BBC bias

[frankthetank22]

My Google news feed keeps pushing BBC news stories about how the Scottish housings market slump is the worst in the UK and other Scotland is bad articles.

I've given up reading these BBC right wing scare stories but the housing market where I am, Inverness, is booming. It has been for some time and continues to too.

[SandyCromarty]

11 hours ago, sophia said:

Tonight's BBC Scotland edition of Sportscene published the contemporaneous top tier league table.

Instead of listing 1-12, they chose to replace "1" with "C".

Incontrovertible evidence, if any was needed, that the BBC are auntie establishment.

 

Bring back Reith.

[DiegoDiego]

My Google news feed keeps pushing BBC news stories about how the Scottish housings market slump is the worst in the UK and other Scotland is bad articles.
I've given up reading these BBC right wing scare stories

What's right wing about the stories?

[frankthetank22]

2 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

What's right wing about the stories?

 

From my own point of view, the narrative seems more pro Tory.  It's a general drip drip feeding of look at how bad Scotland is currently doing, when from my own experience I don't find that to be the case.

 

[SANTAN]

11 minutes ago, Pato said:

To be fair, you do often say you've never heard of X while holding strong opinions on a subject on which X is highly relevant. There's nothing wrong with saying you've never heard of something (commendably honest, in fact) but if you find yourself saying it a lot, perhaps that's indicative of something that's within your gift to fix?

I don't agree at all, I never hold strong opinions on things I know nothing about. I may have commented or enquired about things but I don't think that's a fair assesment. I'd certainly be intrigued if you could think of an example of me doing this? 

People often mistakenly think they know my opinion on matters when they're more often than not misrepresenting my opinion. I think NTP uses a lot of analogies and references that are more well read than me but aren't essential to the conversation. You're allowed to have basic conversations about politics without having read all of Chomsky and Marx etc. 

I'm not overly familiar with terms like neocons and arch conservatives, I don't think I need to know what those terms mean to ask for background info on Quilliam Foundation. If that makes me stupid in your eyes then fair enough, I've never claimed to be well read on these subjects.

I'd suggest that you and NTP and some other posters are clearly more well read and knowledgeable than a lot of other posters on some political issues, that doesn't mean that everyone else should have to post less...

[strichener]

36 minutes ago, Pato said:

I dunno what's bad about house prices going down tbh

Unless you are one of the people that has saved for an deposit and still needed to use shared equity to get on the housing ladder and then find yourself trapped in the house with negative equity and unable to move.  Other than that particular circumstance, I agree with you.

[SANTAN]

16 minutes ago, Pato said:

Nobody's calling you stupid, or acting as a gatekeeper. Detournement's the most widely read regular poster on this sub and his opinions are not universally adored and that's not necessarily because the people who disagree with him have yet to read the correct books.

I guess the most notable ones I can think of with you are support for the conservatives when they are literally kleptocrats, or when you became more active your stated goal was to wind up pro independence supporters, but after talking to a few of us I feel like you've maybe retreated from that and are more willing to have a discussion.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I'm just saying it's not like you need to go and read 100 books to have a better understanding of stuff. Like I think you have a radically different view of Tony Blair to me because of your age. I don't think Iraq was as transformational to your politics as it was to mine and my generations. Talking about stuff is helpful to understanding stuff.

Speak for yourself on that first line!

I've said that I started voting Conservative over the issue of the Union, I don't see how that's commenting on things I know nothing about. Yeah I did start of on here mostly to wind people up due to the nature of the place i don't think there's an awful lot of sincere debate to be found but you're right I've now learned who the good posters are that are worth discussing things with. 

I didn't think you were saying that tbf, I'm more irked at the idea I'm often talking about things I know nothing about, I disagree with that and don't think because I've admitted previously about unrelated things I'm not clued up about that that shows that to be the case. I usually avoid subjects I'm not clued up about and sometimes when people mention things I'm unfamiliar with I'll ask about it. I also often ask people questions to see their answer, you've probably seen me asking people what a Yoon/gammon is etc. 

Anyway as you say talking about stuff is helpful to understanding and I enjoy doing so hence me laughing at the idea I should leave the forum and go read some books because NTP used terms I'm uneducated about! 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Stormzy

[NotThePars]

I used 'oeuvre' correctly elsewhere on the forum and am still buzzed about it. 

[SandyCromarty]

5 hours ago, Stormzy said:

I don't agree at all, I never hold strong opinions on things I know nothing about. I may have commented or enquired about things but I don't think that's a fair assesment. I'd certainly be intrigued if you could think of an example of me doing this? 

People often mistakenly think they know my opinion on matters when they're more often than not misrepresenting my opinion. I think NTP uses a lot of analogies and references that are more well read than me but aren't essential to the conversation. You're allowed to have basic conversations about politics without having read all of Chomsky and Marx etc. 

I'm not overly familiar with terms like neocons and arch conservatives, I don't think I need to know what those terms mean to ask for background info on Quilliam Foundation. If that makes me stupid in your eyes then fair enough, I've never claimed to be well read on these subjects.

I'd suggest that you and NTP and some other posters are clearly more well read and knowledgeable than a lot of other posters on some political issues, that doesn't mean that everyone else should have to post less...

From his earlier arrogant posts he is now attempting to excuse himself to garner a sympathy vote, volte face on saying that other posters are clearly more well read, he would never have given praise of any sort to other posters in his early days when hi normal modus operandum was to scorn posters.

[SANTAN]

21 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

From his earlier arrogant posts he is now attempting to excuse himself to garner a sympathy vote, volte face on saying that other posters are clearly more well read, he would never have given praise of any sort to other posters in his early days when hi normal modus operandum was to scorn posters.

f**k up Sandy you illiterate moron. 

I would never say that about you because you've demonstrated time and time again that you post like an absolute weapon of a Yes Da. 

I've been very fair and complimentary to other posters frequently since I've been on here since 2014-15.

[Wee Bully]

I've said that I started voting Conservative over the issue of the Union

You started voting Conservative because you are a Rangers fan. Your politics follow solely from your footballing allegiance.

[SANTAN]

8 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

You started voting Conservative because you are a Rangers fan. Your politics follow solely from your footballing allegiance.

I know I shouldn't entertain this considering you've already been proven wrong on this subject quite embarrassingly so but if this was the case can you point me to the time in history when Rangers told me to vote Lib Dem because the best local candidate was in that party? 

[Wee Bully]

I know I shouldn't entertain this considering you've already been proven wrong on this subject quite embarrassingly so but if this was the case can you point me to the time in history when Rangers told me to vote Lib Dem because the best local candidate was in that party? 

Word salad.

[SANTAN]

 

44 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Word salad.

That'll be a no then, colour me surprised. 

You managed to find any Unionists that don't support Rangers yet or are you still denying their existence?  

[Wee Bully]

 
That'll be a no then, colour me surprised. 
You managed to find any Unionists that don't support Rangers yet or are you still denying their existence?  

In the circle of people I know, every Tory is also a Rangers fan.

I’ve not once swayed from that, so I’m not sure what your point is.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Wee Bully said:

In the circle of people I know, every Tory is also a Rangers fan.

I’ve not once swayed from that, so I’m not sure what your point is.

And just like that the bravado is gone and the back tracking and rewriting of history begins.. 

You've changed Tory to Unionist.

In your original point which I quoted to you multiple times and you continuously denied you said you hadn't met any Unionists that aren't Rangers fans, not Tories.. You then asked me who I supported and when I said Rangers you said you had proven your point. When asked to elaborate you disappeared. 

This is the 3rd time I'm saying this but there are plenty of posters on here that are either Rangers fans that are not Unionsists and there are also Unionists that don't support Rangers on here so you've not exactly looked far to continue the most pointless, stupid argument I've had on here and that is saying something. 

[Wee Bully]

I’m not sure what kind of revisionism this is. The original post covered both Tories and Unionists. Go on, check it. I also, in that original post, noted that not all Rangers fans I know are Unionists or Tories, so I’m not sure where you are going with that strawman.

The point I was making is how pathetic it is when people chose their politics based on the football team they support. You are a prime example of that.

[SANTAN]

24 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

I’m not sure what kind of revisionism this is. The original post covered both Tories and Unionists. Go on, check it. I also, in that original post, noted that not all Rangers fans I know are Unionists or Tories, so I’m not sure where you are going with that strawman.

The point I was making is how pathetic it is when people chose their politics based on the football team they support. You are a prime example of that.

You said you didnt know of any Unionists that aren't Rangers fans, if you would kindly stop your obfuscation and mixing the two around. 

You did say you knew Rangers fans that were pro Indy but that is different from not knowing any Unionists that aren't Rangers fans. Which you said then doubled down on even after I've pointed out they exist on this forum.

You're not making any point with a degree of credibility, I addressed this accusation in this thread about how my political views are separate for whatever you think Rangers political views are... I even went so far to give you an example which you incorrectly labelled word salad, I'm guessing you saw someone else use that somewhere else and thought it might be applicable

Edited March 15, 2021 by Stormzy

[Dawson Park Boy]

32 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

I’m not sure what kind of revisionism this is. The original post covered both Tories and Unionists. Go on, check it. I also, in that original post, noted that not all Rangers fans I know are Unionists or Tories, so I’m not sure where you are going with that strawman.

The point I was making is how pathetic it is when people chose their politics based on the football team they support. You are a prime example of that.

I’m a unionist and a Conservative and I don’t support Rangers.

As a Scot, I follow Rangers and Celtic in Europe and love them to do well as it’s good for Scottish football.

[Wee Bully]

You said you didnt know of any Unionists that aren't Rangers fans, if you would kindly stop your obfuscation and mixing the two around. 
You did say you knew Rangers fans that were pro Indy but that is different from not knowing any Unionists that aren't Rangers fans. Which you said then doubled down on even after I've pointed out they exist on this forum.
You're not making any point with a degree of credibility, I addressed this accusation in this thread about how my political views are separate for whatever you think Rangers political views are... I even went so far to give you an example which you incorrectly labelled word salad, I'm guessing you saw someone else use that somewhere else and thought it might be applicable [emoji23]

You are having an absolute nightmare here.

I know a couple of people on this forum personally. Many many more I don’t.

Just because I have interacted with an avatar with a user name doesn’t mean I know them. You know, in real life.