Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
RIP House of Commoners group
Comments
-
Fair point. Quite where we'd all be without the 'Rate my Plate' Christmas dinner thread doesn't bear thinking about. The world is made so much richer for its existence 😉charente addick said:
Because, one of the beauties of this forum is that it's a broad church and much more than a Charlton/Football forum.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
But why do you want to comment on politics on what is essentially a Charlton specific/football general forum?ME14addick said:Those that think the forum is better off without the HOC have no need to look at it, that would leave it free for those of us who do.
There are many topics on the forum that I have no interest in, so I don't bother looking at them. I would never suggest that those threads be closed.
There are other forums you can use for your political chat.
I've just scanned the first page of topics and there are discussions on - Running, Films, Road Fines, Ofsted, Word Game, Cricket, Heart Disease, Wrestling, Savings & Investments, RIPs, Photos, Dogs, Formula 1, NFL and even the demise of hourly pips!
So why not a politics thread?! I found it very informing and would like to see it returned. If you're not interested don't open it. Or, if it should be taken off because it's not Charlton/Football then take all of the above off too.
5 -
Yeah, it's a nice idea - but the licence fee and royalties the new site would have to pay to AFKA and Lookout for the use of the name would be astronomical.CharltonKerry said:What stopping someone starting a forum.charltonlifepolitics.com as a totally separate entity with its own rules and if required moderation, I don’t know if this is possible, but also with say the only way of accessing the new forum is via the main forum, therefore they would have to be registered with charltonlife, and would be known participants. I’m sure the more technically knowledgeable could work it out. Probably a load of rubbish and just a thought, but not thought through.1 -
CharltonStrife perhaps ?9
-
Because people just can't be trusted to stick to the same rules when it comes to politics (or religion). It's always that way and isn't just an issue for this site.charente addick said:
Because, one of the beauties of this forum is that it's a broad church and much more than a Charlton/Football forum.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
But why do you want to comment on politics on what is essentially a Charlton specific/football general forum?ME14addick said:Those that think the forum is better off without the HOC have no need to look at it, that would leave it free for those of us who do.
There are many topics on the forum that I have no interest in, so I don't bother looking at them. I would never suggest that those threads be closed.
There are other forums you can use for your political chat.
I've just scanned the first page of topics and there are discussions on - Running, Films, Road Fines, Ofsted, Word Game, Cricket, Heart Disease, Wrestling, Savings & Investments, RIPs, Photos, Dogs, Formula 1, NFL and even the demise of hourly pips!
So why not a politics thread?! I found it very informing and would like to see it returned. If you're not interested don't open it. Or, if it should be taken off because it's not Charlton/Football then take all of the above off too.
Largely I guess that's because people will have more deep-rooted and entrenched views than, for example, whether X is a better midfielder than Y or if a film is worth watching, but sometimes there's also a unhealthy dose of ego and even a form of evangelicalism involved. This thread shows you that some people just can't help themselves and see it as their duty to nail their colours to the mast and call out "the other side" at every opportunity.
Personally, I don't have a dog in that fight and tend to avoid it as I rarely see things as wholly "left" or "right" as I think life is much more nuanced than that - and nobody is right all of the time. But it is what it is and if the mods think it's too much hassle to moderate then that's their call.14 -
If you want a political forum where you would feel safe then I recommend www.politicalbetting.comME14addick said:
I feel much safer posting on this forum than one than one where everyone is a stranger. It's testament to this forum that although I've never met most people on here, it feels more like a family.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
But why do you want to comment on politics on what is essentially a Charlton specific/football general forum?ME14addick said:Those that think the forum is better off without the HOC have no need to look at it, that would leave it free for those of us who do.
There are many topics on the forum that I have no interest in, so I don't bother looking at them. I would never suggest that those threads be closed.
There are other forums you can use for your political chat.
It was great to have a politics section, away from the main forum. There were a lot of informative posts. Nobody was compelled to look at that part of the forum, so I don't understand why others want to get it closed down.
I used to be a regular poster on there many years ago and it was always informative and posters rarely crossed the line1 -
Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Oh dear.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
And those people weren't usually on the right.
Those that posted without facts to back things up were usually on the right, though not exclusively.
Of course that can also depend on your definition of "right".
They mostly moaned that their opinions were being silenced (whilst expressing their opinion) because people were posting facts to prove them wrong. I was never for telling people not to post their opinions, but I was always ready to point out a lie, exaggeration or when a point they had raised had already been proved wrong, but they insisted in repeating it anyway.
And some people used phrases like "Oh dear", "morally superior" and "couldn't possibly be wrong" and somehow thought that was conducive to civilised debate and wasn't provocative.
4 -
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.5 -
If there's one thing CL (and away games! lol) has made clear to me, just because someone supports Charlton it doesn't mean you'll have anything else in common with them, or even want to like them as a person.12
-
If I want to be offended I can achieve that perfectly well on the main site thank you.3
-
I agree, there has been quite a lot of research that shows there is a link between social media in adults (the growth of this starting with Facebook in the late noughties) and the polarisation of political views - and this has been reflected around the world in elections.Chunes said:I can't think of a place online where people talk about politics like civilised ladies and gentlemen. Social media and the depersonalisation of the internet has polarised us. It's not a CL problem, a moderation problem or an issue with any of the individuals on here, it's bigger than that. This is just the way it is now. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and start shaking hands and having a nice chat over the internet about immigration. Call me a pessimist but it's futile to expect it to change on here or anywhere else.
This isn't just about debates and groups there is also the more sinister side of it around politically driven advertising and manipulation of the algorithms. People end up seeing and reading what they want to see (or very occasionally something that is the polar opposite to get them riled up) so they end up getting into their own echo chambers without realising and so are unaware just how far their views have shifted based on what they are fed. Its dangerous.3 - Sponsored links:
-
So calling someone a nonce is fine (as long as they are a referee)!Leuth said:The test for me is, would it be okay if the loud bloke behind you at the football yelled it at the players. If yes, then it's fine for HOC.3 -
I am lucky that being an old rock n roller I have plenty of mates who are right wing and keep me in the loop with the latest old bollocks they are being fed when they post it on their social media. It's why I am pretty good at responding to people on here when they do the same, I've already seen it, researched it and (for the most part) found out the truth and put 'em straight.cantersaddick said:
I agree, there has been quite a lot of research that shows there is a link between social media in adults (the growth of this starting with Facebook in the late noughties) and the polarisation of political views - and this has been reflected around the world in elections.Chunes said:I can't think of a place online where people talk about politics like civilised ladies and gentlemen. Social media and the depersonalisation of the internet has polarised us. It's not a CL problem, a moderation problem or an issue with any of the individuals on here, it's bigger than that. This is just the way it is now. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and start shaking hands and having a nice chat over the internet about immigration. Call me a pessimist but it's futile to expect it to change on here or anywhere else.
This isn't just about debates and groups there is also the more sinister side of it around politically driven advertising and manipulation of the algorithms. People end up seeing and reading what they want to see (or very occasionally something that is the polar opposite to get them riled up) so they end up getting into their own echo chambers without realising and so are unaware just how far their views have shifted based on what they are fed. Its dangerous.
I also do the same when lefties claim Trump eats babies or Sunak likes dressing up as Looby Loo...
2 -
It was certainly the case for me, as I was staunchly Tory for most of my life. My eyes have been opened now and my views are completely different.Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
6 -
But you can do that in life, you dont need a one sided forum to tell you that.ME14addick said:
It was certainly the case for me, as I was staunchly Tory for most of my life. My eyes have been opened now and my views are completely different.Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.0 -
One sided or weight of opinion?Chippycafc said:
But you can do that in life, you dont need a one sided forum to tell you that.ME14addick said:
It was certainly the case for me, as I was staunchly Tory for most of my life. My eyes have been opened now and my views are completely different.Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.4 -
I enjoyed the HoC, if you don't enjoy it then why go into it? It seems that it's those who can't justify their views that want it closed down.Chippycafc said:
But you can do that in life, you dont need a one sided forum to tell you that.ME14addick said:
It was certainly the case for me, as I was staunchly Tory for most of my life. My eyes have been opened now and my views are completely different.Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
I was frequently ridiculed on the Covid threads, but added links to reputable sources to justify my posts.
I can't see why those of us who do enjoy political discussions should be penalised by those whose main aim is to shut down political debate.12 -
People did justify their views though. The almighty didn't like them as it put to bed their biased and ill gained views and then the gang culture took over, Its quite arrogant to suggest ones views are the gold mantra which has already been suggested today.ME14addick said:
I enjoyed the HoC, if you don't enjoy it then why go into it? It seems that it's those who can't justify their views that want it closed down.Chippycafc said:
But you can do that in life, you dont need a one sided forum to tell you that.ME14addick said:
It was certainly the case for me, as I was staunchly Tory for most of my life. My eyes have been opened now and my views are completely different.Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
I was frequently ridiculed on the Covid threads, but added links to reputable sources to justify my posts.
I can't see why those of us who do enjoy political discussions should be penalised by those whose main aim is to shut down political debate.
Look at the crap i got for supporting Farage but all those wont tune into his show as he dispels their opinion in an instant.
7 -
Overall I think the interactions got better than they had in the past. I presumed it'd been locked for Xmas as mods would be online less... completely missed what triggered the final act.
Personally I think exchanging views is healthy, in a world where our thoughts are pushed a certain way with algorithms.4 -
MuttleyCAFC said:I don't think there would be grey areas. I can say your views are wrong IMO but I can't call you a fascist or an anti semite or even an idiot or similar word. I can't tell you to stop posting or imply you are a winker like some did to Seth. Just ignore him or disagree him if you don't like what he is saying. Sorry to highlight Seth, I am using him to make a general point.
I have complained twice about being directly called Anti Semitic, the person in question declared they didn’t have to supply any evidence for the accusation, and then repeated the accusation a couple of months later.
My complaint didn’t trouble the moderators, I suspect because my attacker is a well known and long established poster on Charlton life.
The person in question, if they are reading this, knows full well who they are, and anyway the accusation is totally ridiculous.
However that public accusation still rankles big time.
When something like that is allowed to ride (and fester) it is the kind of thing that leads to the Urban Myths, and the wrong assumption that it must be me that got the HoC closed down.2 -
Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
So anyone whose views don't align with yours were being hoodwinked? Nothing to do with their experiences or perspective on life then? Interesting to say the least.
Anyway, I will leave you to your life's work of educating the masses whilst I head off to the Guardian's website to make sure I'm not hoodwinked in future. :-)7 - Sponsored links:
-
All anyone needs to know about politics is ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work. 👍
8 -
Any sources the "so called right" quoted that weren't the BBC or Guardian were derided and ignored by "the left" which is no surprise as quashing dissent from left wing doctrines is part of the raison d'etre of the left.Algarveaddick said:Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Oh dear.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
And those people weren't usually on the right.
Those that posted without facts to back things up were usually on the right, though not exclusively.
Of course that can also depend on your definition of "right".
They mostly moaned that their opinions were being silenced (whilst expressing their opinion) because people were posting facts to prove them wrong. I was never for telling people not to post their opinions, but I was always ready to point out a lie, exaggeration or when a point they had raised had already been proved wrong, but they insisted in repeating it anyway.
And some people used phrases like "Oh dear", "morally superior" and "couldn't possibly be wrong" and somehow thought that was conducive to civilised debate and wasn't provocative. 3 -
See - there you go - claiming I have said things I haven't. Namely anyone whose views didn't align with mine was being hoodwinked, and that my life's work is educating the masses. I have claimed neither. It's nice to have at least a part of my earlier post proved correct so swiftly I guess?Fortune 82nd Minute said:Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
So anyone whose views don't align with yours were being hoodwinked? Nothing to do with their experiences or perspective on life then? Interesting to say the least.
Anyway, I will leave you to your life's work of educating the masses whilst I head off to the Guardian's website to make sure I'm not hoodwinked in future. :-)
6 -
Shame to see it go but not the end of the world especially if it was causing aggro for the mods, who do a great job and deserve a lot of credit.
I do think the easiest solution would have been for people who hate it so much to not go on it. Seems a bit strange that some of the most prolific posters on it are happy to see its demise. Never understood why people spend so long on a website they claim to hate.
Anyway, always found it an interesting place with a lot of very informed views being shared. It was only a small minority who spoiled it, but that's always the case with everything. I think if it was ever to be opened again it should be for people who want to use it in good faith and not to bring it down. But as I said, totally understand why if it's more trouble than it's worth to keep it going.
9 -
Reminds me of the old ubiquitous football chant…
’Ere we go, ‘ere we go, ‘ere we go,
‘Ere we go, ‘ere we go, ‘ere we go-o
‘Ere we go, ‘ere we go, ‘ere we go,
’Er we go!
When was that last sung?0 -
Assuming the word I have highlighted was a typo, and you meant right, Len. I admit that is true from me at least. But it comes from experience when we are talking Sun, Mail, Express, and various proudly right wing websites who have been proved liars or hypocrites again and again. Despite the recent track records I would and do give some credibility to the Telegraph or the Times or even the Spectator.LenGlover said:
Any sources the "so called right" quoted that weren't the BBC or Guardian were derided and ignored by "the left" which is no surprise as quashing dissent from left wing doctrines is part of the raison d'etre of the left.Algarveaddick said:Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Oh dear.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
And those people weren't usually on the right.
Those that posted without facts to back things up were usually on the right, though not exclusively.
Of course that can also depend on your definition of "right".
They mostly moaned that their opinions were being silenced (whilst expressing their opinion) because people were posting facts to prove them wrong. I was never for telling people not to post their opinions, but I was always ready to point out a lie, exaggeration or when a point they had raised had already been proved wrong, but they insisted in repeating it anyway.
And some people used phrases like "Oh dear", "morally superior" and "couldn't possibly be wrong" and somehow thought that was conducive to civilised debate and wasn't provocative. 0 -
Read the smiley face.Algarveaddick said:
See - there you go - claiming I have said things I haven't. Namely anyone whose views didn't align with mine was being hoodwinked, and that my life's work is educating the masses. I have claimed neither. It's nice to have at least a part of my earlier post proved correct so swiftly I guess?Fortune 82nd Minute said:Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
So anyone whose views don't align with yours were being hoodwinked? Nothing to do with their experiences or perspective on life then? Interesting to say the least.
Anyway, I will leave you to your life's work of educating the masses whilst I head off to the Guardian's website to make sure I'm not hoodwinked in future. :-)
And I look forward to all your future posts putting us all right.2 -
All I can hear is our Dad.
Never discuss politics or religion with anyone you like/love.
If you can’t stand em…………………😜😎😘😘
Miss you Dad 💚5 -
Oh - it was all a laugh? Cor - silly ole me...Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Read the smiley face.Algarveaddick said:
See - there you go - claiming I have said things I haven't. Namely anyone whose views didn't align with mine was being hoodwinked, and that my life's work is educating the masses. I have claimed neither. It's nice to have at least a part of my earlier post proved correct so swiftly I guess?Fortune 82nd Minute said:Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
So anyone whose views don't align with yours were being hoodwinked? Nothing to do with their experiences or perspective on life then? Interesting to say the least.
Anyway, I will leave you to your life's work of educating the masses whilst I head off to the Guardian's website to make sure I'm not hoodwinked in future. :-)
And I look forward to all your future posts putting us all right.
0 -
Correct.Algarveaddick said:
Oh - it was all a laugh? Cor - silly ole me...Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Read the smiley face.Algarveaddick said:
See - there you go - claiming I have said things I haven't. Namely anyone whose views didn't align with mine was being hoodwinked, and that my life's work is educating the masses. I have claimed neither. It's nice to have at least a part of my earlier post proved correct so swiftly I guess?Fortune 82nd Minute said:Algarveaddick said:
If it opened one person's eyes to how they were being hoodwinked, it was worth it, Swordfish.swordfish said:
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.Algarveaddick said:Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
So anyone whose views don't align with yours were being hoodwinked? Nothing to do with their experiences or perspective on life then? Interesting to say the least.
Anyway, I will leave you to your life's work of educating the masses whilst I head off to the Guardian's website to make sure I'm not hoodwinked in future. :-)
And I look forward to all your future posts putting us all right.1
This discussion has been closed.
