[gollum]

In that case I recommend Stephen Fry’s Mythos, Heroes and Troy, very entertaining versions of mythology

[Loos3-tools]

It’s an uncomfortable view point that Democrats have become what they most despise in their opposition. The same is true in U.K. politics. Boris is left of Blair who’s in charge of the ministry of peace

This thread died a death with Trumpy Pumpy

[Oldmanmatt]

In that case I recommend Stephen Fry’s Mythos, Heroes and Troy, very entertaining versions of mythology

Xmas 2018.(iirc)

Bought it with a Waterstones token from Grandma.

Bit “Sheldon” that kid.

Bizarre memory. Instantly knows song lyrics, after a single hearing and recalls stuff from when he was 2, stupidly accurately. Not easy. Wanker has a tendency to throw your own words back at you...

[Oldmanmatt]

It’s an uncomfortable view point that Democrats have become what they most despise in their opposition. The same is true in U.K. politics. Boris is left of Blair who’s in charge of the ministry of peace

This thread died a death with Trumpy Pumpy

Partly true. After all it’s difficult to find too much to debate when nothing seems incredibly controversial or unreasonable, except in certain people’s fevered imagination...

[Loos3-tools]

An interesting piece on that subject

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html

[Oldmanmatt]

An interesting piece on that subject

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html

Not too bad.

You should read it...

[TobyD]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-coronavirus-vaccine-pelosi-republicans/2021/03/17/9487e264-85e3-11eb-8a67-f314e5fcf88d_story.html

[Loos3-tools]

There’s no doubt that Republicans are gun toting swivel eyed loons while the other side seem intent on burning books and policing thought crime. Some nice regression to simplicity there. Anyways a paper owned by one of the worlds biggest grandiose narcissists is good for one thing only. Wiping ones backside with.

I followed the NY times SIFT protocol to come to that conclusion

[TobyD]

There’s no doubt that Republicans are gun toting swivel eyed loons while the other side seem intent on burning books and policing thought crime. Some nice regression to simplicity there. Anyways a paper owned by one of the worlds biggest grandiose narcissists is good for one thing only. Wiping ones backside with.

I followed the NY times SIFT protocol to come to that conclusion

Dan, I'm sure you're still a reasonable human being in the real world, but your post is a total pile of shit, I'm afraid.

Nothing that you've just written has any real basis in truth.
All political parties encompass a variety of opinions, journalists are not robots controlled by the owner. In fact Bezos has nothing to do with any control of the Washington post, according to the Pulitzer prize winning editor.

[Oldmanmatt]

There’s no doubt that Republicans are gun toting swivel eyed loons while the other side seem intent on burning books and policing thought crime. Some nice regression to simplicity there. Anyways a paper owned by one of the worlds biggest grandiose narcissists is good for one thing only. Wiping ones backside with.

I followed the NY times SIFT protocol to come to that conclusion

Please cite your sources for “book burning” and “policing thought crime” or admit you just made up some fake news.

Which we all know you did, because you haven’t got a leg to stand on to support any of your opinions that you tout as “fact” without resorting to linking to somebody else’s equally unsupported opinion...

Aka, you contribute nothing but vitriol and garbage.

You now have an opportunity to prove the above statement incorrect, go.

[Loos3-tools]

Sigh, it was a tongue in cheek post reflective of the sift approach to critical thought as suggested by the NY times. You can go on any Twitter thread where someone is having their thoughts policed. For example someone believing their operating for the greater good delivering abuse, shaming, calling for peoples lives to be ruined by having a different view. I refer back to Chomsky’s ideas with regards the illusion of journalism being anything other than propaganda. Link to Andrew Marr interview below. No doubt the continued intellectual takedown will continue. I’m surprised at you Toby for resorting to a (implied) character attack. Sad times indeed.

I have also shared an interview with Christopher Hitchens above as well as thoughts from the field of psychoanalysis which refers to the idea that basic drives and central being are then built upon with often needless levels of complexity leading to suffering and regression to black and white thinking often adopted by those in control. The first noble truth.  No one has responded with anything resembling discussion apart from to split hairs over a spelling error.

[webbo]

You post all these links to various therapists and the like. Which is very similar to thread I have read on another site where a sports psychologist was doing the same. She did admit that she had no real life experience of anything she linked to. I wonder if it’s the same with you Dan.

[Oldmanmatt]

Aaaannd...

You cite an opinion to support your opinion, in a rather weak appeal to authority.

Round again.

[TobyD]

Dan, I  sure it's not reflective of you as a person, but just posting a barely coherent stream of invective on every thread, just to try to get a response from anyone is just a bit boring. 

[Loos3-tools]

I don’t know enough about Saunders. He appeared a kind and gentle man who was never going to gain power.
Biden I find very uncomfortable, he appears to present with prodromal symptoms of dementia. There seems no getting away from that despite reassurances.
Frank Yeomans an analytic psychotherapist and liberal gives an interesting perspective on Trump and malignant narcissism. He talks about the Republican tendency towards a polarised view of the world. How dangerous this can be and how Democrats are paralysed by analysis of the grey. Leading to openings for dangerous characters like Trump to take power. My opinion is that this position has turned on its head yet is largely in acknowledged. AOC being a very public example. Anyway I’ve linked the video by Yeomans, interesting from the perspective of how developmental and psychoanalytic theory create a window of insight into politics, corporations and power. Of note is that the theory has a strong scientific basis in neurodevelopmental studies and in life observation and treatment. Otto Kernberg a leading psychiatrist in the field of Personality Development and Personality Disorders is a strong voice in this field.Clinton also seemed to fall into this category 

Is this invective?

[Loos3-tools]

He talks about the Republican tendency towards a polarised view of the world. How dangerous this can be and how Democrats are paralysed by analysis of the grey. Leading to openings for dangerous characters like Trump to take power. My opinion is that this position has turned on its head yet is largely in acknowledged. AOC being a very public example.

You think AOC is a dangerous character or just has a polarised view of the world? It doesn’t seem like the popular republicans are ‘grey’ about anything.

Sorry yes should have been clearer. An example of a regression towards simplicity as trump was / is

Well, that’s bollocks.

“Turned on it’s head”?

Are you suggesting there are no “Extreme” Republicans? That all Democrats are “Extremists”?

Bloody hell, you don’t even begin to grasp that you are the one with the “Black and White” vision and views, do you?

Jesus, every political party, that has ever existed (with the possible exception of the UK Liberal party (which is as grey as grey fox, on a grey concrete path, on a foggy day, at dusk), has and has had extremes within it’s ranks. It is bloody obvious which of the two, Republican or Democrat, has the bigger problem with it’s extremists at this time.
At least, it is to anybody who isn’t inspecting the inside of their own colon.

Is this invective?

[Loos3-tools]

noun: invective
insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.

[Oldmanmatt]

He talks about the Republican tendency towards a polarised view of the world. How dangerous this can be and how Democrats are paralysed by analysis of the grey. Leading to openings for dangerous characters like Trump to take power. My opinion is that this position has turned on its head yet is largely in acknowledged. AOC being a very public example.

You think AOC is a dangerous character or just has a polarised view of the world? It doesn’t seem like the popular republicans are ‘grey’ about anything.

Sorry yes should have been clearer. An example of a regression towards simplicity as trump was / is

Well, that’s bollocks.

“Turned on it’s head”?

Are you suggesting there are no “Extreme” Republicans? That all Democrats are “Extremists”?

Bloody hell, you don’t even begin to grasp that you are the one with the “Black and White” vision and views, do you?

Jesus, every political party, that has ever existed (with the possible exception of the UK Liberal party (which is as grey as grey fox, on a grey concrete path, on a foggy day, at dusk), has and has had extremes within it’s ranks. It is bloody obvious which of the two, Republican or Democrat, has the bigger problem with it’s extremists at this time.
At least, it is to anybody who isn’t inspecting the inside of their own colon.

Is this invective?

No Dan.
It’s not.
Because the extremists can be easily identified, their actions listed and evidenced. Further,I deliberately did not reference you directly in the “colon” statement (leaving your own paranoia to decide in that).

I see you ducked the request for supporting evidence again.

Quick one, do you understand the difference between an opinion expressed on a public forum, being questioned, challenged or derided and “thought policing?
My impression is you do not.
A “Forum” is not a “Blog” and neither “criticism” nor “derision” constitute “policing”.

[Loos3-tools]

3 bits of evidence

Julian Assange
Julian Assange
Julian Assange

Some other interesting stuff unlikely to appear in the mainstream

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/14/5-former-opcw-officials-join-prominent-voices-to-call-out-syria-cover-up/

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/16/trump-us-military-peace-agreement-war-afghanistan/

The world is full of book burning and thought policing. Just some don’t like to think they’ve been had

[teestub]

There’s loads on the Afghanistan stuff is mainstream sources, I just had a flick through an article on Al Jazeera which is a similar report but with the spin turned down a few notches.

The Syria stuff has been covered in here quite a few times previously.

[Loos3-tools]

So

[Loos3-tools]

He talks about the Republican tendency towards a polarised view of the world. How dangerous this can be and how Democrats are paralysed by analysis of the grey. Leading to openings for dangerous characters like Trump to take power. My opinion is that this position has turned on its head yet is largely in acknowledged. AOC being a very public example.

You think AOC is a dangerous character or just has a polarised view of the world? It doesn’t seem like the popular republicans are ‘grey’ about anything.

Sorry yes should have been clearer. An example of a regression towards simplicity as trump was / is

Well, that’s bollocks.

“Turned on it’s head”?

Are you suggesting there are no “Extreme” Republicans? That all Democrats are “Extremists”?

Bloody hell, you don’t even begin to grasp that you are the one with the “Black and White” vision and views, do you?

Jesus, every political party, that has ever existed (with the possible exception of the UK Liberal party (which is as grey as grey fox, on a grey concrete path, on a foggy day, at dusk), has and has had extremes within it’s ranks. It is bloody obvious which of the two, Republican or Democrat, has the bigger problem with it’s extremists at this time.
At least, it is to anybody who isn’t inspecting the inside of their own colon.

Is this invective?

No Dan.
It’s not.
Because the extremists can be easily identified, their actions listed and evidenced. Further,I deliberately did not reference you directly in the “colon” statement (leaving your own paranoia to decide in that).

I see you ducked the request for supporting evidence again.

Quick one, do you understand the difference between an opinion expressed on a public forum, being questioned, challenged or derided and “thought policing?
My impression is you do not.
A “Forum” is not a “Blog” and neither “criticism” nor “derision” constitute “policing”.

Does the same stand for abusive pm’s?

Asking for a friend

[Oldmanmatt]

He talks about the Republican tendency towards a polarised view of the world. How dangerous this can be and how Democrats are paralysed by analysis of the grey. Leading to openings for dangerous characters like Trump to take power. My opinion is that this position has turned on its head yet is largely in acknowledged. AOC being a very public example.

You think AOC is a dangerous character or just has a polarised view of the world? It doesn’t seem like the popular republicans are ‘grey’ about anything.

Sorry yes should have been clearer. An example of a regression towards simplicity as trump was / is

Well, that’s bollocks.

“Turned on it’s head”?

Are you suggesting there are no “Extreme” Republicans? That all Democrats are “Extremists”?

Bloody hell, you don’t even begin to grasp that you are the one with the “Black and White” vision and views, do you?

Jesus, every political party, that has ever existed (with the possible exception of the UK Liberal party (which is as grey as grey fox, on a grey concrete path, on a foggy day, at dusk), has and has had extremes within it’s ranks. It is bloody obvious which of the two, Republican or Democrat, has the bigger problem with it’s extremists at this time.
At least, it is to anybody who isn’t inspecting the inside of their own colon.

Is this invective?

No Dan.
It’s not.
Because the extremists can be easily identified, their actions listed and evidenced. Further,I deliberately did not reference you directly in the “colon” statement (leaving your own paranoia to decide in that).

I see you ducked the request for supporting evidence again.

Quick one, do you understand the difference between an opinion expressed on a public forum, being questioned, challenged or derided and “thought policing?
My impression is you do not.
A “Forum” is not a “Blog” and neither “criticism” nor “derision” constitute “policing”.

Does the same stand for abusive pm’s?

Asking for a friend

Dude. You are horribly offensive. I have no qualms about telling you that.
I will respond to you in the same manner you post or respond. When you post and respond with respect and consideration, I respond to you in kind. Of course, the opposite is true.
Where you made personal and offensive attacks, I told you so.
You are a bully, don’t be surprised when you get push back.
I did tell you I would run it past the people you abused, we decided how to respond to you together. They don’t support me trying to reach out to you, they just think you are, well, pointless.

Now, back to your political analysis. Do you have evidence of “book burning” or “thought policing” that is not somebody else’s opinion?

I believe JA was wanted for extradition to his home country for questioning about a serious sexual offence, so not at all sure how that represents evidence to support your earlier assertions. I don’t think writing his name three times is going to conjure it up (for reference, Bloody Mary isn’t real either. If you do decide to stand in front of the mirror and chant “Julian Assange” three times, could you video it? If he appears, I’ll apologise).

[Oldmanmatt]

I was going to edit the last post. Tone it down.
But actually, I think I’m just done, now. I have pretty much said what I actually feel, as completely as is possible, including my concerns for Dan’s mental health. Obviously, if he is just a troll and out to get a rise, well, more fool me.
I did say that he doesn’t wind me up, but I think that changed in the last couple of days. The unintended fall out and it’s affect on Sean, which I now see as my fault for encouraging continued discourse with Dan.
I also think I’m contributing to ruining discussions for too many other people, so I apologise and will now simply not respond to Dan.

Wow! Cancel culture!

[Loos3-tools]

So just to clarify, a group of people who I’d offended got together and decided how you would go about dealing with it. This resulted in a series of mixed up personally abusive messages where on one hand you delivered insults and on the other reached out to me. Pretty much represents this forum, this all stems from me not agreeing with the opinions being pushed on here about lockdown and politics etc. I’m no angel when it comes to speaking my mind and know I’ve delivered a couple of regrettable insults (sorry reeve / Andy) but crikey?! Wtf