ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I'm not even sure why you'd go to see it right now in the cinemas, rather than waiting until the extended edition comes out with the revised ending.
Other than you thought it sounded like it was going to be long enough already.
I was about to do mod-voice to say 'ha ha now get back on topic' when I realized the metaphor could be extended this far without much effort.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Channel 4 news is the news arm of one of the UK's TV broadcasters.
I get incredibly frustrated when politicians aren't called out for blatant lies in interviews, but it feels like this is too late for the press to start making a stand.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
+24
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
edited April 2019
He's (almost certainly deliberately) misinterpreting the polls. Yes, a majority of both leavers and remainers each consider the WA a bad deal, but that does not equate to majority support for no deal. Let's say, as the leavers want to pretend, that the referendum was still an accurate representation of the public. 48% voted for remain, and it can reasonably be assumed that they would find any deal preferable to crashing out as it would be closer to remaining. So if the only options for Brexit where the WA and No Deal, if at least 10% of leavers prefer the WA, then No Deal support is a minority of the country (52-5=47, 5/52=9.6%). But the reality is many brexiters would still prefer a third option and refuse to believe that those are the only two that can be achieved, so No Deal is even less popular than that hypothetical.
While it's good the host called out the politician, it would've been better if he articulated why, instead of just shouting him down.
He's (almost certainly deliberately) misinterpreting the polls. Yes, a majority of both leavers and remainers each consider the WA a bad deal, but that does not equate to majority support for no deal. Let's say, as the leavers want to pretend, that the referendum was still an accurate representation of the public. 48% voted for remain, and it can reasonably be assumed that they would find any deal preferable to crashing out as it would be closer to remaining. So if the only options for Brexit where the WA and No Deal, if at least 10% of leavers prefer the WA, then No Deal support is a minority of the country (52-5=47, 5/52=9.6%). But the reality is many brexiters would still prefer a third option and refuse to believe that those are the only two that can be achieved, so No Deal is even less popular than that hypothetical.
While it's good the host called out the politician, it would've been better if he articulated why, instead of just shouting him down.
No one listens to long articulate arguments against blunt lies. That's basically why we are where we are.
Listen, 52% of the population clearly and explicitly voted for the most damaging exit possible, because that was clearly spelt out on the referendum question.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy just sounds absolutely fed up of this shit in general. I can't really blame him and I can imagine a lot of journalists are feeling like that currently - I think Jon Snow was yelling at someone the other week, too?
+1
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
Krishnan Guru-Murthy just sounds absolutely fed up of this shit in general. I can't really blame him and I can imagine a lot of journalists are feeling like that currently - I think Jon Snow was yelling at someone the other week, too?
Personally I think Krishnan handled it well and Redwood looked like a tit mumbling about "polls he's seen" but can't back up. He looked like a man caught in a lie he couldn't back up.
+3
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Personally I think Krishnan handled it well and Redwood looked like a tit mumbling about "polls he's seen" but can't back up. He looked like a man caught in a lie he couldn't back up.
It’s amazing how sometimes people look like exactly what they are
He's (almost certainly deliberately) misinterpreting the polls. Yes, a majority of both leavers and remainers each consider the WA a bad deal, but that does not equate to majority support for no deal. Let's say, as the leavers want to pretend, that the referendum was still an accurate representation of the public. 48% voted for remain, and it can reasonably be assumed that they would find any deal preferable to crashing out as it would be closer to remaining. So if the only options for Brexit where the WA and No Deal, if at least 10% of leavers prefer the WA, then No Deal support is a minority of the country (52-5=47, 5/52=9.6%). But the reality is many brexiters would still prefer a third option and refuse to believe that those are the only two that can be achieved, so No Deal is even less popular than that hypothetical.
While it's good the host called out the politician, it would've been better if he articulated why, instead of just shouting him down.
This is a continual problem of the current "Alternative Facts" era of politics. The interviewee throws out a "fact" in the middle of an exchange that the interviewer knows is blatant lies.
The problem is that the interviewer often isn't sure what the correct version is off the top of their head - they don't want to say "it's actually y" when they're only 70% sure it's y and potentially damage their credibility. The interviewer could try explaining the principle why the "fact" is wrong - but the adage "if you're explaining, you're losing" applies, as it comes across as "x COULD BE y if you do a, b, and c...(and the audience loses attention)" compared with the interviewee's succinct soundbyte "x IS z".
In an ideal world, the interviewer would be able to cite the statistics straight back and directly replace the lie with the correct information for the audience, but unfortunately it is exceptionally rare with the hundreds of issues and potential data points that get gish galloped that the interviewer can do this in the heat of the moment. Stephen Colbert had to stall for time with a commercial break for his team to fact-check when Chris Wallace started citing blatantly incorrect immigration statistics back in November, but in that case he had a captive interviewee who wasn't going anywhere in front of a studio audience. For most situations, the best the interviewer can do is say "no, you're wrong" and just shut the segment down because it's obviously in bad faith and unproductive - which is what happened in this case.
+7
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
this has partly been caused by a particularly badly worded yougov poll
the yougov poll had a first choice brexit outcome - ie what is your preferred outcome for brexit:
however, what people were quoting when reporting on the poll was this specific question:
ie what should we do if the eu refuse us an extension... which is if you think about it quite different, and more importantly has a monster chunk of dont knows
as a bonus
this is of course compounded by yougov pulling conservative in general but who cares, THE PUBLIC WANT NO DEAL LADS
I wonder if framing it as "deal or no deal" this whole time hasn't been a terrible idea. Numbers might look a lot different if it was "plans or no plans", "arrangements or no arrangements", etc
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
I wonder if framing it as "deal or no deal" this whole time hasn't been a terrible idea. Numbers might look a lot different if it was "plans or no plans", "arrangements or no arrangements", etc
"its just like a negotiation u have to be willing to walk away from the table" - one thousand idiots, the uk, 2019
EDIT: "im asking u for a bunch of favours; but if u dont give them to me... im willing to ask for NONE and get NOTHING... DARE U CALL MY BLUFF"
It's both absurd and terrifying that this time next week we could have crashed out of the EU. Is it really that hard to understand that, even in ideal circumstances, this is a change so large and complicated that to do it would take years or decades to do? It's made all the more absurd by the fact that the UK hasn't made an ounce of progress or had any sense of direction since the damned referendum!
I'm not feeling the same sense of dread anticipation that I was as March 29th approached, but honestly I think that's me feeling more fatalistic about it than any genuine sense that of course it will be averted. Even though it might. Maybe even probably will be.
I'm not posting in this thread all that much at the moment but I'm reading every post. You guys cover everything so well, I don't feel I have a ton to add besides the odd "agree" or "awesome". But I'm still here.
You lot are both my best information source and aggregator, and a bastion of sanity in a world that feels like it's gone completely mad. So thank you all.
It's both absurd and terrifying that this time next week we could have crashed out of the EU. Is it really that hard to understand that, even in ideal circumstances, this is a change so large and complicated that to do it would take years or decades to do? It's made all the more absurd by the fact that the UK hasn't made an ounce of progress or had any sense of direction since the damned referendum!
Apparently, for a lot of people, yes.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
So apparently they've already started issuing British passports without 'European Union' written on the cover, since the passport office assumed for some reason that we'd be out of the EU by now.
Some people who've received them are apparently over the moon about it (while simultaneously being upset that they're still not blue, obviously), which just makes me think that could we just issue the new passports without EU on the cover and stay in that actual EU? It looks like that's what some people actually voted for.
25:45 in that video is especially impressive: he explains that everyone in the EU expects the UK to be back at the negotiation table within weeks after No-Deal Brexit, desperate to try to move the UK closer to the EU again. It is wild to imagine that now, but a continued No-Deal Britain would simply disrupt the UK economy too much to be tenable.
25:45 in that video is especially impressive: he explains that everyone in the EU expects the UK to be back at the negotiation table within weeks after No-Deal Brexit, desperate to try to move the UK closer to the EU again. It is wild to imagine that now, but a continued No-Deal Britain would simply disrupt the UK economy too much to be tenable.
I'm not sure it really is, to be honest. Britain's massively divided about Brexit to begin with, and if there are immediate and visibly damaging negative consequences to leaving - exactly like you'd expect to see in a No Deal situation - then public opinion is going to swing dramatically against it.
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
25:45 in that video is especially impressive: he explains that everyone in the EU expects the UK to be back at the negotiation table within weeks after No-Deal Brexit, desperate to try to move the UK closer to the EU again. It is wild to imagine that now, but a continued No-Deal Britain would simply disrupt the UK economy too much to be tenable.
I'm not sure it really is, to be honest. Britain's massively divided about Brexit to begin with, and if there are immediate and visibly damaging negative consequences to leaving - exactly like you'd expect to see in a No Deal situation - then public opinion is going to swing dramatically against it.
There will be some that want to triple down, but "adequate food" tends to get the blood boiling
When Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, he said that anyone who claimed that membership of the European Community was a black and white issue was either a charlatan or a simpleton. [...] Which brings me to Mr. Boris Johnson.
I want to preface this with letting you know I'm an American military veteran who did two deployments during the Gulf War. I also understand that military discipline is incredibly important. Lack of discipline within the armed forces can lead to breaks in cohesion, unit readiness, and can literally get people killed. I'm saying this because I want to get the point across that I understand what the Chief of the General Staff is saying. Using an image of Jeremy Corbyn, The Leader of the Opposition, for target practice serious business. These allegations are very severe.
I also understand that there is literally an ocean's difference between American and British military culture. Sometimes, what can be seen as quite normal, or appropriate may look strange to someone who does not participate in the culture proper.
All that being said, after watching the above video, I am having a good deal of difficulty articulating how absolutely silly this video looks to me, and I honestly thought it was a parody and was waiting for the joke. (This probably why they disabled comments on the video). I'm going to assume that the pose that the General is striking the the British equivalent of an American parade rest. No one in the American military stands like that unless they are pretending to be a 1940's super hero.
Another reason why this seems to strange to me, (and most likely other Americans was well), is because if this were to happen in the U.S., the person most likely to make a statement would be the Secretary of the Army, or Secretary of Defense. Both of these positions are held by a civilian who does not wear a uniform. They would also be making a statement from behind the White House podium with the Chief of Staff of the United States Army (A uniformed General) at their side who would take questions.
I also can't imagine the American public ever being directly addressed by a uniformed military officer unless some Very Bad Things were happening. (Something like if an armed change of management was going on).
I just wanted to say that to you guys, it was an incredible dressing down. To me, it was one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.
It's an unprecedented statement, but a good move. At the very least it sends a signal from the top reaffirming what standards ought to be. My only disappointment is that he didn't mention the army's apolitical nature but I figured the video was aimed primarily at the sex assault case above. I did find his accent and delivery a bit unusual to say the least - the type of speaking doesn't really seem to be his forte, but points for the effort.
Edit: Just to add that typically the defence secretary would make a statement to the commons on military issues like this. This video isn't aimed at the public though - it's aimed at serving members of the army.
Also I don't think standing hands-on-hips is any kind of parade stance
It is a pretty universal (for the UK at least) shorthand for "I am incredibly pissed off with you specifically"
+16
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
whole new set of labour antisemitism stuff for the papers tomorrow- resting on leaked material from corbyns office showing suppression of antisemitism cases and lots of general nonsense
the story that will Never Die
+1
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I want to preface this with letting you know I'm an American military veteran who did two deployments during the Gulf War. I also understand that military discipline is incredibly important. Lack of discipline within the armed forces can lead to breaks in cohesion, unit readiness, and can literally get people killed. I'm saying this because I want to get the point across that I understand what the Chief of the General Staff is saying. Using an image of Jeremy Corbyn, The Leader of the Opposition, for target practice serious business. These allegations are very severe.
I also understand that there is literally an ocean's difference between American and British military culture. Sometimes, what can be seen as quite normal, or appropriate may look strange to someone who does not participate in the culture proper.
All that being said, after watching the above video, I am having a good deal of difficulty articulating how absolutely silly this video looks to me, and I honestly thought it was a parody and was waiting for the joke. (This probably why they disabled comments on the video). I'm going to assume that the pose that the General is striking the the British equivalent of an American parade rest. No one in the American military stands like that unless they are pretending to be a 1940's super hero.
Another reason why this seems to strange to me, (and most likely other Americans was well), is because if this were to happen in the U.S., the person most likely to make a statement would be the Secretary of the Army, or Secretary of Defense. Both of these positions are held by a civilian who does not wear a uniform. They would also be making a statement from behind the White House podium with the Chief of Staff of the United States Army (A uniformed General) at their side who would take questions.
I also can't imagine the American public ever being directly addressed by a uniformed military officer unless some Very Bad Things were happening. (Something like if an armed change of management was going on).
I just wanted to say that to you guys, it was an incredible dressing down. To me, it was one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.
As an American who was never even close to wanting to serve in the military (and also disqualified from ever doing so), it looked kind of weird to me too. As someone who is essentially Joe Public as far as this kind of thing is concerned, I would expect to see the highest-ranking member of the branch in question making a statement, but probably not necessarily aimed at troops. I would expect to see the message to the troops as part of an assurance to the public that This Shit Won't Fly. To be fair though, I wouldn't expect those people to give a shit, much less make a statement pretending that anyone does or that anything will be done. I don't think that's just 2019 cynicism either. I don't know that I would have thought differently 15 or 20 years ago. I would have thought to myself "boy it sure sucks that nobody is even going to do anything about that." I think there is likely also a sort of unspoken(-ish) worship of the armed services among many here, which probably contributes to that. I don't have the perception of that being the case in the UK.
I assume that to UK people this does seem appropriate and the way it ought to be done, and if that's the case then it's pretty awesome that the problem might be sought out and dealt with.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I have complicated feelings about these allegations being taken seriously when historical allegations apparently don't need to be, but I'm pretty sure different people made that decision.
+4
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I dunno if the American reaction is really pertinent at all tbh.
It is definitely not any more than any other non-British citizen's would be. It doesn't matter at all. I don't know if any non-British-Military reaction is, since I think that was where the statement was directed, if I have that right. It is only relevant as a reaction to the message given, even if it's not an important internal one.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
This isnt any new stuff. But leaked emails about old antisemitism scandals. Its staggering when its gathered in one place.
If you want to click through, the full thread has Gabriel summarising incidents.
Gabriel is a reporter for The Sunday Times.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
That is some heavy reading.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Posts
I was about to do mod-voice to say 'ha ha now get back on topic' when I realized the metaphor could be extended this far without much effort.
Channel 4 news is the news arm of one of the UK's TV broadcasters.
I get incredibly frustrated when politicians aren't called out for blatant lies in interviews, but it feels like this is too late for the press to start making a stand.
While it's good the host called out the politician, it would've been better if he articulated why, instead of just shouting him down.
No one listens to long articulate arguments against blunt lies. That's basically why we are where we are.
Yeah, but what does he know?
It’s amazing how sometimes people look like exactly what they are
The problem is that the interviewer often isn't sure what the correct version is off the top of their head - they don't want to say "it's actually y" when they're only 70% sure it's y and potentially damage their credibility. The interviewer could try explaining the principle why the "fact" is wrong - but the adage "if you're explaining, you're losing" applies, as it comes across as "x COULD BE y if you do a, b, and c...(and the audience loses attention)" compared with the interviewee's succinct soundbyte "x IS z".
In an ideal world, the interviewer would be able to cite the statistics straight back and directly replace the lie with the correct information for the audience, but unfortunately it is exceptionally rare with the hundreds of issues and potential data points that get gish galloped that the interviewer can do this in the heat of the moment. Stephen Colbert had to stall for time with a commercial break for his team to fact-check when Chris Wallace started citing blatantly incorrect immigration statistics back in November, but in that case he had a captive interviewee who wasn't going anywhere in front of a studio audience. For most situations, the best the interviewer can do is say "no, you're wrong" and just shut the segment down because it's obviously in bad faith and unproductive - which is what happened in this case.
the yougov poll had a first choice brexit outcome - ie what is your preferred outcome for brexit:
however, what people were quoting when reporting on the poll was this specific question:
ie what should we do if the eu refuse us an extension... which is if you think about it quite different, and more importantly has a monster chunk of dont knows
as a bonus
this is of course compounded by yougov pulling conservative in general but who cares, THE PUBLIC WANT NO DEAL LADS
also 13% think its an "acceptable compromise"
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? yougov.jpg
Poll actually only returned by one T. May, Downing St.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
"its just like a negotiation u have to be willing to walk away from the table" - one thousand idiots, the uk, 2019
EDIT: "im asking u for a bunch of favours; but if u dont give them to me... im willing to ask for NONE and get NOTHING... DARE U CALL MY BLUFF"
I'm not posting in this thread all that much at the moment but I'm reading every post. You guys cover everything so well, I don't feel I have a ton to add besides the odd "agree" or "awesome". But I'm still here.
You lot are both my best information source and aggregator, and a bastion of sanity in a world that feels like it's gone completely mad. So thank you all.
Steam | XBL
Apparently, for a lot of people, yes.
this whole interview is worth watching
Some people who've received them are apparently over the moon about it (while simultaneously being upset that they're still not blue, obviously), which just makes me think that could we just issue the new passports without EU on the cover and stay in that actual EU? It looks like that's what some people actually voted for.
I'm not sure it really is, to be honest. Britain's massively divided about Brexit to begin with, and if there are immediate and visibly damaging negative consequences to leaving - exactly like you'd expect to see in a No Deal situation - then public opinion is going to swing dramatically against it.
There will be some that want to triple down, but "adequate food" tends to get the blood boiling
Required watching for the Brexit nutters really.
blimey haha
you wouldn't want to be those soldiers right now I reckon
I want to preface this with letting you know I'm an American military veteran who did two deployments during the Gulf War. I also understand that military discipline is incredibly important. Lack of discipline within the armed forces can lead to breaks in cohesion, unit readiness, and can literally get people killed. I'm saying this because I want to get the point across that I understand what the Chief of the General Staff is saying. Using an image of Jeremy Corbyn, The Leader of the Opposition, for target practice serious business. These allegations are very severe.
I also understand that there is literally an ocean's difference between American and British military culture. Sometimes, what can be seen as quite normal, or appropriate may look strange to someone who does not participate in the culture proper.
All that being said, after watching the above video, I am having a good deal of difficulty articulating how absolutely silly this video looks to me, and I honestly thought it was a parody and was waiting for the joke. (This probably why they disabled comments on the video). I'm going to assume that the pose that the General is striking the the British equivalent of an American parade rest. No one in the American military stands like that unless they are pretending to be a 1940's super hero.
Another reason why this seems to strange to me, (and most likely other Americans was well), is because if this were to happen in the U.S., the person most likely to make a statement would be the Secretary of the Army, or Secretary of Defense. Both of these positions are held by a civilian who does not wear a uniform. They would also be making a statement from behind the White House podium with the Chief of Staff of the United States Army (A uniformed General) at their side who would take questions.
I also can't imagine the American public ever being directly addressed by a uniformed military officer unless some Very Bad Things were happening. (Something like if an armed change of management was going on).
I just wanted to say that to you guys, it was an incredible dressing down. To me, it was one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47837499
It's an unprecedented statement, but a good move. At the very least it sends a signal from the top reaffirming what standards ought to be. My only disappointment is that he didn't mention the army's apolitical nature but I figured the video was aimed primarily at the sex assault case above. I did find his accent and delivery a bit unusual to say the least - the type of speaking doesn't really seem to be his forte, but points for the effort.
Edit: Just to add that typically the defence secretary would make a statement to the commons on military issues like this. This video isn't aimed at the public though - it's aimed at serving members of the army.
It is a pretty universal (for the UK at least) shorthand for "I am incredibly pissed off with you specifically"
the story that will Never Die
As an American who was never even close to wanting to serve in the military (and also disqualified from ever doing so), it looked kind of weird to me too. As someone who is essentially Joe Public as far as this kind of thing is concerned, I would expect to see the highest-ranking member of the branch in question making a statement, but probably not necessarily aimed at troops. I would expect to see the message to the troops as part of an assurance to the public that This Shit Won't Fly. To be fair though, I wouldn't expect those people to give a shit, much less make a statement pretending that anyone does or that anything will be done. I don't think that's just 2019 cynicism either. I don't know that I would have thought differently 15 or 20 years ago. I would have thought to myself "boy it sure sucks that nobody is even going to do anything about that." I think there is likely also a sort of unspoken(-ish) worship of the armed services among many here, which probably contributes to that. I don't have the perception of that being the case in the UK.
I assume that to UK people this does seem appropriate and the way it ought to be done, and if that's the case then it's pretty awesome that the problem might be sought out and dealt with.
It is definitely not any more than any other non-British citizen's would be. It doesn't matter at all. I don't know if any non-British-Military reaction is, since I think that was where the statement was directed, if I have that right. It is only relevant as a reaction to the message given, even if it's not an important internal one.
This isnt any new stuff. But leaked emails about old antisemitism scandals. Its staggering when its gathered in one place.
If you want to click through, the full thread has Gabriel summarising incidents.
Gabriel is a reporter for The Sunday Times.
Jeremy could you just
Holy shit those are some insanely brazen anti-semites.
This isn't "Corbyn has a few bad associations", this is "Corbyn ignoring full on goddamn crazy jew-hating bigots and nazis".
I'm not sure how this is defensible.