Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

28 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Clearly been a slow news week, given how the Boris article debate has sustained prominence. 

 

And for me, the bigger issue here is how the reporting has fanned more flames than the original article would ever have done. 

 

We’ve ended up having an all too public debate that Johnson ultimately suggested was a non-starter; and as usual, the debate is picked up by others and stretches out to a myriad of associates and not so associated topics (case in point on these last few pages).

 

Now, I can understand people suggesting the language and comparison used by Johnson is at best unfortunate or at worst a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory and rude.

 

However, when trying to get a point across in writing, you have to consider your target audience and use language accordingly - and often to gain credence that language does have to go close to the edge - and I would suggest the language used is most likely to appeal to people who feel the Burqa should be banned.

 

I still maintain - reading the article itself, there is not that much to throw arms up in the air about and that other actors rather than Johnson have caused this mess.

 

 

Oh, he certainly reached his target audience.

 

You only have to look who's being supportive of him.

[Webbo]

Haters gonna hate.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Oh, he certainly reached his target audience.

 

You only have to look who's being supportive of him.

 

But you could equally say that about who's attacking him - its the usual audience that have been critical. And yet, the strange thing is the view on the topic the article covered they would be in agreement with and many of those supportive may not actually be as convinced by this articles conclusion. 

 

That assumes, of course, that those commenting have actually read the piece; and I imagine they haven't. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

But you could equally say that about who's attacking him - its the usual audience that have been critical. And yet, the strange thing is the view on the topic the article covered they would be in agreement with and many of those supportive may not actually be as convinced by this articles conclusion. 

 

That assumes, of course, that those commenting have actually read the piece; and I imagine they haven't. 

1

You can guarantee that 95% of the general public outraged by this article haven't actually read it.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

But you could equally say that about who's attacking him - its the usual audience that have been critical. And yet, the strange thing is the view on the topic the article covered they would be in agreement with and many of those supportive may not actually be as convinced by this articles conclusion. 

 

That assumes, of course, that those commenting have actually read the piece; and I imagine they haven't. 

 

Yeah, I'm sure you're right - it's the rude, disrespectful and inflammatory language that most are being critical about.

 

The racists making excuses for his language are probably not bright enough to understand that he wasn't actually supporting a ban at all.

[Jon the Hat]

Started reading the letter from the 100 women.. started to lose me with how wearing this gets them closer to god;  lost me completely when it said all personal choices should be respected.

utter bullshit.  Many personal choices should be ridiculed, challenged and even outlawed.  

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Started reading the letter from the 100 women.. started to lose me with how wearing this gets them closer to god;  lost me completely when it said all personal choices should be respected.

utter bullshit.  Many personal choices should be ridiculed, challenged and even outlawed.  

They lose me at closer to god.

Edited 9 August 2018 by urban.spaceman

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

You can guarantee that 95% of the general public outraged by this article haven't actually read it.

 

I imagine they have - it's been widely quoted.

 

On the contrary, it would be those leaping to his defence that wouldn't have - facts are immaterial to them, they can't see beyond their prejudice and intolerance of different cultures.

Edited 9 August 2018 by Buce

[Jon the Hat]

Quoted is not the same as reading the article.  Just read it; nothing wrong with it at all, he is bang on I think.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Quoted is not the same as reading the article.  Just read it; nothing wrong with it at all, he is bang on I think.

 

No surprises there.

[urban.spaceman]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I imagine they have - it's been widely quoted.

 

On the contrary, it would be those leaping to his defence that wouldn't have - facts are immaterial to them, they can't see beyond their prejudice and intolerance of different cultures.

 

As Jon and DJ said, quoting it is not the same as reading and understanding the article. The media reporting and Twittermob reaction of 3 words in a 1000 word essay have prejudiced the article.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No surprises there.

 

In which case, @Jon the Hat is essentially agreeing with Johnson that it may look odd to a westerners eye, but it’s a persons right to choose their beliefs and what they wear and it isn’t for the state to legislate.

Edited 9 August 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Min which case, @Jon the Hat is essentially agreeing with Johnson that it may look odd to a westerners eye, but it’s a persons right to choose their beliefs and what they wear and it isn’t for the state to legislate.

Exactly.  Organisations should determine their own rules on the subject.  BoJo commentary in his usual irreverent style is all.

[Jon the Hat]

20 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No surprises there.

You think we should ban the burka like so many other countries?

[Jon the Hat]

And to be fair I’ve been pretty vocal on criticising him recently, we’ll out of his depth as Foreign sec.  lost it.

[Guest MattP]

One good thing that will come out of this is that yet again Westminster will realise just how out of touch they are with middle England. 

 

Come on Boris, launch that leadership bid - you'll win.

[urban.spaceman]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

One good thing that will come out of this is that yet again Westminster will realise just how out of touch they are with middle England. 

 

Come on Boris, launch that leadership bid - you'll win.

If Brexit didn't wake them up to that, nothing will.

[Buce]

35 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You think we should ban the burka like so many other countries?

 

Absolutely not.

 

My issue with what Bozo said was his rude and disrespectful terminology, which was aimed at the lowest common denominator.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

If Brexit didn't wake them up to that, nothing will.

Indeed.

 

All being set up for the next exciting chapter very well, isn't it?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Absolutely not.

 

My issue with what Bozo said was his rude and disrespectful terminology, which was aimed at the lowest common denominator.

 

But would it be fair to say the subsequent ‘outrage’ has contributed to the febrile debate more than the article itself? 

 

And should we consider that in fact a fair proportion of the population may recognise the terminology used as something they think or consider privately (or not so private in other cases). 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

But would it be fair to say the subsequent ‘outrage’ has contributed to the febrile debate more than the article itself? 

 

And should we consider that in fact a fair proportion of the population may recognise the terminology used as something they think or consider privately (or not so private in other cases). 

 

It has - and might it be posited that this was the intent of the article all along?

[Buce]

Just now, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

But would it be fair to say the subsequent ‘outrage’ has contributed to the febrile debate more than the article itself? 

 

And should we consider that in fact a fair proportion of the population may recognise the terminology used as something they think or consider privately (or not so private in other cases). 

1

 

That's what appealing to the lowest common denominator means.

 

I imagine a fair proportion of the population think all kinds of unpleasant things in the privacy of their head, and that's where it should stay.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That's what appealing to the lowest common denominator means.

 

I imagine a fair proportion of the population think all kinds of unpleasant things in the privacy of their head, and that's where it should stay.

1

You'd think so, but when such feelings can be cultivated they can become very useful for some parties.

 

History shows that reasonably often.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

That's what appealing to the lowest common denominator means.

 

I imagine a fair proportion of the population think all kinds of unpleasant things in the privacy of their head, and that's where it should stay.

 

But if that is not confronted or spoken to... it can lead to the situation we have in politics today, where those willing to speak to that view in order to take advantage of it can benefit.

 

Now, you may say Boris was deliberately trying to play to that crowd... yet his conclusion to the piece isn’t necessarily conducive to that crowd; he’s essentially suggesting ‘live and let live’ to the ‘lowest common denominator’. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It has - and might it be posited that this was the intent of the article all along?

 

Not really, because for my mind this was the ‘counter argument’ of the article. It’s right before the ‘but’ conclusion.

 

And let’s face it; the lowest common denominator wouldn’t normally pick up a copy of the Telegraph, even if Johnson is playing to a home crowd.