The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ach you're more interested in taking pops at other posters and talking about me than anything going on in Scotland. *bored face*.

No, I'm interested in calling out people who post outrageous lies and misinformation, and then try and justify their nonsense by claiming that it's 'satire'.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...I don't know, I don't read the Express, which is why I asked the question. I didn't claim anything. You might want to read posts a little more thoroughly. ----> Me

If you "don't read the Express" then how can you 'satirise' it.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...A few other posters are bigging up things about Sturgeon having to stay in Trump's good books because he hold's grudges. I just wondered what exactly they were trying to get at ? Nothing revealed as yet. Are you any the wiser perhaps ?

A few other posters are drawing attention to the fact that Sturgeon has embarassed herself by negotiating some deal with some with the Chinese that has now collapsed and endorsing the losing candidate in the US presidential election.

Clearly you don't like this. But that don't change anything. Posting any old waffle in response just makes you look like a fool.

beecher2

Interesting read, especially for some on this thread who believe only 'facts' play a part in decision making, and goes some way to explaining why polling is getting it so wrong.

http://election-data.co.uk/how-do-you-feel-dont-ask

What the Remain campaign missed, and what data and polling often misses, is how people think and feel. I believe the same thing happened to Owen Smith in the summer and has just happened to Hillary Clinton in America. It’s the so-called progressive side of the aisle which has forgotten how to speak to people’s base emotions. It is they who still regale the audience with facts (apparently clear facts!) whilst Farage waves a passport. The left are repulsed by such imagery; UKIP know it. It is the progressives who hold dull press events about Corbyn’s inability to win elections whilst Corbyn holds mass rallies where logic gives way to emotion. Which is right? That’s less important to me than which has won. 2015, Corbyn, Brexit, Corbyn II, Trump. I make it 5-nil to emotion.

.string.

beecher2 wrote: »

Interesting read, especially for some on this thread who believe only 'facts' play a part in decision making, and goes some way to explaining why polling is getting it so wrong.

http://election-data.co.uk/how-do-you-feel-dont-ask

An interesting article. As you imply it goes some way to explaining things. There were other factors though for the US Presidential election and Brexit in that the context was a close-run thing and the decision was influenced by (I think - no proof of this) by a ew number of people that made their mind up at the last moment. But they too might have been driven by emotion of course. For the Corbyn elections emotion of a sort undoubtedly played a part but I think political/fanaticism/anarchism thinking played a major part rather than "facts" also although there as well one could call that emotion.

Another interesting thing to ponder looking forward is whether we are becoming inured, after the popular cynicism about facts and experts has now been analysed ad nausea and come to be thought of as a sort of "herd reaction"), to such campaign traits. The absence of facts on which to base an opinion is, after all, an empty logic base on which to make a decision.

But, as I said, an interesting observation.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

No, I'm interested in calling out people who post outrageous lies and misinformation, and then try and justify their nonsense by claiming that it's 'satire'.

Then back up your points. All you keep saying is that I'm making things up without any evidence like that's enough to settle the matter. Not for me it's not. Sure tell me I'm making things up, but at least show your working. So far there's been a lack of anything much.

If you "don't read the Express" then how can you 'satirise' it.

Because I've read enough articles from the Express to know what kind of nonsense it writes COMPLETE with headlines in BLOCK CAPITALS to EMPHASISE when it wants someone SLAPPED DOWN or there a BLOW TO or when there's an EMEMY or when someone is PUT IN THEIR PLACE or STABBED in the back.

It's easy.

A few other posters are drawing attention to the fact that Sturgeon has embarassed herself by negotiating some deal with some with the Chinese that has now collapsed and endorsing the losing candidate in the US presidential election.

So ? I disagree with that and have just as much right to say so as anyone else here. I think Sturgeon said what a lot of people are thinking.

Clearly you don't like this. But that don't change anything. Posting any old waffle in response just makes you look like a fool.

I'm not looking to change anything. Just debate with others interested in current affairs with a slant in this thread on Scotland. If that makes me a fool, then am a fool. *even bigger bored face than last time*

Shakethedisease

beecher2 wrote: »

Interesting read, especially for some on this thread who believe only 'facts' play a part in decision making, and goes some way to explaining why polling is getting it so wrong.

http://election-data.co.uk/how-do-you-feel-dont-ask

This one does an equally good job in describing the Press.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it.

There's a few parallels in there with the Scottish press since 2007.

.string.

Apart from one thing I'm a bit unconvinced by the theory that the electorate as a whole were felt so disenfranchised that they voted in some for of protest against "the establishment". Maybe but the "one thing" I mentioned above is the possibility that the anti-establishment motive may have been behind the way a small minority who are anti-establishment or anarchic in nature but who do not normally vote, dragged themselves away from their grumble corner and piled in.

In my view the anti-establishment theory is principally a political spin tool that enables some parties to complain about whatever they want to complain about.

On a slightly different issue, one irony of Brexit was that People were continually asking for the "facts" and some even claim I think that they did not have any "facts". The truth there was a lot of information about if one cared to read it

beecher2

.string. wrote: »

Another interesting thing to ponder looking forward is whether we are becoming inured, after the popular cynicism about facts and experts has now been analysed ad nausea and come to be thought of as a sort of "herd reaction"), to such campaign traits. The absence of facts on which to base an opinion is, after all, an empty logic base on which to make a decision.

But, as I said, an interesting observation.

I think there are so few real 'facts' when so much campaigning is based on what might happen in the future, but uses language stating what will happen. This is what helps to make people think that governments never keep their promises.

With more and more people 'picking' the news they want to read, they are less likely to come across opposing views, my twitter feed leads me to articles which I already agree with and I have to make the effort to find opposing views and read them as I rely less and less on traditional outlets such as the bbc and mainstream newspapers.

.string.

beecher2 wrote: »

I think there are so few real 'facts' when so much campaigning is based on what might happen in the future, but uses language stating what will happen. This is what helps to make people think that governments never keep their promises.

With more and more people 'picking' the news they want to read, they are less likely to come across opposing views, my twitter feed leads me to articles which I already agree with and I have to make the effort to find opposing views and read them as I rely less and less on traditional outlets such as the bbc and mainstream newspapers.

Yes - it is hard to escape one's own pre-formed opinions. I was referring though not so much to newspaper articles but to the origins of them. So if one reads a newspaper which claims that Trump has banned foreign apples, the lazy approach is to leave it there but one should then look further through google magic to whether it's all apples or diseased apples or GM apples and so on and base the opinion on that rather than simply reinforcing the stereotype one had before reading the article.

In the end facts become merged with one's own opinions because those are the only facts one entertains and therefore retains.

Intellect can overcome that but that is rare.

That is why, for example, I believe that the best football team in the whole world is AFC Bournemouth rather than these funny teams that only other people have ever heard of.

setmefree2

Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland’s ‘political climate’ caused collapse of £10bn trade deal

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-scotlands-political-climate-caused-collapse-10bn-trade-deal/

Shakethedisease

setmefree2 wrote: »

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-scotlands-political-climate-caused-collapse-10bn-trade-deal/

A few pages back.