Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
feral chile

Off-Topic Tangents

Recommended Posts

I started this for my own benefit, venting and making longwinded and boring intellectual points that don't fit within the topic concerned.

It could well be just me in here raging, but at least if someone makes a personal criticism that triggers me into defensive mode, I can "take it outside."

If anyone else feels the need to expand on something in a battle of words that they feel is inappropriate for a main topic, feel free to offload here.

Same if there's a complex issue with loads of info etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First vent: attacking the source rather than the content. This riles me no end, because often, in order to get beyond the mainstream, you have to go to minority sources. Sometimes, the primary source is one of these sources. The mainstream media often misquotes or selectively reports something from a particular group. This happens often with Corbyn, and Labour generally.

Derek Jameson is on record admitting he exaggerated and sensationalised the impact of the Winter of Discontent. The media used to predict gang fights at seaside resorts on bank holiday weekends. Sociological researchers discovered that these gangs would then turn up there, so it became a self fulfilling prophecy.

Adverts for detergent etc. used to show women having meltdowns and being shunned by their female peers, for having dingy whites, then you'd have the male expert in a white coat giving a scientific explanation of why a brand could save the day.

This message goes way, way beyond which detergent is effective. The objective, male authority figure is telling females how to fulfil their gender role.

So, every time I see so called left leaning Labour supporters not questioning the subtle Labour bashing that happens in mainstream media, and questioning left publications trying to set the record straight, I despair.

It makes sense for Tory supporters but is self harming for Labour suppoerters, who can't seem to recognise thse subtext message underlying the media reports.

Which is: Labour can't be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, feral chile said:

First vent: attacking the source rather than the content. This riles me no end, because often, in order to get beyond the mainstream, you have to go to minority sources. Sometimes, the primary source is one of these sources. The mainstream media often misquotes or selectively reports something from a particular group. This happens often with Corbyn, and Labour generally.

Derek Jameson is on record admitting he exaggerated and sensationalised the impact of the Winter of Discontent. The media used to predict gang fights at seaside resorts on bank holiday weekends. Sociological researchers discovered that these gangs would then turn up there, so it became a self fulfilling prophecy.

Adverts for detergent etc. used to show women having meltdowns and being shunned by their female peers, for having dingy whites, then you'd have the male expert in a white coat giving a scientific explanation of why a brand could save the day.

This message goes way, way beyond which detergent is effective. The objective, male authority figure is telling females how to fulfil their gender role.

So, every time I see so called left leaning Labour supporters not questioning the subtle Labour bashing that happens in mainstream media, and questioning left publications trying to set the record straight, I despair.

It makes sense for Tory supporters but is self harming for Labour suppoerters, who can't seem to recognise thse subtext message underlying the media reports.

Which is: Labour can't be trusted.

You might notice, but I criticise people who start quoting the Daily Mail, and the main reason I was criticising Lad was because he was sourcing from Infowars/Breitbart type sources. The content is intrinsically linked to the source, and several places aren't trustworthy.

Wikipedia no longer considers the Mail to be a reputable source for its content, and many people wouldn't trust anything that's sourced from there, with reason, and the same standards should be applied to left-wing sources as well.


The media should be held to account for its bias, but the thing about the traditional media sources, is that they're trusted because their facts are typically more verifiable. Opinion pieces and factual pieces are often better distinguished as well. Now they do perpetuate a lot of conservative ideology (as do adverts), but it's perfectly valid to criticise questionable publications.

It's also really not a subtle message that is being portrayed. Most of the people here were saying that the Milibashing was just the media doing standard things, there's actually less Labour bashing now than 4 years ago (probably because Labour are doing that job for them). But how can I criticise the media for implying Labour can't be trusted when, for the first time in my life, I don't trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

You might notice, but I criticise people who start quoting the Daily Mail, and the main reason I was criticising Lad was because he was sourcing from Infowars/Breitbart type sources. The content is intrinsically linked to the source, and several places aren't trustworthy.

Wikipedia no longer considers the Mail to be a reputable source for its content, and many people wouldn't trust anything that's sourced from there, with reason, and the same standards should be applied to left-wing sources as well.


The media should be held to account for its bias, but the thing about the traditional media sources, is that they're trusted because their facts are typically more verifiable. Opinion pieces and factual pieces are often better distinguished as well. Now they do perpetuate a lot of conservative ideology (as do adverts), but it's perfectly valid to criticise questionable publications.

It's also really not a subtle message that is being portrayed. Most of the people here were saying that the Milibashing was just the media doing standard things, there's actually less Labour bashing now than 4 years ago (probably because Labour are doing that job for them). But how can I criticise the media for implying Labour can't be trusted when, for the first time in my life, I don't trust them.

I appreciate that you don't trust them, but at least make sure you trace it back to primary sources. Not just Corbyn related either. The media often takes a piece of research out of context and misrepresents it.

Most of the stuff I read I wouldn't post here, it's usually government publications or peer reviews that would bore everyone.

I end up feeling I'm defending myself rather than my views.

There are some attention grabbing headlines in the right wing press I'd like to consider, but it's usually behind a firewall.

Often, I find myself being judged for a position that I haven't actually decided upon. Often they'll be ones where I've just posted an alternative to whichever one has already been posted. Without comment, as I like to know what people think of the argument.

Then, in defending myself against the charge of posting nonfactual propaganda, I end up having to post some respectable, objective-seeming research. It then looks like I think that research is unbiased and so has truth value, whereas I'm just posting it to prove the original has some reputable backers, and that the intellectual snobbery is uncalled for. Often, the research is actually being quoted, and quoted accurately.

My own opinion is that academic researchers are biased too.

The likes of the Canary, Red Pepper etc., don't tend to invent stuff. Their sources are verifiable. Selective, yes, but no more than anyone selectively posting sources here.

Including me, but the accusations imply exclusively me, while you're all objective and unbiased. Despite often repeating Chinese Whispers style, hearsay variations of the primary source you think you're referencing.

And it's that incorrect complacency and lack of self awareness that triggers me to rant.

Edited by feral chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The likes of the Canary, Red Pepper etc., don't tend to invent stuff. Their sources are verifiable. Selective, yes, but no more than anyone selectively posting sources here.

Including me, but the accusations imply exclusively me, while you're all objective and unbiased.

And it's that complacency that triggers me to rant.

The Canary presents incredibly biased opinion, where they've deliberately excluded counter-evidence, as fact. Linking to a primary source is irrelevant unless you include the full data from both sides.

It's like when the Daily Mail finds some tiny side-bit of data to slag off immigration, and excludes all the actual relevant information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kaosmark2 said:

The Canary presents incredibly biased opinion, where they've deliberately excluded counter-evidence, as fact. Linking to a primary source is irrelevant unless you include the full data from both sides.

It's like when the Daily Mail finds some tiny side-bit of data to slag off immigration, and excludes all the actual relevant information.

Of course they do. But often it's difficult to find the primary source that they quote. So, if a particular bit of propaganda does the rounds on here, and The Canary has the primary source, preferably the video of what's being discussed, I'll use it.

You're getting the wrong impression of my views from that.

It's my reaction to a one sided statement already here. Often a correction, sometimes just an opposing view.

The 1970s one was because I don't remember the 1970s the way Neil does, my husband,'s a bit older, so I asked him,  neither of us can remember them being harsh, unlike the 1980s, which is often portrayed as prosperous. Yet I remember hardship, and when were the poll tax riots?

So, that article pointing to deindustrialisation, which would have hit Wales with the pit closures, fit better with my memories.

It was actually well sourced, despite its obvious and unhidden bias.

Plus, on further research, there's plenty of evidence that the Winter of Discontent was exaggerated by the media, I even posted a video of Derek Jameson admitting it, and this has affected public perception.

I'm not claiming a higher authority, just an alternative perspective based on the same facts. There were strikes etc. But being Welsh, I remember the 80s as the years of political unrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Of course they do. But often it's difficult to find the primary source that they quote. So, if a particular bit of propaganda does the rounds on here, and The Canary has the primary source, preferably the video of what's being discussed, I'll use it.

You're getting the wrong impression of my views from that.

It's my reaction to a one sided statement already here. Often a correction, sometimes just an opposing view.

The 1970s one was because I don't remember the 1970s the way Neil does, my husband,'s a bit older, so I asked him,  neither of us can remember them being harsh, unlike the 1980s, which is often portrayed as prosperous. Yet I remember hardship, and when were the poll tax riots?

So, that article pointing to deindustrialisation, which would have hit Wales with the pit closures, fit better with my memories.

It was actually well sourced, despite its obvious and unhidden bias.

Plus, on further research, there's plenty of evidence that the Winter of Discontent was exaggerated by the media, I even posted a video of Derek Jameson admitting it, and this has affected public perception.

I'm not claiming a higher authority, just an alternative perspective based on the same facts. There were strikes etc. But being Welsh, I remember the 80s as the years of political unrest.

You realise the Canary has edited videos to mislead as much as the Tories edited that Starmer interview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

You realise the Canary has edited videos to mislead as much as the Tories edited that Starmer interview?

No, I didn't. Can you remember which ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

No, I didn't. Can you remember which ones?

I can't, I might try and have a dig at some point, but I don't really want to give them clicks and go through all their videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I can't, I might try and have a dig at some point, but I don't really want to give them clicks and go through all their videos.

It'd be interesting to know.

I don't routinely read the Canary, by the way, the Guardian or Independent tend to be more to my taste.

I haven't caught the Canary out yet, but I know Squawkbox posted something that Corbyn's team later contradicted so they deleted it.

Edited by feral chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, feral chile said:

First vent: attacking the source rather than the content.

my first vent:

giving sources that the provider of that source hasn't read and doesn't understand, and then pretending it wasn't a source at all and taking no responsibility for it, while trying to hide/whitewash it away with endless posts of bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

my first vent:

giving sources that the provider of that source hasn't read and doesn't understand, and then pretending it wasn't a source at all and taking no responsibility for it, while trying to hide/whitewash it away with endless posts of bollocks.

Neil.

My second vent.

If this is the redpepper post, I have read and understood it. I haven't claimed it isn't "a source", whatever the hell that means.

I hadn't realised the PCS connection until afterwards, but this argument is very, very familiar to me.

What responsibility is there to take? It's a different perspective.

Most sources on here seem to be "what I say".

Yet that's ok.

So, you get, "Corbyn did xyz"

Pro Corbyn source denies it, linking to Corbyn himself.

"Can't use that source, biased".

I like exploring ideas. That was an interpretation of the 1970s. After having to defend it, I discovered plenty of evidence supporting it. It's not made up out of nowhere.

But, like anything else, there'll be opposing evidence, only the events themselves are factual. It is a fact that the media exaggerated the scale and impact of the Winter of Discontent.

It's a bit rich you complaining about people reading and not understanding sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

What responsibility is there to take? It's a different perspective.

You tell me. What responsibility do you take for what you choose to present?

And what of the "different perspective" - a choice to misrepresent things - did you feel was a perspective others should consider?

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You tell me. What responsibility do you take for what you choose to present?

And what of the "different perspective" - a choice to misrepresent things - did you feel was a perspective others should consider?

Neil mun. You're demonstrating exactly my point. You invalidate one and validate the other source.

I then ask you to choose what you disagree with. I then quote what both those articles concluded on that topic. They both raised exactly the same points, maybe the author of the first article had read the other one?

How do you know that the academic researcher wasn't a Marxist?

I know the author of the first one was a trade union official, though I didn't when I posted it.

Both were left leaning, why do you think one is factual and thr other not?

Edited by feral chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

You invalidate one and validate the other source.

No. A lack of application of the facts invalidates one, and the application of the facts validates the other.  

Your version only works where setting out to deceive is as valid as an attempt at objectivity. 

You can buy into bollocks if you like, but don't expect others to think you smart when you do.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't pretend I knew who this guy was beforehand, unfortunately, he's the author of the first article.

I think he might be a bit more knowledgeable than either of us.

https://repeaterbooks.com/author/john-medhurst/

John Medhurst

John Medhurst was born in London in 1962 and graduated in History and Politics from Queen Mary College, University of London. He has worked at all levels of the British civil service, from front-line welfare delivery to ministerial office in Whitehall, including local Job Centres, the International Branch of the Health and Safety Executive (in which he helped deliver assistance projects to ex-Soviet Bloc Eastern European countries), and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In all of these he was an active trade unionist. He is now a full-time officer for the UK’s largest civil service trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS). He was elected to PCS’s National Executive Committee 2003-06 and for six years was PCS's representative on the European Public Services Union's (EPSU) Public Services Network. He has written for Novara Media, Morning Star, Red Pepper, Green Left and the Journal of Contemporary European Research. He is the author of the highly regarded That Option No Longer Exists: Britain 1974-76, a revisionist history of Britain in the 1970s published by Zero Books in 2014. He is married with two daughters. He lives in Brighton, England.

Edited by feral chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

They both raised exactly the same points

no they didn't.

Which shows where the problem here is, and it'#s not me. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, feral chile said:

If this is the redpepper post, I have read and understood it

then why have you said...

14 minutes ago, feral chile said:

They both raised exactly the same points

???

Because they don't raise the same points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

no they didn't.

Which shows where the problem here is, and it'#s not me. ;) 

Erm they did. I quoted them and challenged you to work out which was which.

Both blamed short term government aims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Erm they did. I quoted them and challenged you to work out which was which.

Both blamed short term government aims.

and one blamed more than short term govt aims. :rolleyes:

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and one blamed more than short term govt aims. :rolleyes:

Are you sure you're not looking at the classic academic strategy:

Present the opposing argument, tear it down, and replace with your chosen one?

They presented lots of theories and pulled them to pieces.

 

Edited by feral chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Go on then, quote them, instead of just making assertions.

how can I quote what isn't there?

And you've said you've read and understood them - so doesn't your understanding of them include the differences?

And I've already told you what that difference is.

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


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

how can I quote what isn't there?

And you've said you've read and understood them - so doesn't your understanding of them include the differences?

And I've already told you what that difference is.

Ok find what's in the other one that isn't there in the first one, so I have some idea what you're talking about.

Especially since not providing sound evidence is exactly what I'm defending myself against, and part of that defence is being held to account when others aren't expected to back up their assertions.

Edited by feral chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, feral chile said:

Ok find what's in the other one that isn't there in the first one, so I have some idea what you're talking about.

There is no mention of all 'mature' economies suffering deindustrialisation in the first piece.

It's recognised as a factor in the first para (introductory preamble) of the 2nd piece.

How many times do I have to tell you this same thing?

 

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

Especially since not providing sound evidence is exactly what I'm defending myself against, and part of that defence is being held to account when others aren't expected to back up their assertions.

oh ffs, i've mentioned the reasons several times already. :rolleyes: 

I've even given extra reasons for why it's a propaganda piece, such as how it blames the nasty bankers for 70s inflation but completely forgets to mention the biggest factor of all, the 1973 oil crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...