What? Pretty much everyone came out saying that a) the £350m was rubbish and b) that they highly doubted that the Brexit could or would give it to the NHS.
If enough people think something, does it become true?
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,482
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Take our own Asim on here, everybody thinks he said he could get a Mach 10 in 3 minutes, it has now become true for the majority.
He actually said he knew people who could get a Mach 10 in 3 minutes.
But that's not why the writer of the linked article claims poppies are racist. They claim that poppies are racist because the UK now only kills people with darker skin and only indiscriminately with bombs and because the poppy only commemorates "white" people killed in war and because the UK is leaving the EU, which they claim is a purely racist thing to do.
They didn't once mention some groups sometimes considered racist adopting the symbol. That wasn't their reason at all.
They're not. Yet. But they'd like to be.
The Nazis weren't a great threat to German democracy in the beginning, but they certainly became one. Ideologies of violence, authoritarianism and irrational prejudice are always a potential threat. What matters is how much power it has. It doesn't matter what the details of the ideology are or what its name is. They rarely have an accurate name, anyway. The national socialism movement wasn't very socialist. The communist movement wasn't communist at all. The anti-fascist movement isn't at all opposed to fascism, only to fascism being run by anyone other than them.
What is this hogwash? Antifa is just a name for loosely affiliated anti-racist groups. No unified structure, no leadership, no "Mein Kampf" and its "power" is social media through which they organise protests against white supremacists.
And anyone else who doesn't agree with them, like people who think freedom of speech is a good idea and people who think that using violence as a political tool is a bad idea. The "protests" are deliberately violent and intimidating because they're not protests. I found it particularly fitting when I saw a photo of a group of them wearing brown shirts. I'm curious as to whether or not it was a deliberate homage to the original brownshirts. They're certainly using the same tactics for the same purpose - gaining power for their ideology and thus for themselves while enjoying their sense of righteousness in their bullying.
As for a single written book, that's not important any more. As you point out, social media exists now. There might not yet be a single openly acknowledged leader, but that's a detail that could be changed. It's also not relevant to the point, namely that they would like to be a threat to democracy and will be if they get enough power. An ideology of authoritarianism enforced by violence and intimidation does that.
Examples?
If those don't scare you, then I don't mind confessing they scare me. And to forestall the "I refuse to take anything at face value crowd unless proved to an impossible degree" crowd, I've actually spoken to the student who took the first one. To the best of my knowledge, those lecturers are teaching what the slides suggest they are. That everything is a social construct. That idea was profound to me when I was seventeen. I have since realised that fire still burns you and your brain knows it is painful no matter how many people consciously try to define it otherwise. Reality is that which is independent of our beliefs.
There are many reasons why perception does not match reality. Sometimes it is simply a case of reality being larger than perception and different people seeing (through choice or information availability) different facets of the same thing.
On other occasions it is a difference in informal (i.e. not scientifically quantified) definitions or value.
And sometimes people just bring their own ideas and don't look past them.
But by FAR the largest cause of perception being at odds with reality, is people seeing what they really want to see:
Which is why Trump was probably a good example for the OP to pick because entrenched views are so often demonstrably in contradiction to fact. This article on Trump is hugely useful to read, though it will take people 5 - 10 minutes to read so probably take-up will be low. Everybody's got time to insult people online but nobody's got time to quietly read something. However, it gives many examples of public perception being wrong on Trump and is a very good read.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf
[*]Public perceptions amongst some are that Trump is a White Supremacist and KKK lover. The Clintons provably have had close ties to the KKK. Trump has none.
[*]Many media outlets and online commentators repeatedly accused Trump of not denouncing the KKK. He has done so on numerous occasions going back decades.
[*]Trump is portrayed as an enemy of minorities. He increased support with every main ethnic group in the USA except White people.
[*]Hillary Clinton secretly accepted large donations to her Foundation by Russian nuclear interests before heading meetings on the sale of Uranium to Russia nuclear industry and the DNC paid a large amount of money to a company for information on her political opponent from Russian sources. Trump has nothing comparable in regards to Russia.
None of the above is incorrect. Each of the items is something that large blocks of people believe without question even though it is wrong, however. I expect attacks on the above from people in this thread, for example. People react badly to information that contradicts their worldview. This is established psychological behaviour common to any human. Challenges to one's beliefs are held as threats. Because they are held as threats, people respond to conflicting information with aggression. Because they are held as threats, Left-wing academics and Social Justice Warriors regard them as aggressive behaviour. I have, quite literally, been told that it doesn't matter if what I said was true or not, it's wrong to say it. Because to some people if reality is less favourable than perception, insisting on reality is an imposition of power over others. Hence lecturers like those at the start of my post who want everything to be a social construct. If science and facts are a social construct, then that is to say science and facts are subordinate to social judgement. Which is an attack on anyone who pushes truth over belief.
Last edited:
Those first two pics are random and irrelevant which makes the ramblings related to them irrelevant. The article is not an article, it's blog post. The Clintons are irrelevant, they hold no govt. positions and the obsession with them in the alt-right universe is explained by an instictual need for a powerful arch enemy who controls vast evil conspiracies(Clintons, Soros etc.). You need the arch enemy because without it, your premises and conclusions seem ridiculous, even to you.
The CNN meme is a classical example of cognitive dissonance as you criticise CNN for doing what you do in this very post.
Your bullet points are half truths or outright falsehoods that have been debunked repeatedly but I suppose facts are a left wing construct huh?
Oh and the blogger you linked to literally says the alt-right does not support Trump which is one of the most bat**** crazy statements I've read in a while. Where do you find these people?
The CNN meme is a classical example of cognitive dissonance as you criticise CNN for doing what you do in this very post.
Your bullet points are half truths or outright falsehoods that have been debunked repeatedly but I suppose facts are a left wing construct huh?
Oh and the blogger you linked to literally says the alt-right does not support Trump which is one of the most bat**** crazy statements I've read in a while. Where do you find these people?
Antifa is quite a bit more than that. For a start, they're not simply an "anti-racist group". Under the heading of "fascism", they'll include criticism of Islam, capitalism, anti-abortion, opponents of immigration just to pick a few that I have witnessed first hand. To define it as "anti-racist" falls very far short of what Antifa has typically protested. Furthermore, they explicitly have the goal of opposing these things not through dialogue but through violence and the threat of violence. Intimidation is the goal of Antifa as they will tell you in person. They want to make those they oppose scared to congregate or protest publically. That is a vital part of the reason Antifa is criticised. It's not because they are "anti-racist". It's because they declare someone a Nazi and use intimidation to shut them down and prevent people from listening to that person. This is a bad thing.
As to "no unified structure, no leadership". Well, the first is somewhat misleading and the second incorrect. Yes, it doesn't have a rigid and centralised organizational structure. That does not Antifa isn't organized. In fact, distributed organization scales far more effectively than top down organization. Bit Torrent would be the technology analogy. Antifa DO have organization and it is plenty sufficient for their purposes. As to "no leadership", this is wrong. Antifa doesn't have an elected head or appointed chairperson, but they certainly have leaders within them and they also have backers. Big ones. If you're at an Antifa protest in the USA you'll quite probably see distinctive green baseball caps amongst the protestors. These are representatives from the National Lawyers Guild. That is a marxist association of lawyers who get funding from George Soros's "Open Society Foundation". They serve as legal aid for Antifa on-site and have defended Antifa members in court, gratis. On the off-chance you're inclined to write any part of this off as "conspiracy theory", I'm happy enough to dig up citations. But hopefully none of this is particularly controversial. You can easily look this stuff up for yourself, it's public information.
As to "no Mein Kampf", of the dozens of Antifa that I have talked with (before they started refusing to associate with me), they were overwhelmingly communist (anarcho-communist, typically), anti-state and a significant number of them were pro- violent revolution. They have books-a-plenty to support these views and they don't have to be called "Mein Kampf". If what you said is your honest view of Antifa, I strongly suggest you locate your nearest anarchist bookshop / bookfair and get talking to some. You're in for quite an awakening.
Top debating!
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 6,270
- Location
- North London
Some Americans think Liam Neeson is Jesus
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,265
- Location
- La France
No, but if you tell someone the same thing over and over again, they’ll believe it.
See all religions for details.
See all religions for details.
People probably stopped paying attention when it became official that an expert with a quarterstaff can hold off an unlimited number of Mach 10s.
This thread started out with Trump apologist overtones, so perhaps you shouldn't be too surprised...
There it is, the arch enemy finds His way into your argument, like clockwork.
There is nothing to debate. As usual you have posted complete rubbish, with the usual anti-clinton conspiracy theories that are disproven within minutes in Google. What on Earth is your obsession with her, somekind of sexual fantasy your are desperate to hide?
You know,treating g something continuously doesn't make falsehood true.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
The article is written by nutcases who associate the poppy with racism and so will look to find racist undertones in poppys when there is none. I was just giving an example why some associate it with racism. Point is that people who associate the poppy with racism are only a small minority. The poppy has become an arguing point. No need to give credibility or attention to these idiots. This 'the left' boogyman that is getting old