We could play "Spot the culture war"

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Oh that's a shame. I didnt see that post.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sorry DAReturns you've lost me
again!
Apologies for making
you feel like a 10
year old, that wasnt my
intention.

I would like to pick you up on the point you make about critical thinking.

Why accuse others of being indoctrinated, whilst assuming you are impervious to it?
What is it about your mind that is so superior to others, and can we change?

Or do we have to think the same way as you before we can demonstrate any critical analysis?

It's interesting isnt it? When our habits are brought into the light, and we have to accou t for them, we have to acknowledge some uncomfortable facts.

Namsnanny

DaisyAnneReturns

So you can exaggerate my original post, Namsnanny with very over-the-top suggestions but ...

I am quite sure my concern for trees did not make me the one overthinking.

Sorry you've lost me, where am I exaggerating your post?

Think about trees as much as you like, I wasn't under the impression I was commenting on your love of trees.

Then you didn't read and reply to my original post but used it for your own purposes.

I am not 10 and do not need to be told how to use the internet. My ability to think critically when reading or listening is still in tact.

varian

It may be true that fewer and fewer people, especially young people actually read newspapers.

However that does very little to diminish the influence of the right wig press owned and controlled by right wing billionaires.

The Mailonline is said to be the most read English language news website in the world. - and yet it is full of froth and lies. Wikipedea warns that most of what is reported in the Daily Mail and Mailonline is untrue.

Even if we don't go online we cannot avoid the headlines in the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Sun and the Daily Express when we queue at the supermarket checkout. Their are very pervasive.

Wikipedia, you really believe what it says, when it's word's can be altered at will,by anyone. Was warned against wiki during university as unreliable, and in some cases out and out untruthful.

DaisyAnneReturns

So you can exaggerate my original post, Namsnanny with very over-the-top suggestions but ...

I am quite sure my concern for trees did not make me the one overthinking.

Sorry you've lost me, where am I exaggerating your post?

Think about trees as much as you like, I wasn't under the impression I was commenting on your love of trees.

Namsnanny

varian of course you realize that wiki is untrustworthy?

Varian I am quite sure you know what you are doing.

So you can exaggerate my original post, Namsnanny with very over-the-top suggestions but ...

I am quite sure my concern for trees did not make me the one overthinking.

varian of course you realize that wiki is untrustworthy?

You don't have to inflate my words DAReturns

I don't recall speaking of the dark web, or using 'truly wicked' , so just why you would conflate those words is beyond me

I alluded to the danger of going down a rabbit hole or living in a bubble of narrower and narrower ideas.

I think you may be over thinking this.

Algorithms are very sophisticated, and it would be a mistake to say you aren't influenced by them, we all are.

Well, right now I am watching the "truly wicked" Andrew Marr talking on his latest article in the New Statesman, Namsnanny. Obvious evidence that I have been trawling the dark web, or wherever it is you go that makes you think my watching will be "dangerous".

I really cannot see the difference in my watching what my reading would once have covered. I am sure the majority, watching rather than reading, do just that.

It may be true that fewer and fewer people, especially young people actually read newspapers.

However that does very little to diminish the influence of the right wig press owned and controlled by right wing billionaires.

The Mailonline is said to be the most read English language news website in the world. - and yet it is full of froth and lies. Wikipedea warns that most of what is reported in the Daily Mail and Mailonline is untrue.

Even if we don't go online we cannot avoid the headlines in the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Sun and the Daily Express when we queue at the supermarket checkout. Their are very pervasive.

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

Blimey Sunak is losing the plot I think.

Rishi Sunak
@RishiSunak
·
5h
This is what we’re up against.

The Labour Party, a subset of lawyers, criminal gangs - they're all on the same side, propping up a system of exploitation that profits from getting people to the UK illegally.

I guess he is referring to this undercover investigation and it’s findings

Sunak's tweet is disgusting and seems libellous(?). I would like to believe it was sent out in error by a young (very young) staffer.

However, standards have fallen so low in the Tory Party over the last 13 years that I can believe he wrote it, although, if it turns sour on Sunak, I have no doubt he will find someone to blame in the typical style of this government. I feel so disappointed. I wasn't holding out for much with Sunak, but I did hope for better than this.

I see Parliament is investigating the Sun. Perhaps Mr Sunak should be added to the list.

It seems to me to be the sort of example of the language we can expect now leading up to the election, where Sunak is weaponising an issue - in this case immigration.

Subtlety does not seem to be his strong point.😄 I do think he is danger of over-egging the pudding and making himself look ridiculous.

DaisyAnneReturns

Who reads newspapers these days? I would think it is a growing minority. Seeing them in the supermarket makes me think of the trees that have been chopped down.

If I want to read a particular article, I will do it online. I will also watch political channels online too, as they will home in on a subject and analyse it. You can soon work out if they are biased or rather so unaware of their own bias that they are the shorter and hater types (of which we have some on here).

The way you describe choosing what you watch/read on line
is quite dangerous, if you want to have a rounded understanding.

The internet has algorithm's (of course you know this), to encourage us to narrow our field of interest. Not broaden it.

Anyway, it's a red herring to pit news papers v on line consumption.

I do wish people would actually name the 'shouter hater types'.
'hate, exaggeration whipped up easily on GN', why are these labels used so flippantly? Why use such aggressive and goading language? Doesn't bode well for any discussion does it? Doesn't show people in a good light either.
It gets people no where.

People as individuals, may read some papers and rate them more reliable than others, they may bend to papers that supporttheir views, but in the end you get to the final point between people and that is that those who most avidly support one of the two main parties hold those who vote for the other in utter contempt and see them as vile and contemptible.

I have said before on here that IMO the ideas of 'left' and 'right' are very broad generalisations, and often confused. Most people who are not extremists will have some views that others would consider to be on one side of this imaginary divide and some that would be thought to be on the other.

Also, someone can think differently from me without my thinking they are vile and contemptible. I have only ever voted Labour, but have friends who vote very differently, across the spectrum - some even voted for Brexit! . I can disagree vehemently on some things, but like them as people and agree with them in other areas.

Like most people I have lines in the sand, but they aren't over the L/R axes of economic policy or state intervention - they are much more fundamental than that, and it is rarely that I come across people with views that would make me actively avoid them for holding.

I don't often come across people who are so entrenched in their views that they can't rub along with others either. It's different online, as we don't have the social need to get along when the conversation is over, and we don't have the shared cultural norms (for want of a better term) that brings people together in 'real life' in order to have political discussions in the first place.

shorter shouter

Who reads newspapers these days? I would think it is a growing minority. Seeing them in the supermarket makes me think of the trees that have been chopped down.

If I want to read a particular article, I will do it online. I will also watch political channels online too, as they will home in on a subject and analyse it. You can soon work out if they are biased or rather so unaware of their own bias that they are the shorter and hater types (of which we have some on here).

MerylStreep

The patronisers and condescenders amuse me 😄
They’re so far entrenched in their views they don’t realise how narrow minded they are, and, how other people view them.
Sad really, isn’t it, when they are walking around holding their noses and averting their gaze against the uneducated masses.

You say sad, I say pathetic….🤓

I am not nailing myself to any mast. and I am neither patronising or condescending. I assume that if i can read papers and not be swayed by their politics the same applies to most of their readers.

I have never met anyone who said they believed everything they read in a newspaper, even if it supported the party they voted for. Lets face it, even papers supporting the same party can hold divergent views on a host of policy areas.

People as individuals, may read some papers and rate them more reliable than others, they may bend to papers that supporttheir views, but in the end you get to the final point between people and that is that those who most avidly support one of the two main parties hold those who vote for the other in utter contempt and see them as vile and contemptible.

The language used on GN by those on the left describng those who vote for the Conservatives, is generally dismissive and and assumes their decisions are made from the basest of reasons. sadly those on the other side are left evident, but if they were, Idoubt they would be any more admirable.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

Blimey Sunak is losing the plot I think.

Rishi Sunak
@RishiSunak
·
5h
This is what we’re up against.

The Labour Party, a subset of lawyers, criminal gangs - they're all on the same side, propping up a system of exploitation that profits from getting people to the UK illegally.

I guess he is referring to this undercover investigation and it’s findings

Sunak's tweet is disgusting and seems libellous(?). I would like to believe it was sent out in error by a young (very young) staffer.

However, standards have fallen so low in the Tory Party over the last 13 years that I can believe he wrote it, although, if it turns sour on Sunak, I have no doubt he will find someone to blame in the typical style of this government. I feel so disappointed. I wasn't holding out for much with Sunak, but I did hope for better than this.

I see Parliament is investigating the Sun. Perhaps Mr Sunak should be added to the list.

I don't think forthright views are ever condescending. I think condescending views are condescending.

I’m always honest, I think it makes for healthy debate when people give their views in a forthright ( and probably seems condescending if your view is being challenged in a way that makes you uncomfortable) way Namsnanny, as I’m sure MerylStreep was alluding to. I’m all for free speech, this is an online forum which means it’s a very broad church of views, even though I know some people would like it to be something different to that.
I still don’t understand why you were asking those questions to others without answering the question Galaxy raised though.
For what it’s worth, I very rarely contribute to any discussions about feminism or trans issues, I probably should be ashamed to say this, but I’m just not that interested (sorry) compared to my interest in other aspects of politics, so I don’t feel any contribution I made would be worthwhile.

Casdon

Namsnanny

Is that how you see my questions?

Fancy answering any of them?

It is how I see them, yes. I think you’re being provocative to nail other peoples views down so you can critique them, but you’re not prepared to say what you think yourself, which is odd. I’ll say what I think if you do it first, as I said earlier.

Thank you Casdon for the offer to go second , and more importantly and sincerely the honesty of your reaction.

You are wrong though, but no doubt I will not be able to convince you of that.

If you look more closely I have offered my opinions.

I think the same could easily be leveled at you.....

you're being provocative to nail other peoples views down so you can critique them......

Frankly, there is no 'rule' that says either of us must contribute,
but I have answered WWmk2 with honesty.

As for critiquing, isn't that the point of a discussion?

Unless you wish to chat to like minded people, a forum is open for just this purpose, surely?

You must always do as you like.

So far we are still allowed some sort of free speech.

The patronisers and condescenders amuse me 😄
They’re so far entrenched in their views they don’t realise how narrow minded they are, and, how other people view them.
Sad really, isn’t it, when they are walking around holding their noses and averting their gaze against the uneducated masses.