Bashar Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) It's a politics thread. Not a left-wing circle-jerk. If people want to read leftie pie-in-the-sky bullshit they can do so over at the Guardian or other similar website where any diverging opinions are ruthlessly censored. Â Er, dude - you actually look at CommentIsFree? Â 1) MoveAnyMountain, CapitalistPigg, torieboy, RightWingTroll, Lord Posh and others get to state their opinion pretty clearly BTL. Â 2) Julian Glover is one of the Guardian's top columnists and frequently writes editorial pieces (even when he's not named, they have his stink). Â I fucking wish they WOULD ruthlessly censor Comment Is Free, every article seems to be followed by about 50 Daily Mail readers calling Polly Toynbee a pinko commie. They could do with a power-crazed Supermod like Neil over there to hand out some suspensions. Â The Times paywall doesn't help. But yeah, the idea that it is ruthlessly censored is just weird and divorced from reality. Â And no, I'm not Arec Balrin Edited February 28, 2011 by Bashar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 28, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's a politics thread. Not a left-wing circle-jerk. If people want to read leftie pie-in-the-sky bullshit they can do so over at the Guardian or other similar website where any diverging opinions are ruthlessly censored. Â I didn't withdraw because it wasn't "a left-wing circle jerk", I withdrew because I didn't fancy getting into one of your shite, festooned-with-absolute-and-utter-crap, circular, ostrich-with-head-stuck-firmly-down-hole, you-with-head-stuck-firmly-up-arse arguments. Go and set up your straw men with someone else. I won't engage in political discussions with you, but I'm not going to let moronic comments like that slide. Â If there were more people like, say, Van Dammer or Jonathan Ford on this thread with whom it's possible to have valid, back-and-forth political discussions which address actual points and take counters into account, instead of you with your usual right-wing parroting, I'd probably be more involved. Who is "paroting"? Who isn't addressing actual points? Â If you don't want to debate things with me, don't. It's a politcal discussion thread, you don't have to respond to every single post being made. Â You don't make any points to address - all you do is take one viewpoint and re-iterate it, ignoring any counterpoints anyone ever makes, and in between you post a load of right-wing filler shite that even the Daily Mail would be embarrassed to print. Â I'd love to debate with you, if you ever posted anything worth debating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) dp Edited February 28, 2011 by bobbins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's a politics thread. Not a left-wing circle-jerk. If people want to read leftie pie-in-the-sky bullshit they can do so over at the Guardian or other similar website where any diverging opinions are ruthlessly censored. Â I didn't withdraw because it wasn't "a left-wing circle jerk", I withdrew because I didn't fancy getting into one of your shite, festooned-with-absolute-and-utter-crap, circular, ostrich-with-head-stuck-firmly-down-hole, you-with-head-stuck-firmly-up-arse arguments. Go and set up your straw men with someone else. I won't engage in political discussions with you, but I'm not going to let moronic comments like that slide. Â If there were more people like, say, Van Dammer or Jonathan Ford on this thread with whom it's possible to have valid, back-and-forth political discussions which address actual points and take counters into account, instead of you with your usual right-wing parroting, I'd probably be more involved. Who is "paroting"? Who isn't addressing actual points? Â If you don't want to debate things with me, don't. It's a politcal discussion thread, you don't have to respond to every single post being made. Â You don't make any points to address - all you do is take one viewpoint and re-iterate it, ignoring any counterpoints anyone ever makes, and in between you post a load of right-wing filler shite that even the Daily Mail would be embarrassed to print. Â I'd love to debate with you, if you ever posted anything worth debating. I only have one viewpoint. So does everyone. Â What is this "right-wing filler shite"? Is there such a thing as "left-wing filler shite"? Â If I ignore counterpoints it's because I don't see them or don't have time to reply to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's a politics thread. Not a left-wing circle-jerk. If people want to read leftie pie-in-the-sky bullshit they can do so over at the Guardian or other similar website where any diverging opinions are ruthlessly censored. Got to back up Alan here (hey blud). Anyone who goes on CiF knows that every single thread is astroturfed to fuck by lunatic right-wing Randian sociopaths like yourself. You should look into it, it's a growth industry. Doesn't astroturf imply that it's co-ordinated and that people are being paid? Â I think the problem with CiF is that some people expect it to be only posted on by Guardian readers, not the general public as a whole, who not representitive at all of the type of people who buy the newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Some of them clearly are just autonomous nutcases. But it's clear that astroturfing does take place - there are theories about MoveAnyMountain particularly; there appears to be more than one person using that handle/login. Â Anyway, I thought you said it was ruthlessly censored? But now you've admitted that it us not the circle-jerk you claimed. And yet you get all annoyed when you get accused of posting a load of right-wing filler? Weird. Edited February 28, 2011 by Bashar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Doesn't astroturf imply that it's co-ordinated and that people are being paid? Astrotufing means attempt to pull something off as a grassroots movement without the people behind it, hence the astroturf analogy, to try and make a group look bigger than it is. And no, it doesn't mean those involved are being paid. Â I think the problem with CiF is that some people expect it to be only posted on by Guardian readers, not the general public as a whole, who not representitive at all of the type of people who buy the newspaper. Wow! Some people think that the only people who contribute to CiF are those who read its associated newspaper, some too naively defensive and others dismissing it because it's run by "Teh Graniaurd". Â As for the representation of the general Guardian readership, I don't think one single national newspaper in the UK can claim to be representative of the British public as a whole, not matter how much some try to be, and I don't think I've ever heard of the Guardian claiming to be as such. Edited February 28, 2011 by Glen Quagmire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Some of them clearly are just autonomous nutcases. But it's clear that astroturfing does take place - there are theories about MoveAnyMountain particularly; there appears to be more than one person using that handle/login. Anyway, I thought you said it was ruthlessly censored? But now you've admitted that it us not the circle-jerk you claimed. And yet you get all annoyed when you get accused of posting a load of right-wing filler? Weird. Posts which go against the ethos of the newspaper are routinely censored and posters banned, including myself. Yet the most ridiculous lefty crap is allowed to remain, including from contributors such as Polly Toynbee and Laurie Penny.  Doesn't astroturf imply that it's co-ordinated and that people are being paid? Astrotufing means attempt to pull something off as a grassroots movement without the people behind it, hence the astroturf analogy, to try and make a group look bigger than it is. And no, it doesn't mean those involved are being paid. You don't think that plenty of normal people are sick of the amount of liberal crap in Britain today, that we are forced to pay for even though we despise it with every fibre of our being? You must move in very limited circles.  I think the problem with CiF is that some people expect it to be only posted on by Guardian readers, not the general public as a whole, who not representitive at all of the type of people who buy the newspaper. Wow! Some people think that the only people who contribute to CiF are those who read its associated newspaper, some too naively defensive and others dismissing it because it's run by "Teh Graniaurd". It is contributed on by a wide range of people, unfortunately a small minority of people have a problem with this and regularly accuse people with right-wing viewpoints of being "tory-trolls" and "astroturfers", ignoring the fact that several million people voted Tory at the last election, considerably more than voted for any other party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 ignoring the fact that several million people voted Tory at the last election  The Tories were just saying what people wanted to hear......I don't think it needs to be justified. It's just part of politics. Part of life in general really.  As you've already argued that they didn't really know what they were voting for, it's completely ridiculous of you to claim that the country is full of 'lunatic right-wing Randian sociopaths' (couldn't of put it better myself!) based on the number of people that voted Tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 ignoring the fact that several million people voted Tory at the last election  The Tories were just saying what people wanted to hear......I don't think it needs to be justified. It's just part of politics. Part of life in general really.  As you've already argued that they didn't really know what they were voting for, it's completely ridiculous of you to claim that the country is full of 'lunatic right-wing Randian sociopaths' (couldn't of put it better myself!) based on the number of people that voted Tory. I didn't say that the country is full of 'lunatic right-wing Randian sociopaths'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 28, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's a politics thread. Not a left-wing circle-jerk. If people want to read leftie pie-in-the-sky bullshit they can do so over at the Guardian or other similar website where any diverging opinions are ruthlessly censored. Â I didn't withdraw because it wasn't "a left-wing circle jerk", I withdrew because I didn't fancy getting into one of your shite, festooned-with-absolute-and-utter-crap, circular, ostrich-with-head-stuck-firmly-down-hole, you-with-head-stuck-firmly-up-arse arguments. Go and set up your straw men with someone else. I won't engage in political discussions with you, but I'm not going to let moronic comments like that slide. Â If there were more people like, say, Van Dammer or Jonathan Ford on this thread with whom it's possible to have valid, back-and-forth political discussions which address actual points and take counters into account, instead of you with your usual right-wing parroting, I'd probably be more involved. Who is "paroting"? Who isn't addressing actual points? Â If you don't want to debate things with me, don't. It's a politcal discussion thread, you don't have to respond to every single post being made. Â You don't make any points to address - all you do is take one viewpoint and re-iterate it, ignoring any counterpoints anyone ever makes, and in between you post a load of right-wing filler shite that even the Daily Mail would be embarrassed to print. Â I'd love to debate with you, if you ever posted anything worth debating. I only have one viewpoint. So does everyone. Â Let me re-phrase, as you've clearly misunderstood: you simply repeat what you've said before as if it answers all points made. If you were in a political party, it'd be called "toeing the party line". Â What is this "right-wing filler shite"? Is there such a thing as "left-wing filler shite"? Â Anything is filler shite if it's a standard, formulaic, clich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ons-poorer.html  Talk about after the horse has bolted. How many Labour-holics were denying this til they were blue in the face? What will they do now? Admit they were wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Some of them clearly are just autonomous nutcases. But it's clear that astroturfing does take place - there are theories about MoveAnyMountain particularly; there appears to be more than one person using that handle/login. Anyway, I thought you said it was ruthlessly censored? But now you've admitted that it us not the circle-jerk you claimed. And yet you get all annoyed when you get accused of posting a load of right-wing filler? Weird. Posts which go against the ethos of the newspaper are routinely censored and posters banned, including myself. Yet the most ridiculous lefty crap is allowed to remain, including from contributors such as Polly Toynbee and Laurie Penny. Utter bullshit. If you've had a post censored on CiF it could only be because it was abusive, offensive, spam, libellous or so completely irrelevant that it would derail the thread. You can only be banned for persistently breaking those simple rules. The idea that you can be censored or banned for posting against the ethos of the paper is laughable to anyone who has ever visited the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Anything is filler shite if it's a standard, formulaic, clich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 28, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 28, 2011 I must say, I'm loving the team-up between Alan and Bobbins here - it's like Tommy Dreamer and Raven finally tagging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts