Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Barky said: "Twist fact", is that as close as you'll come to admit they tell lies? Maybe one day, when this whole supposed backlash against the cheeky bastard students telling people that racism is wrong dies down, we'll have a backlash against middle aged blokes who can't admit that they base their views on absolute horseshit from the gutter press. I don't need students to tell me that racism is wrong, I just don't look for racism in everything.
Barky Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: I don't need students to tell me that racism is wrong, I just don't look for racism in everything. Keep your eyes peeled for cheeky bastard students though don't you? How many students have you even spoken to in that last five years? How many examples of them telling you how to think can you give?
leicsmac Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 30 minutes ago, FireFox said: This thread has gotten so ridiculous. Exaggeration or lies, it doesn't matter. The question is if these newspapers are spreading hate, do people believe they are spreading hate, and do companies funding them want to continue to be associated with them? Group W campaigns to stop funding X. Group W believes company Y does X. Company Z funds company Y. Group W wants company Z to stop funding company Y. Company Z stops funding company Y. Company Z doesn't want to be associated with funding X. Even if company Y doesn't necessarily do X, group W and many people believe so. Company Z respects this group and these people's opinion. Company Z doesn't want their public image harmed. Et cetera. What is the problem? That "company Y" happens to be part of the media? Are media companies not still part of "the free market"? This isn't suppressing freedom of speech. It would be the same as people campaigning for a newspaper to stop running a certain shoe company's ads because this shoe company uses Chinese sweatshops, and people don't agree with the use of these sweatshops. Would this shoe company's freedom of speech be in danger? Because a newspaper stops putting in their ads because the newspaper doesn't want to be associated with sweatshops? 15 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Quoted for truth. Can people actually address this point rather than a back and forth about which paper lied about what? This, right here, has happened to business in the past, is happening now and is why the campaign is ok, regardless of intent. Once more for emphasis.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Barky said: Keep your eyes peeled for cheeky bastard students though don't you? How many students have you even spoken to in that last five years? How many examples of them telling you how to think can you give? I don't know where this cheeky bastard students thing is coming from? Are you, perchance a student? My post about a 3rd rate degree in media studies was a response to the "people who went to uni voted for X". Perhaps I should have quoted it directly but I was on a tablet at the time and it can be awkward.
GaelicFox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 hour ago, Great Boos Up said: Err, that's me then! Sorry! it's ok your one of 5m draining the NHS
Strokes Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, GaelicFox said: it's ok your one of 5m draining the NHS I saw a fat immigrant the other day, can we at least hate her?
bovril Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: I saw a fat immigrant the other day, can we at least hate her? Unbelievable sexism.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: I saw a fat immigrant the other day, can we at least hate her? Her spending on food is holding up the economy
Barky Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 8 minutes ago, Webbo said: I don't know where this cheeky bastard students thing is coming from? Are you, perchance a student? My post about a 3rd rate degree in media studies was a response to the "people who went to uni voted for X". Perhaps I should have quoted it directly but I was on a tablet at the time and it can be awkward. Haven't been a student for too many years now unfortunately.
Strokes Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 6 minutes ago, bovril said: Unbelievable sexism. I can hate her dad too
bovril Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: I can hate her dad too Ageist bastard.
Strokes Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, bovril said: Ageist bastard. You bastard!
Corky Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Elderly immigrant brings over obese daughter that costs the NHS £20million per day...and YOU pay for it EXCLUSIVE
Countryfox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Great debate lads but I think you read too much in the papers .... Buy the Sun, read the sport, then have a quick scan through to look at all the pics of nice bits of skirt then bin it. Sorted.
Barky Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Immigrant gains 700kg's in a year just to qualify for disability benefit, and you pay for the halal cheeseburgers through clause in sharia law *gross weight doesn't include excretion
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 hour ago, Webbo said: According to that graph immigration went from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20% And that is why you fall for DM reporting tactics because without reading the article and relying purely on my understanding of graphs, graph keys and basic maths: That graph shows that immigration rose from around 570k to 575k, a rise of roughly 1%, meanwhile emigration fell from around 370k to 336k, a roughly 10% drop, causing the disparity between the two flows to rise from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%. The more pertinent story there is that less people are leaving the country, not more people are coming into it. You've basically just given us all a classic example of a media source misrepresenting the facts to suit their agenda and its readership believing it without question.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: And that is why you fall for DM reporting tactics because without reading the article and relying purely on my understanding of graphs, graph keys and basic maths: That graph shows that immigration rose from around 570k to 575k, a rise of roughly 1%, meanwhile emigration fell from around 370k to 336k, a roughly 10% drop, causing the disparity between the two flows to rise from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%. The more pertinent story there is that less people are leaving the country, not more people are coming into it. You've basically just given us all a classic example of a media source misrepresenting the facts to suit their agenda and its readership believing it without question. You've chosen to interpret it that way to suit your agenda, what you are accusing them of doing. I understood what they meant..
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: You've chosen to interpret it that way to suit your agenda, what you are accusing them of doing. I understood what they meant.. No actually he's not interpreted it in anyway, he's just right. Immigration according to that graph did not rise 20% in a year. Net migration did, but that can't be used to question why more people came here. Migration could fall and net migration could still rise.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 4 minutes ago, Facecloth said: No actually he's not interpreted it in anyway, he's just right. Immigration according to that graph did not rise 20% in a year. Net migration did, but that can't be used to question why more people came here. Migration could fall and net migration could still rise. If you want to be pedantic so be it. It certainly wasn't a lie and they provided all the facts so you could see for yourself. If they'd wanted to be dramatic they could have said 575k immigrants arrived in 2010 but they gave the net figure.
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Webbo said: You've chosen to interpret it that way to suit your agenda, what you are accusing them of doing. I understood what they meant.. No, the headline was "IMMIGRATION SOARS BY 20%", you said " immigration went from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%", but immigration did no such thing. It rose 1%. One. Not twenty. It's all there for you to see on the graph. Net flow of people rose 20% but that wasn't because of higher immigration, well it was partly, but it was mostly because of a drop in emigration. The headline was inherently wrong but it didn't suit the DM to scream "NET MIGRATION SOARS BY 20%" or "IMMIGRATION SOARS BY 1%" because that wouldn't have the same sensationalist effect. Just now, Webbo said: If you want to be pedantic so be it. It certainly wasn't a lie and they provided all the facts so you could see for yourself. It was a lie though as I've just pointed out. I'm sorry if you think it's pedantic to know the definition of the term "immigration" and how it's different to "net migration".
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: No, the headline was "IMMIGRATION SOARS BY 20%", you said " immigration went from just under 200k to 239k which is around 20%", but immigration did no such thing. It rose 1%. One. Not twenty. It's all there for you to see on the graph. Net flow of people rose 20% but that wasn't because of higher immigration, well it was partly, but it was mostly because of a drop in emigration. The headline was inherently wrong but it didn't suit the DM to scream "NET MIGRATION SOARS BY 20%" or "IMMIGRATION SOARS BY 1%" because that wouldn't have the same sensationalist effect. It was a lie though as I've just pointed out. I'm sorry if you think it's pedantic to know the definition of the term "immigration" and how it's different to "net migration". I don't think they can be blamed because you can't see the obvious.
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 The irony here is that we've been hearing a lot lately about how the snooty liberal hippies shriek people down and belittle their views instead of engaging them in a debate and explaining their views yet here we are with full evidence and accurate use of maths and definitions but still the right-wing side of the debate refuses to acknowledge the truth of any point made. I'm beginning to think liberal arrogance had less of an effect on people's swing towards conservative views than has been made out.
Barky Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: If you want to be pedantic so be it. It certainly wasn't a lie and they provided all the facts so you could see for yourself. If they'd wanted to be dramatic they could have said 575k immigrants arrived in 2010 but they gave the net figure. Of course it's a lie. Immigration means people coming into the country. They said 20% more people had come into the country year on year. That's not true, so it was a lie.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: I don't think they can be blamed because you can't see the obvious. Wow, just wow. You really are blinkered aren't you. Unbelievable. He's seeing the obvious, you're the one for the thousandth time not really understanding it.
Samilktray Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Did anyone see that documentary about Lego not too long ago? Literally seems like the most chill company on the planet, definetly not the types of people who like Britain First on facebook.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.