This is the News!

[sheridan]

TL;DR is we shouldn't be complacent about hard-won rights, because they're pretty easy to strip away.

See also Rishi Sunak wanting to roll back any advances made in tackling climate change / pollution.

[Funt Solo]

I see.

So, a video of a woman giving testimony to the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about experiences during her time working at the New York Post, posted by the Chief White House Correspondent at Today News Africa in Washington is about Brietbart because she now works for Breitbart? I guess there's some logic in there somewhere...

Maybe you think she's lying, which is certainly possible. Or maybe she's wrong, which is also possible. Or maybe she's telling the truth, another possibility. Or maybe the whole thing's a deep fake presented by (insert bogeyman of choice here), which, these days, is also a possibility. Whichever, I find it disturbing that what a person says can be so confidently ignored based solely on the prejudice triggered by their current job.

It's fine to disagree with what she says, or some of what she says, and argue against it, but it's dishonest to just ignore her because she's (insert personal bias here). You can also find a pdf of her testimony here, on the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee website (unless you want to dismiss this source also because it's run by lying, cheating, stealing, warmongering politicians...).

Swiss cheese, wall of text bullshit, as per usual.

Your "Chief White House Correspondent at Today News Africa" is a known antagonist who doesn't want to take turns but instead has been continually warned for just shouting everyone else down. (Like you.) He is the *only* correspondent for Today News Africa, which consists of one "journalist" (him), whose only editor is himself. That's about as trustworthy a news source as Putin's barber.

It's not prejudicial to notice that someone has a history of bending the truth to suit their needs and then gets employed as the political editor of an extreme right-wing platform that involves itself in spreading misinformation and hate speech. It would be prejudicial if I had no evidence on which to base my lack of trust. There is plenty of evidence.

For some reason, you are willing to believe almost anyone at all - as long as you are the one presenting them to us - but you are completely unwilling to accept any evidence we present in counter. This is a pattern that repeats itself over and over again - and has done for years. You're a delusional bullshit vampire that spreads misinformation as a hobby. Perhaps Brietbart would employ you?

[JayzusB.Christ]

TL;DR is we shouldn't be complacent about hard-won rights, because they're pretty easy to strip away.

See also Rishi Sunak wanting to roll back any advances made in tackling climate change / pollution.

I was surprised to hear an interview yesterday (on the News Agents podcast) with an SNP member who was pretty much on the same page as Sunak regarding the gas and oil drilling.  On the one hand, the oil and gas is in Scottish waters and would of course hugely help the country if it was to become independent.  On the other hand, helping to render huge tracts of the world uninhabitable is a bit of a downside. 

[GordonR]

For some reason, you are willing to believe almost anyone at all - as long as you are the one presenting them to us - but you are completely unwilling to accept any evidence we present in counter. This is a pattern that repeats itself over and over again - and has done for years. You're a delusional bullshit vampire that spreads misinformation as a hobby. Perhaps Brietbart would employ you?

Glorious, and accurate.  He's a credulous plank and vainglorious, delusional dimwit who'll happily  buy into any conspiracy theory that already matches his peculiar and increasingly not terribly pleasant views.

Captain Confirmation Bias.

[JohnW]

Come off it, the pair of you.
Piling on the personal abuse does more harm than any wrong-headed post.

[Tjm86]

It's fine to disagree with what she says, or some of what she says, and argue against it, but it's dishonest to just ignore her because she's (insert personal bias here).

I guess I'm in two minds when it comes to some of the more controversial figures in our media landscape (bet it the so called 'mainstream' or 'social').  There are positions that range from the distasteful to the potentially dangerous.  They reveal a mindset that is possibly disturbed or at the very least out of step with modern thinking.  Certainly they pose questions about how to approach them.

There is a real issue with the growth of belief in 'conspiracy theories'.  They have grown from being something mildly bemusing to something that has the potential to threaten life, be it on an individual scale or on a national level (potentially even supra-national).

This begs the question then of whether to shut it away or to engage with it?  Do you give it oxygen and room to grow or do you try to snuff it out?  Should it be treated with ridicule or engaged with in order to try and bring about a more reasoned approach?

I want to be a little careful here because this can extend to different political views.  I think it is fair to say that most of us that inhabit these parts are more of a 'social democrat' / socialist mindset.  I don't think we number Trotskyists / Maoists / Leninists / Corbynites (!) amongst our number but I think it fair to say that there is little respect for the likes of Thatcher.  Characters such as Farage, Johnson and Trump are, it would appear, more the subject of derision around here.

We do however number libertarians and anarchists among our community.  These positions present a problem for those amongst us who are more inclined towards some sort of social compact and a need for collective organisation.  The extreme individualism of those perspectives (and by 'extreme' I do not mean to dismiss them, merely to suggest that they stand at a distance from some of the more communal political perspectives generally held) is difficult to reconcile.

In many respects the real problem is that right now we have, as a society in general, become unable to engage with different viewpoints.  Polarisation and division have become the only options.  It is now binary.  Whatever the issue, middle ground is not only impractical but actively discouraged.  This would appear to be the product of a media-sphere that both thrives on and profits from 'outrage'.

So we end up with accusations of bias (probably, if we are honest, accurate) accompanied by insults and dismissal.  It descends into personalisation and vitriol.  Ultimately we end up with things being locked down and people blocked from forums.

Can we completely ignore these positions and views though?  Are we snuffing out potentially dangerous viewpoints or actually pushing them into darker corners of the web where they can grow unchecked?  Are we pushing away those who might be brought around to a more reasoned position allowing us a better understanding of underlying grievances that might be addressed before they become dangerous?

Personally I would argue that Sharkey does have a point.  It is dishonest to dismiss people and views out of hand simply because we find them distasteful or fundamentally disagree with their position.  The same goes for castigating them as 'stupid'.

Right now I would argue that it is more important than ever to understand these issues and find a critical and effective way to deal with them.  One thing that has been evident over the years is that the majority of folks on this forum are incredibly supportive, highly intelligent and capable of impressive levels of critical thought.  It is not often we reach a point where people have to be excluded and a lot of effort is put into trying to rehabilitate them before that point is reached.

Maybe we do have to accept that it is not possible right now to escape the same impetus that is polarising so much debate and discourse.  I'm not sure that we don't have it in us to tackle this head on though. 

[Richard]

A thoughtful and interesting post.

I don't know what the right answers are.

[The Legendary Shark]

A very good post, TJM, thank you for sharing it with us.

For my part, I welcome debate. Prove (in the sense of putting to the test) me correct or incorrect on individual points, larger narratives, and even my fundamental beliefs. Ask me any question and I'll do my level best to answer it honestly.

I'm not here to change anybody's mind (an impossible task from the outside anyway) but to improve my own. 

Sorry, TJM. I know you didn't say, mean, or imply it but I was concerned that my viewpoint was in peril of being described as 'dangerous,' which it most certainly isn't. My most fundamental belief, the bedrock upon which my personal philosophy is built, is that human beings must not harm one another. There are others, though, and far too many, who either do not share this foundation or outright contradict it. Most because they've never really thought about it, but a few because it gives them A Cause. It is these few I rail against. And it is these few to whom my ideas are dangerous, not you. I've said it before, and you sure don't make it easy sometimes, but I love you all.

[Hawkmumbler]

My most fundamental belief, the bedrock upon which my personal philosophy is built, is that human beings must not harm one another.

I'm taking the bait here, I know, but you uphold that belief by repeatedly quoting sources that have a reputation for condemning and vilifying the vulnerable our outright subjugated communities, and never in opposition to the offending parties in question?
I'm sorry Shark, you can tell yourself this and I have no doubt you earnestly believe it, but that is genuinely not how it looks from the outside.

"All views have a point and right to be heard" but not all views are built of equal merit.

[M.I.K.]

I'm taking the bait here, I know, but you uphold that belief by repeatedly quoting sources that have a reputation for condemning and vilifying the vulnerable our outright subjugated communities, and never in opposition to the offending parties in question?
I'm sorry Shark, you can tell yourself this and I have no doubt you earnestly believe it, but that is genuinely not how it looks from the outside.

"All views have a point and right to be heard" but not all views are built of equal merit.

To be "fair" to Mr. Shark, he's long had the utterly effin' weird personality quirk of thinking a quote is more important than the views or morality of the source. Here he is way back in 2011, really not grasping what the problem is...

https://forums.2000ad.com/index.php?topic=32291.60

[The Legendary Shark]

When I posted the link to the video of Emma-Jo Morris's testimony, I honestly wasn't concerned who had posted it or for what reason. It was the content, Morris's words, that I was looking for - and I found them interesting, to say the least. For one thing, I didn't even know there was an official enquiry looking into the Weaponization of Government, and it kinda' shocked me because the Government is a weapon (from my perspective). But this snippet of the enquiry, which is available from other more Statist sources if you hunt about a bit, caught my attention. The woman seems sincere, and - if true - what she has to say is troubling.

Now, I could probably go and find the Official Footage and scour through it until I get to that bit and then give you the link and time-index, but who has the time, right? These guys already did that for reasons of their own. So what? This footage is just the jumping-off point. It raises questions, yes, an aspect of which is validity, but only an aspect. Can anything she says be verified in any way? If not, that's great! We have a free press and The System works! If so... More questions.

But we never get past the validity aspect. "You can't believe this person, they're a thingummybob!" Well, we're all thingummybobs in the end, aren't we? None of us can be believed all the time (for example, I'm not a real shark), but by the same token none of us can be disbelieved all the time, either. It's a spectrum. But there's this weird idea these days that different ideas are dangerous or distasteful so they can't even be explored. So not trusting the source is important, absolutely it is - but the same must be applied to all sources; judge them not for who they are alone, but also for what they say. Even the vilest of tyrants have taught us lessons, as well as the purest of saints, and all the rest of us sandwiched in-between. But, you can't listen to what Emma-Jo Morris has to say because Breitbart? Come on, guys.

And M.I.K. Ah! Those were the days!

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

But, you can't listen to what Emma-Jo Morris has to say because Breitbart?

I would not for one second suggest that you can't listen to her*, but I would suggest that maybe you shouldn't listen to her because she might be full of shite. She worked for a man whose political strategy was, in his own words, to "flood the zone with shit". So I'm not going to take anything she says in good faith.

*Funt might, he wanted the thread locked.

[The Legendary Shark]

As I said, she might be lying, she might just be plain wrong, or she might be telling the truth. Or a mixture. I'd remind you that the testimony was given under oath before an official enquiry which, again, may or may not be relevant. I don't know this woman, maybe she takes the oath seriously. She may be telling the truth as she sees it, as do we all, and if she is there should be supporting evidence to back her up. I really haven't been paying attention to the Hunter Biden Laptop thing, but it seemed pretty big one way and another. Maybe bigger than is admitted. Or maybe it's nothing. Or maybe it's something else. Point is, we'll never know if we never look.

[The Legendary Shark]

Just in case anyone is interested, here[/i] is the full hearing from which Emma-Jo Morris's testimony is taken. It's almost four hours long and includes three other witnesses being grilled by a range of congress critters, some friendly and some not, presented in this case by PSB.

[JohnW]

Xi Jingping is conducting a purge of the upper echelons of his military administration.