Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Lionator

General News Thread

By Lionator, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnv2z059745o

 

Australia's Communications Minister Anika Wells has told the BBC she is not intimidated by technology companies who disagree with the country's "world-leading" social media ban and is ready if Washington weighs in.

From December 10, ten social media firms including Snapchat, Meta, TikTok and YouTube will have to take what the government says are "reasonable steps" to stop children under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.

"We stand firm on the side of parents and not on the platforms," Wells said.

Companies including Meta have said they agree more is needed to keep young people safe online, but don't think a ban is the answer, with some experts raising similar concerns.

 

An interesting insight into Oz being the pathfinder for social media regulation in the Anglosphere. 

  • Like 1
danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Livid said:

 

I’m not sure which I would prefer.

 

I don’t think I would want some individuals I run into sitting on a jury but I’m thinking the odd nutter could be balanced out by the 11 others.

 

Then I look at the judiciary primarily made up of white male, middle class and privately educated some of whom are prone to looking a little bat shit crazy in their statements from time to time.

 

I think I would be a lot more comfortable with it if it was driven by an overall modernisation of the legal system rather than the need to to

clear up a massive backlog caused by years of underfunding. 

Not keen on the open racism

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Yes but we're they "middle class". I need to know before I decide to criticise or not

Yes, it may appear that the entire social hierarchy of the past several hundred years has apparently flipped on its head in the last couple of decades. 

 

We do live in interesting times.

CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

*OBR boffin under pressure to take the heat of the government shocker* 

 

I don't think...

 

My interpretation was, and others might interpret differently...

 

Hardly a slam dunk is it. 

The fact the £4bn surplus didn't take account of two policy changes and was actually a £3bn deficit is pretty telling I'd say.

Was obvious from the first second it was yet another Tory/Tory press pact to try to smear the government, yet again.

StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted

How is Farage not getting slaughtered in the media for being anti-semitic (it doesn't matter it was decades ago before anyone says) compared to how Labour were crucified for it apparently being rife in the party when Corbyn was the leader...

  • Like 4
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How is Farage not getting slaughtered in the media for being anti-semitic (it doesn't matter it was decades ago before anyone says) compared to how Labour were crucified for it apparently being rife in the party when Corbyn was the leader...

a) Cos he’s denied it happened 

B) he was in his teens 

C) it was forty/fifty years ago (I think it is relevant when combined with b) 

 

there won’t be many non brexit supporters that are surprised at these accusations. But once he’s denied it happened the story becomes a bit meh without some further evidence. 

 

StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

a) Cos he’s denied it happened 

B) he was in his teens 

C) it was forty/fifty years ago (I think it is relevant when combined with b) 

 

there won’t be many non brexit supporters that are surprised at these accusations. But once he’s denied it happened the story becomes a bit meh without some further evidence. 

 

There's been several people who have corroborated his words back then.

 

No matter how long ago it was, it still shows as to what kind of character he is? And he half-denied it anyway - his excuse is that he didn't do it in a 'hurtful way' or with that intent. Absolute cop-out of an excuse.

bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted

Not sure we really need further evidence Farage is a bigot. It's like trying to persuade people who still have faith in Patson Daka, maybe best just to give up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, StanSP said:

There's been several people who have corroborated his words back then.

 

No matter how long ago it was, it still shows as to what kind of character he is? And he half-denied it anyway - his excuse is that he didn't do it in a 'hurtful way' or with that intent. Absolute cop-out of an excuse.

I agree and disagree.

 

13 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

No matter how long ago it was, it still shows as to what kind of character he is?

Disagree - people do change as they grow older, sometimes quite radically, either for the worse or for the better. This isn't even that huge compared to some.

 

In fact to say, essentially, once a racist; always a racist, is of itself prejudice.

 

However...

 

13 minutes ago, StanSP said:

his excuse is that he didn't do it in a 'hurtful way' or with that intent.

 

Anyone who actually felt some repentance would apologise for their former mistakes, rather than try to excuse them, especially in a manor that suggests they don't necessarily see what was wrong.

 

So yes - he's a racist.

 

Always has been and always will be. :ph34r:

 

(That last line was an ironic joke btw.)

Edited by Trav Le Bleu
  • Thanks 1
CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, StanSP said:

There's been several people who have corroborated his words back then.

 

No matter how long ago it was, it still shows as to what kind of character he is? And he half-denied it anyway - his excuse is that he didn't do it in a 'hurtful way' or with that intent. Absolute cop-out of an excuse.

I hate to break it to you.... But he's popular BECAUSE he's a racist. 

Nobody will admit to that, of course. But you only have to read the comments on any news story about immigration or reform for it to be blindingly obvious. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
splinterdream

splinterdream

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, StanSP said:

How is Farage not getting slaughtered in the media for being anti-semitic (it doesn't matter it was decades ago before anyone says) compared to how Labour were crucified for it apparently being rife in the party when Corbyn was the leader...

I don't know what type of Schools you went to or when, but I'm 50 and Schools i went to some kids were horrible, and we all said things growing up that aren't politically correct, but we were kids, it was a different time, to judge someone on what they said as a child is madness,what should be more illuminating is the hit piece being done on him, who else is getting this treatment? 

What all this does show with farage, is he's not good under pressure, he could have easily dismissed this with i can't remember any of that and we were kids anyway but he's stumbled and stuttered which has made him look more guilty than I think he is. 

  • Haha 2
StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

to judge someone on what they said as a child is madness,

I do see your point, but it could be argued that what has been said as a youngster has led him to believe in such things as he's grown older, which leads to the same rhetoric and judgments he makes today... 

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

I hate to break it to you.... But he's popular BECAUSE he's a racist. 

Nobody will admit to that, of course. But you only have to read the comments on any news story about immigration or reform for it to be blindingly obvious. 

If that's in fact true, rather than that sentiment being amplified by application of bots/other tech for nefarious purposes (and it could well be), then prejudice is an inherent quality for far too many people and that has dire connotations for... well, a lot. 

CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If that's in fact true, rather than that sentiment being amplified by application of bots/other tech for nefarious purposes (and it could well be), then prejudice is an inherent quality for far too many people and that has dire connotations for... well, a lot. 

I think the reality is that most people aren't racist, in the sense that they don't really have an issue with colour etc (I'm hugely generalising and I'm sure there's plenty on here with lived experience that might say otherwise), but the issue of immigration isn't just about colour/race/ethnicity.

 

I think it's seen as an issue of fairness - they've not paid in yet they get everything, very similar to the way benefit recipients are viewed.

 

But as @Jon the Hatalluded to earlier, an honest discussion about immigration has never really been allowed. One side refuses to acknowledge benefits and calls those open to immigration traitors. The other refuses to admit problems and calls the other side racists.

 

Because one side hasn't been able to air their grievances, when a leader comes along who might well be racist - he does blame literally everything on immigrants - he says things they haven't been able to and suddenly he's "talking common sense", socking it "to the establishment" etc. 

 

Both sides have some blame here to different extents. I hate the way this country has gone on this issue and the way the right has gone about it, formenting real social problems.

  • Like 1
danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I think the reality is that most people aren't racist, in the sense that they don't really have an issue with colour etc (I'm hugely generalising and I'm sure there's plenty on here with lived experience that might say otherwise), but the issue of immigration isn't just about colour/race/ethnicity.

I think the issue of immigration is about culture, not race, for most people. 

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I think the reality is that most people aren't racist, in the sense that they don't really have an issue with colour etc (I'm hugely generalising and I'm sure there's plenty on here with lived experience that might say otherwise), but the issue of immigration isn't just about colour/race/ethnicity.

 

I think it's seen as an issue of fairness - they've not paid in yet they get everything, very similar to the way benefit recipients are viewed.

 

But as @Jon the Hatalluded to earlier, an honest discussion about immigration has never really been allowed. One side refuses to acknowledge benefits and calls those open to immigration traitors. The other refuses to admit problems and calls the other side racists.

 

Because one side hasn't been able to air their grievances, when a leader comes along who might well be racist - he does blame literally everything on immigrants - he says things they haven't been able to and suddenly he's "talking common sense", socking it "to the establishment" etc. 

 

Both sides have some blame here to different extents. I hate the way this country has gone on this issue and the way the right has gone about it, formenting real social problems.

 

5 minutes ago, danny. said:

I think the issue of immigration is about culture, not race, for most people. 

Interesting insights, thanks.  

 

In that case, the only other thing I'll remark on is that the idea of cultural superiority and that put into action by means of conflict, no matter what culture it might be, is probably equally as damaging to society as any other form of supremacist belief - including that of race.

  • Like 1
danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Interesting insights, thanks.  

 

In that case, the only other thing I'll remark on is that the idea of cultural superiority and that put into action by means of conflict, no matter what culture it might be, is probably equally as damaging to society as any other form of supremacist belief - including that of race.

Preference, not superiority or supremacy.

  • Like 1
danny.

danny.

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The former bleeds very, very easily into the latter, sadly. There are numerous examples of that. 

Yes, sadly it can. When people’s preferences are ignored and erased and they are told they are racist for expressing any concern about that, it can be radicalising. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...