In terms of its overall positioning, probably the Blair government but they quickly went off the rails, introducing sneak privatisation of the NHS and then getting involved in all those warsOriginally Posted by Niall_Quinn
In terms of its overall positioning, probably the Blair government but they quickly went off the rails, introducing sneak privatisation of the NHS and then getting involved in all those wars
No I didn't.
And I note you have once again failed to engage with anything in the video. Which is fine, you don't have to. But if you're going to call it propaganda then please explain why it is so and what the motive is of the person who made the video. This is someone who is not representing the government or any organisation. I though you liked that sort of thing. In your world "MSM Bad. BBC Bad" but "Independent on YouTube Good". Except no, not that independent. No, the other one, The one I agree with. And this is your entire MO. "I believe in real science", although you define that as the science you agree with. "Boo! Down with fake news!", although you define that as the news you don't agree with. Your lack of self-awareness is astonishing.
You said the video was making an argument. What argument is it making? I don't see any.try watching the BBC video again, see if you can twig
Is it? Explain how that is propaganda? I'm starting to think you don't really know what that word means.if cases are spiking (apply all previously documented and commented provisos here), and the tests are acceptable because (LOOOOL) nothing is 100% accurate (that's a prime piece of propaganda right there)
In the video I posted he shows the scientific papers although I guess those aren't real science because they don't say what you want?
This:
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavi...ests-accuracy/
Also indicates that the tests will undercount. Interestingly it says 100% which I'm a bit sceptical about but the video with the papers indicated a very low false positive so maybe they've simplified here.
The threat is very low for young (or even youngish), healthy people - the video I posted says that too. The issue is not everyone is young or healthy. And while I do think that shielding the vulnerable would have been a better strategy than "all hide under your beds", in practice that isn't that easy. Especially with a disease which can be non-symptomatic.what can we conclude about the actual threat posed by this virus, today?
Of course. Because you don't dismiss it as propaganda because it is, you dismiss it because you don't agree with some of the things he says. Because that is how you roll. That's why you can never answer any follow up questions and it's why you rarely back up your views with any evidence.your repeated demands for me to explain the motive of this guy (which is slightly less than 100% irrelevant, because nothing is entirely irrelevant, right?) will get you nowhere.
Liar.And I note you have once again failed to engage with anything in the video.
I've addressed the testing issue multiple times, all ignored by you other than your usual "your" science bullshit. What you really mean is I won't go around the houses with you again, and then again next week when you once again claim I haven't addressed the issue.
And you know this.
Which is why you are a liar.
Reflection. You are actually demonstrating how oblivious you are to propaganda. You can't figure it out to save your life. So the easiest route is to pin your failings on me. Even now you say, show me in the video, show me in the video! It's so important for each issue to be broken down for you and isolated so the whole picture never emerges. I tried humour to introduce the basics of propaganda to you, but you can't grasp even that much.I'm starting to think you don't really know what that word means.
Für eure Sicherheit
You genuinely believe Blair gave a shit about "the people"? One of the worst examples of a self serving politician in living memory?
Für eure Sicherheit
Catz made a mistake in the previous video and has posted a correction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo7gCZmsgM
Note that his mistake was simply referencing the wrong paper, there are newer papers which do confirm what he said which he has referenced in this correction video.
And this is what honest people do when they've made a mistake. They don't just double down on it or just declare other people liars or wrong or having some ulterior motive without basis. You know it's without basis because when asked to elaborate they can't. They just change the subject, repeat the accusation, still without basis, or chuck around pop psychology terms.
no - read it again - i was saying that in terms of its ideological position, that government as a whole was positioned well in the centre ground, not spouting right-wing nonsense or left-wing nonsense either - they didn't get a 179 majority for no reason
if they'd avoided lurching off to war or so strongly pursuing covert privatisation they'd have continued to coalesce enough of the country around them to still be there tbh
Yeh Blair was Britain's Obama....both ended up being nasty pieces of work. Complete charlatans
Make 2mrw better than 2day
Obama for what reason? - wanting ordinary people to have access to some kind of healthcare, which the right fought all the way, because it interfered with people's 'liberty' to be bankrupted due to ill-health or just to go off quietly and be seriously ill or die because they couldn't afford to be looked after?
Both were voted in with the goodwill of the majority of the nation. They then proceeded to smack the people in the face with illegal wars that benefited no one except the arms industry. Is that similar enough for you?
Make 2mrw better than 2day
SECOND WAAAAAAVE!!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54081131
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote