Wikileaks

[ChezGiven 0]

Also a very important lesson for those millennials harping on about how the generation before them fucked them over.   

[Rayvin 5527]

That's all well and good Chez, but it doesn't take into consideration the fact that people's perception of things is quite different. The perception is that you have lots of baby boomers with two houses, forcing up property prices which they made a killing with over the last 20 years, who tanked the economy due to misregulation of banks, and who honestly couldn't give a shit about the plight of young people brought up to believe that all of this was on offer to them before the carpet was very literally pulled out from under them.

 

You can't have obvious largesse by some in society and then simply turn around and say that 'well, these things don't last forever and basically you're just unlucky that you're not living through such a period'. Which is effectively what that article implies.

Rationally, I can see the point. The problem is that rationally, I can also see why so many people are so disappointed with the way things are, and so desperate for change. I don't believe that anyone has the magic wand here, but the pain needs to be spread equally, and judging based on how things are developing (Brexit), it looks like it will be spread more equally than it has been in the past.

 

The real crux here is that your article doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things irrespective of how right it may be. Too many people have too little in their lives to even care. The argument isn't going to be won by people who have telling those who have not that they're just unfortunate. It's going to be won by people who have not taking control away from those who have, and very likely discovering the same point that way.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm not trying to win an argument with anyone. I'll happily give you one if that's what you're after but the insight from the book and Levinson's thesis is not new, has been articulated before but its a very good article to sum up the current economic climate. 

 

It also gives very good context to the late 90s and 2000s when Financial service were trying to drive and chase growth rates that were not realistic. This is the seed of the financial crisis. 

 

I disagree with lots of your post, if that helps? 

[Rayvin 5527]

I didn't mean your argument, I meant the overall consideration of the success/failure of Neo-Liberalism and where we're headed. I've tried to set out why there is a movement towards the fringes on both the right and left, and assumed that your contribution was effectively to state that people who think turning away from the centre-ground is the answer are misinformed, as nothing better waits beyond the horizon. I've then simply stated that the reality of that, whether true or not, isn't what we're talking about anymore.

 

The Economist ran an article a few weeks back setting out that we're in a post-truth era. We absolutely are. The MSM have dragged us down there and now public distrust for media outlets and institutions is low enough that people are very literally making their own truths. I think my real point here is that I can only see this being reversed by the current political powers being forced into retreat, and some of the populist options being given a try.

 

Sadly, this means things like Brexit. But then, if the establishment had listened to people's concerns, hadn't pushed austerity, and had perhaps looked at integrating immigrants into communities better, maybe we wouldn't be where we are on that front. The lack of trust people now have in the status quo is considerable. I suspect too much damage has been done.

 

Then again. I was thinking the other day in another post that, like us with Ashley at NUFC, if the establishment were to pull something out of the bag that gave enough positive change to enough people (Rafa) maybe they'd quieten things down. I'm just not sure they have it in them when they're conspiring to keep centre left options like Corbyn and Sanders out of power while calling them 'extreme left'.

 

Disagreeing doesn't help much on it's own, no. But thanks? Not sure how you can disagree with an analysis of people's perceptions unless you think I'm just making up a number of the complaints people have, or that these people don't understand their own minds. Unless you're disagreeing with my assessment of what the article is saying. If so, I'd welcome the opportunity to learn where I've gone wrong, as ever.

[Renton 22346]

I'm not sure why you attribute the so-called post truth era with the msm (a rubbish term in itself). We've always had the msm. The problem is social media, and the fact that combined with this people have not been trained to think critically or rationally. That is, people are thick.

[Rayvin 5527]

I agree to an extent... but the MSM has led people around by the nose in this country for decades. Look at the legions the Sun can call on to vote whichever way it tells them. And the Mail. They keep hitting people with the same stuff until eventually they've penetrated multiple generations of the same family, each affirming the other's views, thus giving rise to the echo chambers that are now popping up all over the internet (Facebook and so on).

 

Social media has had its part to play as well, but I would wager that media used to be much more restrained and much less pervasive in the pre-Murdoch era. I don't know for sure though, maybe someone can enlighten me?

 

This is a side point though - really I just mean that the 'facts' of the matter seem less important now. We need change for the sake of releasing some of the pressure on our political consciousness before we do any more stupid Brexit style shit.

[Alex 35881]

Rayvin, I agree with lots of your posts, if that helps.

[Rayvin 5527]

Appreciated. This is all just my opinion of course, I'm not saying it's gospel. Maybe I'm being a bit too strident.

[Renton 22346]

Probably only Noelie can remember a pre-Murdoch press. The rise of all these lunatic parties, and ridiculous conspiracy theories, coincides with social media arriving. When people can communicate utter shit with such ease, the truth is squeezed out and replaced by prejudices.

[Alex 35881]

Appreciated. This is all just my opinion of course, I'm not saying it's gospel. Maybe I'm being a bit too strident.

On the contrary, you're too nice, if anything

[Renton 22346]

First groomed by parky, then by Alex. Run Rayvin, run!

[Alex 35881]

Probably only Noelie can remember a pre-Murdoch press. The rise of all these lunatic parties, and ridiculous conspiracy theories, coincides with social media arriving. When people can communicate utter shit with such ease, the truth is squeezed out and replaced by prejudices.

That's partly true but there's also a mistrust of more mainstream media due, in part at least, to their own failings. Really though I think something like Brexit can be overanalysed. It was basically some dickhead taking a political gamble to quell disunity in his own party who got the timing badly wrong. The same vote with the economy riding high sees a completely different result I reckon.

[Park Life 71]

First groomed by parky, then by Alex. Run Rayvin, run!

[Gemmill 46961]

If you needed any evidence for the mainstream media's manipulation, I present exhibit A: post-Blair puffterballs Renton. He's spent the last five years hiding behind the sofa from terrorists.

[Renton 22346]

If you needed any evidence for the mainstream media's manipulation, I present exhibit A: post-Blair puffterballs Renton. He's spent the last five years hiding behind the sofa from terrorists.

Now now, don't be a twat. Just cos I'm not wearing a tin foil balaclava terrified "they" are reading my mind via my toontastic posts.

 

I actually agreed fully with Adam Curtis in his power of nightmares film and think the terrorism threat is overstated. Am just not concerned over the treat for our own security forces much either.

[Rayvin 5527]

That's partly true but there's also a mistrust of more mainstream media due, in part at least, to their own failings. Really though I think something like Brexit can be overanalysed. It was basically some dickhead taking a political gamble to quell disunity in his own party who got the timing badly wrong. The same vote with the economy riding high sees a completely different result I reckon.

 

I'd agree with that - economic policy failure gave us the whole thing. This is perhaps where that article Chez posted has weight though, if it sets out that actually, this was inevitable.

[adios 717]

second hand word soup of dubious origin.

Parky's new undertitle.

[Happy Face 29]

You do like to cherry pick how you look at things. When it came to the decision as to which candidate would represent the Democratic party (what we were clearly talking about), Clinton had a broader appeal in the party than Sanders. That's really easy to demonstrate as she won the nomination from the party. Her ratings now are irrelevant to her battle vs Sanders, which was what we were talking about. 

 

Not sure what the point about Sanders and Trump relates to and why that means you can conclude that personal favours won her the election of the democratic party. She won the Primaries from California to New York so yes the majority of the party supported her more as she had broader appeal.

 

I find your criticism of Clinton pretty hollow anyway, you've disparaged Obama for years. That criticism looks a bit churlish now given the choice for this years race, doesnt it? 

 

Of course Clinton was the most popular within the party.  Clinton represented all the lobbying groups that the majority of democrats get their contributions from.  She was the status quo for everyone.  Sanders was a bomb dropping in the middle of that.  Someone not bought and paid for who would not be swayed by "special interests" like the majority of party elites.  Wasserman Schultz was the co-chair of Clinton's run in 2008.  None of these reasons for supporting Clinton reflect principled policy allignment with her.

 

If they were to advocate one side, Democratic party officials should be advocating the best candidate to win the election, not the nomionation.

 

Not following your logic suggesting I would be reconsidering criticism of Obama.  Plumbing the depths on candidates to knew lows doesn't excuse the lows that have been reached by previous incumbents or what a let down they have been when comparing their campaign rhetoric to what they have delivered.

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course Clinton was the most popular within the party.  Clinton represented all the lobbying groups that the majority of democrats get their contributions from.  She was the status quo for everyone.  Sanders was a bomb dropping in the middle of that.  Someone not bought and paid for who would not be swayed by "special interests" like the majority of party elites.  Wasserman Schultz was the co-chair of Clinton's run in 2008.  None of these reasons for supporting Clinton reflect principled policy allignment with her.

 

If they were to advocate one side, Democratic party officials should be advocating the best candidate to win the election, not the nomionation.

 

Not following your logic suggesting I would be reconsidering criticism of Obama.  Plumbing the depths on candidates to knew lows doesn't excuse the lows that have been reached by previous incumbents or what a let down they have been when comparing their campaign rhetoric to what they have delivered.

 

I'd have been proud of that sentence and so would Leazes I know what you mean, i just think we need to be relative about it rather than absolutist. The 3 main candidates around Obama are George Bush, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. I think some perspective on Obama is warranted. 

[Happy Face 29]

 

"Knew lows"

 

CT is beaming with pride too.

 

Bloody wife rushing me to stop ignoring the kids

[Happy Face 29]

I'd have been proud of that sentence and so would Leazes I know what you mean, i just think we need to be relative about it rather than absolutist. The 3 main candidates around Obama are George Bush, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. I think some perspective on Obama is warranted.

Bill Maher was doing a bit on Trump last week and expressed outrage that he wants to kill the children of terrorists

 

... Forgetting that Obama did exactly that to an American boy

 

I think many of the differences (though not a majority) are perceived rather than actual.

[Happy Face 29]

 

It's all go at the embassy these days.

[Happy Face 29]

 

Haha, publishing the presidents emails now. Dude should look into proton mail.

[Happy Face 29]

[Park Life 71]

Some fascinating reading in there.