Lib Dems

[ZonkoVille77]

4 hours ago, SasaS said:

Genuinely interested, are you all not uncomfortable that there seem to be people of organization which systematically sift through old social media posts of everyone in the public eye, from teenage footballers to parliamentary candidates? I get that in politics, people would stop at nothing to eliminate an opponent but isn't it actually Orwellian when you think about it - as a rule, there are verbal transgressions of various "isms" mostly taken out of context and nobody actually "isist" is caught, mostly people who breached this or that etiquette, from all sides.

Is it worth it?  

 

Putting Party above EVRYTHING else is certainly Orwellian. I'd like you to explain how it isn't. Thanks.

[SasaS]

8 minutes ago, moof said:

Don’t be an apologist for racism. It’s not a good look 

So you all think these social media combings are a good thing? I wasn't commenting on this specific thing.

 

7 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

Putting Party above EVRYTHING else is certainly Orwellian. I'd like you to explain how it isn't. Thanks.

It's totalitarian more than Orwellian, Orwellian would be if somehow everything you ever said is pulled up for scrutiny once you are in the public eye.

[ZonkoVille77]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

It's totalitarian more than Orwellian, Orwellian would be if somehow everything you ever said is pulled up for scrutiny once you are in the public eye.
 

 

I suspect you may have taken my point incorrectly. I was speaking about Stronts defending his Party (Lib Dems) - Party Loyalty at all costs.

[moof]

9 minutes ago, SasaS said:

So you all think these social media combings are a good thing? I wasn't commenting on this specific thing.

 

It's totalitarian more than Orwellian, Orwellian would be if somehow everything you ever said is pulled up for scrutiny once you are in the public eye.

When you publish something on social media it’s fair game for public and open critique, obviously. If you publish something racist on social media and then try and run for elected office, it absolutely needs to be scrutinised 

[SasaS]

33 minutes ago, moof said:

When you publish something on social media it’s fair game for public and open critique, obviously. If you publish something racist on social media and then try and run for elected office, it absolutely needs to be scrutinised 

On principle, yes, but that's not why social media is scrutinized, is it?  I doubt that it's done independently and with a noble intention of weeding out the bad ones. It's done to find anything which can be used to discredit an opponent.

And it's more often than not something like what Nelly Torres shared the other day, old dyslexia and Benefits Street jokes. People put up with this because today is the other guy, forgetting tomorrow it will be one of yours. It hardly stops with candidates for political office. And then you end up living in a society where anything you said on social media or in any situation where someone may have recorded you will be used against you, if a situation occurs where someone else thinks they can benefit from it.

And that's Orwellian.

[moof]

36 minutes ago, SasaS said:

On principle, yes, but that's not why social media is scrutinized, is it?  I doubt that it's done independently and with a noble intention of weeding out the bad ones. It's done to find anything which can be used to discredit an opponent.

And it's more often than not something like what Nelly Torres shared the other day, old dyslexia and Benefits Street jokes. People put up with this because today is the other guy, forgetting tomorrow it will be one of yours. It hardly stops with candidates for political office. And then you end up living in a society where anything you said on social media or in any situation where someone may have recorded you will be used against you, if a situation occurs where someone else thinks they can benefit from it.

And that's Orwellian.

 

 

Bullshit. If you publish things on social media, like racist statements or jokes about killing people on benefits then you shouldn’t be running for office, quite simply. You can’t then complain that things you wrote, of your own free will, are being picked up and used against you. It’s a nonsense 

[SasaS]

8 minutes ago, moof said:

Bullshit. If you publish things on social media, like racist statements or jokes about killing people on benefits then you shouldn’t be running for office, quite simply. You can’t then complain that things you wrote, of your own free will, are being picked up and used against you. It’s a nonsense 

Or anti-Semitic stuff, right? There is an obsession with verbal transgression which will ultimately horribly backfire. It's just not worth the trade-off. Stasi's army of informants will be nothing compared to a myriad of nasty rats hiding behind lofty principles.

[moof]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

Or anti-Semitic stuff, right? There is an obsession with verbal transgression which will ultimately horribly backfire. It's just not worth the trade-off. Stasi's army of informants will be nothing compared to a myriad of nasty rats hiding behind lofty principles.

“Antisemitic stuff” falls under the banner of racism, so, obviously. If you are so irresponsible and downright ignorant that you happily write racist statements and post them out to the internet for all to see, you can have precisely zero complaints when people catch you bang to rights 

 

evoking the bloody stasi in this conversation just shows how out of touch you are 

[Bjornebye]

 

They just lie lie lie. 

LibDem leaflet hilariously claims candidate won Nobel Peace Prize

 

THE LibDems aren't renowned for their self awareness.

While Jo Swinson has been busy fantasising about becoming prime minister, a campaign leaflet for the party's Sue Wixley is claiming she won the Nobel Peace Prize. 

It would be an impressive achievement for the Putney candidate if it was true. 

In the flyer, Wixley proudly states she “led the campaign to ban landmines in South Africa, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”.

 

 

Not only did Wixley not win the prize, the campaign to ban landmines in South Africa didn't either. 

The 1997 peace prize was split between Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. 

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines was itself made up of multiple national campaigns, including Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kenya and South Africa – the latter of which Wixley co-founded whilst working for Oxfam in Johannesburg.

It comes just days after Swinson misspelled East Dunbartonshire, her constituency, in a General Election campaign leaflet.

[ZonkoVille77]

Hahaha

[Strontium]

Setting the bar for lying a bit low if you're going to class missing a word out on a leaflet as a lie, aren't you.

[SasaS]

20 minutes ago, moof said:

“Antisemitic stuff” falls under the banner of racism, so, obviously. If you are so irresponsible and downright ignorant that you happily write racist statements and post them out to the internet for all to see, you can have precisely zero complaints when people catch you bang to rights 

 

evoking the bloody stasi in this conversation just shows how out of touch you are 

It has mostly nothing to do with racism, or other isms. It's all about weaponisation. Anybody who wants to, will find something to use against you in your past.
 

And BTW, why would mentioning Stasi show that I am out of touch?

 

[Bjornebye]

Hahahahahaha. 

 

"I've won the WBC Super-Middleweight Championship of the World" 

 

"I've never won the ...... " See where I'm going? 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

But do you think such discoveries normally reveal massive racist dickheads, or just manage to find that a political opponent has put a foot wrong on social media 5 or 10 years ago? 

It depends. If it's a couple of tweets amongst a sea of innocent ones, then maybe (just maybe - depending on what was said) you give the person some leeway. 

 

But, if like the Lib Dem bloke (and, irrespective of the party they represent), there's a relatively large amount of clear, unambiguously racist, sexist, homophobic and ableist tweets, then I think it's fair to ask if such a person is a suitable parliamentary candidate. 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, SasaS said:

 

And BTW, why would mentioning Stasi show that I am out of touch?

 

The Berlin wall came down 30 years ago. Fuck me is Linda Bellingham still selling you Oxo Cubes on the telly? Say hi from me the little minx 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

It depends. If it's a couple of tweets amongst a sea of innocent ones, then maybe (just maybe - depending on what was said) you give the person some leeway. 

 

But, if like the Lib Dem bloke (and, irrespective of the party they represent), there's a relatively large amount of clear, unambiguously racist, sexist, homophobic and ableist tweets, then I think it's fair to ask if such a person is a suitable parliamentary candidate. 

It is completely indefensible. 

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

It depends. If it's a couple of tweets amongst a sea of innocent ones, then maybe (just maybe - depending on what was said) you give the person some leeway. 

 

But, if like the Lib Dem bloke (and, irrespective of the party they represent), there's a relatively large amount of clear, unambiguously racist, sexist, homophobic and ableist tweets, then I think it's fair to ask if such a person is a suitable parliamentary candidate. 

I can agree with that, but most cases don't seem to be as clear cut.

 

5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

The Berlin wall came down 30 years ago. Fuck me is Linda Bellingham still selling you Oxo Cubes on the telly? Say hi from me the little minx 

 

Do you know why I used Stasi for my point?
 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

 

Do you know why I used Stasi for my point?
 

Yes I was taking the piss. You having a bad day? 

[moof]

Just now, SasaS said:

 

 

 

Do you know why I used Stasi for my point?
 

It’s quite simple mate. If you’re worried about people retaining information on you, in this case, your own words posted publicly online - don’t post publicly online 

[SasaS]

27 minutes ago, moof said:

It’s quite simple mate. If you’re worried about people retaining information on you, in this case, your own words posted publicly online - don’t post publicly online 

But isn't this a bit like saying, if you don't want to get in trouble, don't talk politics publicly or speak against the regime - if you see what I am getting at.

 

I feel that leeway Nelly-Torres is speaking of is simply not there, increasingly, because the political battle is today obviously also fought in social media and because posts need to be used in that battle. OK, I get that in the political arena standards and stakes are higher, you dish it out so expect no mercy, but this has long gone moved into all other areas, with employers scrutinizing your SM timelines and so on.

 

People are so sensitive to their online privacy infringements, data sharing, surveillance capitalism and so on, yet the fact that social media effectively records elements of your interaction with society, which for younger generations is increasingly all interaction with society and that it is deemed acceptable it can be taken out of the context or put into a different context with different delineation of what is acceptable, or interpreted by people with some agenda against you, that is somehow not worrying. That baffles me.

[moof]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But isn't this a bit like saying, if you don't want to get in trouble, don't talk politics publicly or speak against the regime - if you see what I am getting at.

 

I feel that leeway Nelly-Torres is speaking of is simply not there, increasingly, because the political battle is today obviously also fought in social media and because posts need to be used in that battle. OK, I get that in the political arena standards and stakes are higher, you dish it out so expect no mercy, but this has long gone moved into all other areas, with employers scrutinizing your SM timelines and so on.

 

People are so sensitive to their online privacy infringements, data sharing, surveillance capitalism and so on, yet the fact that social media effectively records elements of your interaction with society, which for younger generations is increasingly all interaction with society and that it is deemed acceptable it can be taken out of the context or put into a different context with different delineation of what is acceptable, or interpreted by people with some agenda against you, that is somehow not worrying. That baffles me.

The solution to that is, don’t post anything incriminating on social media for the entire world to view. It’s quite a fucking leap to go from that to talking about the Stasi tapping phones or intercepting mail. Nobody is forcing you to post racist shit publicly on social media, that is your own responsibility. The broader question of stockpiling private data and mass surveillance is another conversation entirely 

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But isn't this a bit like saying, if you don't want to get in trouble, don't talk politics publicly or speak against the regime - if you see what I am getting at.

 

I feel that leeway Nelly-Torres is speaking of is simply not there, increasingly, because the political battle is today obviously also fought in social media and because posts need to be used in that battle. OK, I get that in the political arena standards and stakes are higher, you dish it out so expect no mercy, but this has long gone moved into all other areas, with employers scrutinizing your SM timelines and so on.

 

People are so sensitive to their online privacy infringements, data sharing, surveillance capitalism and so on, yet the fact that social media effectively records elements of your interaction with society, which for younger generations is increasingly all interaction with society and that it is deemed acceptable it can be taken out of the context or put into a different context with different delineation of what is acceptable, or interpreted by people with some agenda against you, that is somehow not worrying. That baffles me.

Don't use the N word or mock the disabled and you should be relatively unworried about anyone reading something you have posted on a public platform.

[aRdja]

I’m not really getting this outrage over the sacking of the Lib Dems candidate. Are we saying we should just turn a blind eye? If so why?

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, moof said:

The solution to that is, don’t post anything incriminating on social media for the entire world to view. It’s quite a fucking leap to go from that to talking about the Stasi tapping phones or intercepting mail. Nobody is forcing you to post racist shit publicly on social media, that is your own responsibility. The broader question of stockpiling private data and mass surveillance is another conversation entirely 

 

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Don't use the N word or mock the disabled and you should be relatively unworried about anyone reading something you have posted on a public platform.

 

The problem is, we would probably disagree on what is "racist shit" now and what was "racist shit" 10 years ago. For example - mock the disabled, I disagreed with Nelly's example from the article he shared that posting dyslexia jokes is mocking the disabled, you can probably still hear them on Mock the Week or something and if you go through Gary Delaney's or Frankie Boyle's SM timelines you will find tonnes of such stuff.

For the record, since it seems to need an explanation after all, I didn't mention Stasi because they were tapping the phones, I mentioned them because it's a unique example of a historically unprecedented number of informants, mostly willing, in the history of security organizations, with children ratting out parents and so on, wince we began with the term Orwellian.

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I’m not really getting this outrage over the sacking of the Lib Dems candidate. Are we saying we should just turn a blind eye? If so why?

I'm not surprised.

There is no outrage and it's not about the Lib Dems candidate, sack away.