aren't leftwing, right wing or central because they've never heard the counter argument before, they gravitate towards the argument that resonates with them.

Do you really think that no one in the leftfield tent knows or has heard the counter argument to anything that's being said? 

I think it's drifted away from my original point, but I'm claiming being tired as an excuse

In the case of something like the EU referendum where people (not all; as you say people gravitate toward what resonates) were looking for facts to make an informed choice, the facts that are generated by the search engines will tend to lean towards a certain point of view.

If you're talking about ideas, beliefs, concepts etc then absolutely you can be presented with as many facts as you like and it won't change your personal stance.

No mater how well argued the case for a right-wing economic approach may be it won't change my feelings about social equality. So agree with you there.

I'm not always good at explaining myself on politics and the like, which is why I tend to stay out of them

[Mr.Tease]

15 minutes ago, Quark said:

I think it's drifted away from my original point, but I'm claiming being tired as an excuse

In the case of something like the EU referendum where people (not all; as you say people gravitate toward what resonates) were looking for facts to make an informed choice, the facts that are generated by the search engines will tend to lean towards a certain point of view.

If you're talking about ideas, beliefs, concepts etc then absolutely you can be presented with as many facts as you like and it won't change your personal stance.

No mater how well argued the case for a right-wing economic approach may be it won't change my feelings about social equality. So agree with you there.

I'm not always good at explaining myself on politics and the like, which is why I tend to stay out of them

I think you've explained yourself very well. In Counselling terms, the idea is that we have some 'cherished beliefs' which are basically core tenants of our reality and identity- so anything that challenges these is seen as threatening and so avoided or dismissed. It takes a cataclysmic event to review those.

The basic idea is that we're not rational beings who neutrally weigh up information, but rather were emotional beings who think, and we filter information and conflicting information using our emotions and what resonates.

So the example given was a man who had suffered a stroke that killed off the bit of brain that handles emotions. As a result, aside from not being able to feel anything, he was completely unable to make any decision because he had no way of filtering through  information and options.

[Quark]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think you've explained yourself very well. In Counselling terms, the idea is that we have some 'cherished beliefs' which are basically core tenants of our reality and identity- so anything that challenges these is seen as threatening and so avoided or dismissed. It takes a cataclysmic event to review those.

The basic idea is that we're not rational beings who neutrally weigh up information, but rather were emotional beings who think, and we filter information and conflicting information using our emotions and what resonates.

So the example given was a man who had suffered a stroke that killed off the bit of brain that handles emotions. As a result, aside from not being able to feel anything, he was completely unable to make any decision because he had no way of filtering through  information and options.

Interesting.  Would certainly explain why I can't change my dad's mind on anything!

I guess some people suffer (?) more from the internal conflict of trying to be a rational being while all the time your core system is overriding that and telling you to think what you've always thought.

[Mr.Tease]

Just now, Quark said:

Interesting.  Would certainly explain why I can't change my dad's mind on anything!

I guess some people suffer (?) more from the internal conflict of trying to be a rational being while all the time your core system is overriding that and telling you to think what you've always thought.

Or that 'being a rational being' is a cherished belief for some people, which means it's actually ironically based on an emotional need it messes with your mind after a while! 

[Quark]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Or that 'being a rational being' is a cherished belief for some people, which means it's actually ironically based on an emotional need it messes with your mind after a while! 

Great. I recharged my activism and promptly shorted out the system.

I'll be the guy at the back of Leftfield with one eye twitching

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, simian_mobile_mushrooms said:

Question time def is balanced, always plenty of greens, libs, cons, the odd ukip guy if any are left knocking around and journos from both sides. The Guardian and Independent are quite clearly left lunging, let alone leaning... lol

UKIP have been on like 3x more often than the Greens...

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

UKIP have been on like 3x more often than the Greens...

Also at the time more relevant because they were getting higher up in the polls etc. by the last election they also got three times as many seats. I would expect them to be given more airtime in that case, but also I don't know the others were on the panel, but still, in recent QTs i've seen, there's always a pretty even spread. Anyway, I'm going to get back to music, cos all this politics stuff gives me a bit of a headache sometimes, ha!

[Amy Lawn]

Working backwards from what we can see on the EE leak, I reckon Nadine Shah will clash with Little Dragon

[Homer]