Rayvin

Is that the point that it would previously have been blocked?

It could all happen I guess. Villa looks the least likely of the three though, I reckon they'll pick up some points soon.

Hang on then, so why is the Guardian running this as if it's related to the travel ban?

I think that's wishing for a bit too much.

Do you think it would have happened pre-ban then? The thing here I guess would be if any other Muslims from the UK have managed to enter the US. If they have, then we can conclude that this is an individual case with nuances specific to it and not the whole group.

Yeah they did seem particularly animated about this game. Normally we get a thread but 31 pages is rather extreme. Why were Villa the ones who they've championed to bring us down ffs.

I'm just having a bit of a hard time wondering why an video produced a month ago without anything being said, is now suddenly being circulated with everyone being outraged about it. Why now? Why not the outrage when it came out? Presumably because someone has been looking for something to get him on. Have now watched the original video. His argument is that while we have a line for where the age of consent is, that he says is 'about right' (this bit curiously not included in the reporting), some people of a younger age will be able to give consent due to being mature enough already. This is a stupid comment to make for one thing because even at the age of 16, I would argue most people aren't mature enough to make an informed decision surrounding consent, and especially not when an older adult is involved. But then, he was sexually abused at the age of 14, and the video sounds quite a bit like he's trying to assert some agency over what happened to him. It doesn't sound so much like he's advocating for anything, it sounds more like he's defending his own mental image of himself and trying to set out that he was not a victim. Probably because he doesn't want to be a victim. Not that this makes his comments correct, but I feel that particular aspect of context should be included in our assessment of this - and it hasn't been. Why? The guy is a total arse and a massive distraction from some of the actually quite important issues that are going on at the moment though; I find his argument that he can't be racist because he only sleeps with black men to be absurd, I find his claims that he is Jewish and therefore can't be anti-semitic to be... well, convenient to say the least. Even if it's true. He uses various forms of identities under different 'protected groups' as he sees them, to make him more immune than many others would be in his position. Many of the arguments he makes are uncited (not a rare thing on either side of the debates he gets into) and I genuinely think he's more interested in attention than he is in actually advocating anything he claims to stand for. But yes, I guess I see shadows everywhere when it comes to the media, and it bothers me that they haven't fully reported the context behind this. By 'bothers me' I mean 'it fully supports my view of them'.

Does he have a large alternative media platform that the status quo could find threatening? I'm not going to prejudge the Milo one until I see the video but the PDP one was a character assassination.

The Milo thing is disturbing. He has made a defensive response to this already which seems to hold some weight but I'd need to see the original video I guess. I'm sure it'll be everywhere in due course. That's pewdiepie and now Milo. Who next?

I think to enter into that line of thought you need to be disenfranchised to begin with. It's probably quite similar to how Islamic terrorism happens actually (controversially, on here). People radicalise when they're disenfranchised with the status quo, and they become easily propagandised. I could see that being a key component.

Fair enough.

Fair enough then - and yes, people like Alex Jones are a problem for sure. They're speaking into their own echo chambers and objective analysis within these groups becomes near impossible. But this happens on the left too. Even in the centre I'd argue. People aren't exposed to a sufficient range of views any more, so we don't have debate, we just have isolated whining.

The best explanation I've seen takes me a little out of my comfort zone in terms of discussing the current MSM Overton Window. Gloom would probably know more about it. But the gist basically is that the current Overton Window on acceptable views has shrunk to the point wherein the media are all operating in a safe, centrist space - to the exclusion of what is now a majority of people situated outside of this window. The majority simply organised around a single figurehead and outvoted the centre. Had the Overton window been large enough to give voice to these concerns, maybe trust would be higher. Thus, I think the media can be fairly homogenous through operating in a very small Overton window, and at the same time widely untrusted.

If you mean me, I do both of those things. I trust literally no one to be honest.

The vast majority of the coverage on those things is negative (and I'm not passing any moral judgement on that), with the exception of Neoliberalism which is only mentioned very rarely (but negatively when it is, at least). Look, I ask again - if the media are doing such a good job, why do only 42% of Americans trust them? That number has been declining for decades, incidentally. EDIT - Sorry, missed your follow up post

Double post, sorry - connectivity issues.

I think HF made a good point before (not sure if intended) wherein he noted that in the UK, a Trump style victory wouldn't currently be possible. We're still too used to following the tabloids (in general). Obviously here it's the right wing tabloids that influence people predominantly. Trump bypassed the media. He held mass rallies, he use TV opportunities to speak directly - people consumed Trump news from Trump, not the media. As such, he managed to win despite their efforts. And I agree, the media do control fuck all. They influence much though, albeit a diminishing amount in an age where they're struggling for both traffic, sales and attention.

Some of them were reporting 1% then. None of them were thinking it was likely.

Nope, don't think so? Was that just after his election? Fair enough if so, it'd at least tell me where that majority HF mentioned came from.

Trump and Corbyn? Russia? Neoliberalism I could just start throwing all my buzz words at you now.

Look, this is what I would say in support of that statement. The media over here is universal in condemnation of Trump, right? I mean, I assume even the Mail has been critical. So we think Trump is an absolute disaster. And yet, he still retains widespread support from those who voted him in. You wouldn't know that to listen to the media though. They're out of touch. They didn't see Brexit or Trump coming (they gave Trump a 1% chance of winning on election day). How can we trust the media's representation of how people feel any more? Why do you put so much faith in them? Too many echo chambers around these days...

I don't think we're necessarily representative though, and I don't think you can pull those two numbers together and make an assumption as to how things might have gone if the press had sat back and said 'well let's see what he has to say first'. We know his policies poll well, and we know he wasn't associated with old New Labour and their poisonous brand. His issue was that he galvanized the whole establishment in opposition to him and that the press were clearly not happy with him. I know what you're saying mind, but the fact remains that we can't say with certainty that Corbyn couldn't have capitalised on an anti-establishment, anti-austerity narrative. What I remember from the early days of his time in power was people throwing media articles about how useless he would be around, and how his colleagues were coming out to discredit him. It was a fucking shambles. If the whole establishment had come together to oppose Brexit as effectively as it did Corbyn, we'd not be leaving Europe. But look, you made a good point before - in the UK it's not yet possible to bypass traditional media. It's coming, but it's not there yet. The Americans have already sailed through that - Trump cut them off at the knees though. Fewer people in the US trust the media than trust Trump. Something like 48% behind Trump and 42% behind the media. Is this all Trump's fault? If it isn't, whose is it?

Also curious about this - clearly not the majority who voted for him, so who else are you talking about?

I notice that you can't say the same about the US

What happens when the media all take the same side on an issue?