Consept

Do you think blm or something similar is necessary? If so how would you combat racial inequalities? Keeping in mind if you do protest peacefully you would either not be listened to or if you're high profile like in the case of kaepernick be demonised, lose your job etc

Interesting, so just to clarify their points @Claymoree , as i understand it youre saying you just shouldnt take any news coverage seriously as it can be twisted whichever way, keep in mind this is Sky news which is owned by well known conservative Rupert Murdoch. But this kind of argument is an ad hominem attack whereby you call out in this sky news rather than directly addressing the issue raised, keep in mind the full audio is out there in which you can listen and then directly respond to. @Nyseto Excuse me if i mis-characterise you, but it sounds like youre saying the left is just as bad if not worse than the right in which case theres no point in addressing this particular incident because the left has done something just as bad in your opinion, which is that they demonised him. But again theres no direct addressing of the issue at hand. Its the equivalent of saying if a specific man abuses a woman, 'well women abuse men too so....'. What I've seen a lot, potentially on both sides but definitely more on the right, is these type of low quality arguments, I label them low quality arguments because they never actually debate the central point, (Ive left a picture of the debate pyramid below). This has almost become common practice now, in that low level debate tactics to distract from the main point is a valid argument. It makes it quite obvious that a logical debate is impossible because the position just doesnt make sense, therefore to enter into one would look ridiculous, so the defensive ego kicks in and gives you options whereby you can distract and pretend that theres no point in debating the central issue. I think its fine if you support or sympathise with Trump or even criticise the left but there has to be a higher level debate about it otherwise how does it help you get to truth? In the case of this recording, you have a president on tape asking an election official to 'find votes', he is rebuked by the election official and told that no there is no evidence of what youre talking about. This, in a democracy should not be accepted in anyway, so if you are going to refute the point, please directly address it without mentioning democrats or the left or whatever else. Or failing that enter the meta-conversation about why Trump supporters accept and support this behavior and what it would actually take to get them to see these actions for what they are.

I dont know what you mean by people calling those that leave a country cowards, i dont think anyone has said that on this thread. You could argue some, that leave are selfish if theyre trying to do it specifically to avoid tax but thats a different argument. To me this thing is simple, we dont know whats going to happen in the future regarding anything, so all you can do is make the best decision at the time. Regarding brexit, can we say the best decision was made? Definitely not, there is no economist or any other expert you could find who would say it was a good decision. So its like saying Im going to decide to eat junk food as a way to help my diabetes, no doctor or expert will agree its the right choice but you can always say, 'well who knows what will happen'. The fact that the main reason why people voted was immigration which ive pointed out doesnt even really make sense in terms of Brexit being able to sort that out, should tell you that even if the UK is fine after brexit the people were manipulated into voting for something that will most likely be against their best interests, (according to economists).

OK breakdown how being out of the EU instead of in will help with the problems you've highlighted

I wouldn't go as far to call all of them racists, but there are a decent amount of racists in the UK and I can bet you all actual racists voted to leave. You can be nationalist but the arguments still have to make sense, if youre voting for something that could potentially damage your country then how can you even claim to be a nationalist? If they want to sort out immigration that is something that could've been looked at and changed whilst being in the EU. A lot of people literally thought all immigrants would have to leave once we left, also race hate crimes went up significantly after brexit.

Of course, i wasnt saying everyone that voted is stupid, i just found the video funny, its not so serious. Having said that, on that channel there are a lot of people who call in that have similar perspectives, even in my own experience talking to people im yet to hear a coherent argument of why we would be better off out of the EU. It usually comes down to immigration and this was what the campaign was based on, Ive attached an example picture of a brexit advert. The argument that the EU is responsible for problem with immigration is just not correct at lacks a lot of context, ive pointed out why this immigration argument doesnt make sense in an earlier post. So if the decision was based on this it is a stupid decision, anything after the fact is just trying to justify it. There maybe other good reasons to leave and im more than open to hear them i just havent yet. Yes things always need to change and evolve, i just feel that Britain does have a bit of an obsession with this idea of 'sovereignty' and independence sometimes to its own detriment, its very possible to be both independent and work as part of a collective that is mutually beneficial, espeicially in a world thats growing evermore closer together. Another way would be to educate people about politics and critical thinking, instead of giving them misinformation and targeting their fears to make them vote a certain way. Freedom to vote should also mean freedom of manipulation

Im not really saying its specifically because of the EU, it is hard to pin down and as you say there are a lot of variables. The point is that its hard to make the argument that the UK has been hindered or been worse off because of the EU when the numbers are actually higher than American growth which has no such restrictions and is a world super power. So essentially we're trading in something that has worked at least as good as high performing economies and gambling on something that every economist is saying is a step in the wrong direction, i just dont see the logic. Inequality is still a problem of course but this would be something domestic government can really make a difference with through policy, minimum wage increase etc. In fact the EUs human rights policies at least acts to try and prevent exploitation of people.

There is no economist you can find that would tell you the UK will be better off, potentially it may not be a massive disaster as was predicted but thats about it. Even Boris Johnson when he was running was London mayor said how important being in the EU was, meaning he doesnt truly believe its best to be out he just did what he needed to be leader. The only people really for brexit is some rich people who may benefit and seems to be people who are concerned about immigration, which includes you despite being a migrant. This argument doesnt really work considering EU migrants an average contribute £2,300 net per year to the public purse, also non-eu immigration is 4.5 times higher than eu immigration and non-eu immigrants contribution is actually negative (this is because of extra healthcare costs etc). Obviously the Brexit deal will have no effect on non-eu immigration, Britain could always set whatever immigration policy they wanted, Brexit does not help in that regard at all. Travelling and working for British people will be explicitly affected as you can only live in a country for for 90 days in a 6 month period, meaning if you want to live and work in another country you will not be able to, despite being able to drive to other countries. Its like if you live in Ohio america but can only live and work in Ohio, thats a very restrictive measure.

Im from the UK born and bred, in some ways it is worse, some of the things you mentioned like getting a house is definitely harder but that isnt due to being in the EU, im not sure thats your argument, the reason why its harder for younger people is because of things like recessions, austerity, trickle down economics, wages stagnating etc. But this is all due to bad economic policy that favoured the rich. Again if you want to link these things to joining the EU im happy to hear your theory on it. Whats funny is that its mainly older people that voted to leave, these older people have benefited the most from the economy during the EU, theyve managed to own their houses and get full pensions, whereas the young people who mainly voted to stay are the ones that will not benefit from the EU and also will not be able to freely travel. There are even British people who enjoy their retirement in Spain but voted to leave. Again can you point to what will be better after we leave the EU? Nothing just showing the reasoning behind the publics vote, and also i thought it was funny

No i didnt say anyone out of the EU i broke, also keep in mind the countries that youre talking about have trade deals and some are even in the customs union, so they do still benefit from the EU. In terms of whether people have been better off in the UK - since joining in 1973 the UK has experienced 103% per capita gdp growth which is more than the USAs 97%. If you compare to the time when England basically ruled the world between 1872 and 1914 the growth was 0.9% per year compared to the EU time of 2.1% per year. Median income is up 79% compared to the USAs 16%, ratio of trade to economic output has gone up from 48% to 67% and 45% of all UK exports go to EU countries. Regarding rich people wanting Brexit, obviously its not all rich people, my point is that the campaign was funded by some rich people for financial interests, 5 of the richest businessmen in Britain funded the majority of the leave campaign - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-campaign-arron-banks-jeremy-hosking-five-uk-richest-businessmen-peter-hargreaves-robert-edmiston-crispin-odey-a7699046.html If you have other statistics or any ideas on what the actual benefits of brexit are im happy to hear

I would say its stupid decision, the EU isnt perfect but now the UK dont have say in it, so they cant help steer that ship but they will still be affected by the choices the EU makes. UK has made a lot of money and experienced a lot of growth in the last 40 or so years and this is partly due to the free trade that has been enjoyed as a member of the EU. We will still have trade with this deal but it adds a whole heap of red tape and tariffs that will just make it impossible for a lot of businesses to keep trading with the EU. Youll find it very hard to find an impartial economist who thinks the UK will be better off, at best it will be a slight hit on gdp. So if thats the case then whats the point? https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/brexit When people voted for brexit i guarantee you they had no idea what they were voting for, the main reasons i saw were 'sovereignty' which i guess is being able to set your own laws, and also immigration. The fact is we can set our own laws which we do and we can set a stronger immigration policy like other EU countries, which we dont. Most people can not name a law that we wanted to change and couldnt but now can because we're out of Europe. The UK is heavily reliant on EU migrant workers, especially in the NHS, restricting freedom of movement is going to be heavily damaging for the UK, not just for workers coming in but it limits British residents living and working abroad, which obviously is restriction of freedom, there are about 3 million brits living in Spain atm. The people pushing and backing Brexit are rich people who stand to benefit from less EU regulation, it means that they can have a direct line and easier time getting to MPs and prime ministers to make changes to benefit them, rather than the mammoth task of trying to effect change in the EU. UK already has a problem with this as conservatives favour trickle down economics which basically encourages rich people from around the world to invest money into Britain, however it doesnt help the average person in anyway, Brexit is really the next step of that. The average person who voted for Brexit has basically been duped and mainly voted for it on immigration basis, but they will get a shock when things get harder for them and prices go up due to extra tariffs and tax.

Can you point to countries or civilisations that have been green for a reasonable length of time and then collapsed?

Its interesting because how much of this is him touching on certain topics and getting a shitload of views and making money, invited to speak etc. This happens a lot on the right basically because they pay more, so i wonder how much of an influence that has had on him and has convinced him this is the way to go because its 'working'.

Id say theres more hope than this purely based on the fact that a lot more young people voting for Sanders, he got the 18-44 vote comprehensively both times he ran. Also in the UK Sanders equivalent Jeremy Corbyn won the under 40 vote by 61.5% compared to conservatives 23% in the 2017 election, not only that the lower the age the higher the margin for Corbyn who had policies like if you sell your business the workers get first option on it and are subsidised by the government to buy it and start a co-op, hes a hardcore socialist basically that scared not only the status quo conservatives but his own labour party who many rebelled against him. So although many young voters are not necessarily yellow, they would definitely be open to having a yellow leader with more socialist leaning policies. My prediction would be as the boomer generation start dying out the younger generation will be more evolved and pass that on to their kids and society as a whole this will be how things change. Realistically i think in 15-20 years time youll see more green values and above be the mainstream https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-youth-vote-under-40s-jeremy-corbyn-yougov-poll-a7789151.html

I think it's a way to avoid the present and also gives hope that if they're in suffering today there was a time when people weren't and maybe they could get back to that one day. To give up hope is to live in the present and most people are trying to avoid that

@Striving for more https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-corbett-report/%3famp

Should get that cough checked out. Interesting, what about excess deaths? In the US I think it's nearly 300,000 extra deaths than the average year, this would point to people who were not going to die in 2020, dying this year. Your point seems to be the people dying from covid would've died anyway, do you think the excess deaths are coincidence, what's your take?

Its misleading in that it has bias, but its not necessarily wrong on everything. Its quite clear that Trump and his team did have seem kind of herd immunity strategy, its also clear this wasnt really explained to the public at large. A herd immunity strategy is not necessarily terrible, obviously Sweden have undertaken that and no one wouldve reported on it the way its been reported in the news report. Ultimately its still terrible leadership from Trump, he also didnt pivot from this strategy when it wasnt going well, but the report is biased and obviously hates Trump, so its more the framing. It will be hard to find somewhere completely free of bias, what you can do is just be aware of the bias and look at different sources. You want to be able to build up a skill where you can see a bit of content and extract what you think is the relative truth, how its being framed and what the incentive is behind it. Then of course also watch your own bias.

Steve Irwin has taken from his dad in the awestruck department. There's also an English scientist called Brian Cox who I guess is our equivalent of Bill Nye

What do you think a proportional response would be considering 1.6 million deaths and rising so far worldwide?

I dont know but they seem to be guided by scientists and experts in the field so im not really in a position to question it with any authority, it more comes down to whether you trust the scientific method or not, you could bypass the politicians and read into why theyve come to their conclusions about this new strain. Theres a whole picture to this, so in general people dont really trust politicians, but i think the last few years with the amount of deception and manipulation that was involved in the brexit campaign, of which Johnson played a big part in, the trust has really been eroded. Trust in government is obviously important at any time but during something like this pandemic its 10x more important because youre asking people to sacrifice their lifestyles for the greater good, in some countries its not a problem but in the UK it is. Further to that countries like America and UK have a kind of 'you cant tell me what to do , im free kind of attitude (not everyone but enough) which is obviously very damaging in this situation, and i think Johnson was in a tough spot whatever he did, he initially went with herd immunity which he was torn apart for and now hes gone with the standard lockdowns and measures but is trying to balance it, and hes getting torn for it. People have to understand that its just gonna be a bit shitty for them for the next few months. It feels like theyre blaming him for the actual pandemic. Now could he have done things different at the start, like you mentioned? Definitely, he messed up, and theres been a few things that hes messed up on, i dont think hes a particularly good leader, but i will say the UK is probably one of the hardest places to lead along with America

I live in Buckinghamshire, obviously everyone's pissed about it. Basically what they've been trying to do for a while is balance people getting back to normal with controlling the spread of the disease, so if cases are rising in one area it doesn't make sense to shut down the whole country, people were complaining about that, like if they live in a town where there no cases why should they shutdown, people are also complaining about the economy. Its a shit situation in general so its hard to keep everyone happy whatever route is taken. The other thing is that you're not actually allowed to go to other areas if you live in a tier 4 area. It's a hard job, I don't know what I would do different, but a criticism I would have is that Johnson (who I wouldn't consider the best of us lol) needs to tell people earlier what's going on, this telling people to celebrate Xmas and then changing his mind 2 days later is obviously gonna piss everyone off, I don't know if he got new information or whatever, but maybe he should've held off until it was certain. There's a lot of distrust for him anyway because of the whole brexit debacle, but at least with covid they've listened to science and taken measures, the way it was done wasn't the best but I think the core idea is to save lives and balance the economy

The herd immunity strategy at least at the beginning of the pandemic, wasn't necessarily a terrible strategy in theory, but as its played out it hasn't worked, only Sweden went down that route and now the king of Sweden and the head epidemiologist are saying it might not have been the best move. Plus Sweden people are actually considerate and a lot self isolated and took precautions off their own back. In the UK they announced they were gonna do herd immunity at the start but because of the backlash it was abandoned early on. The problem with Trump (amongst many) is that he didn't even inform the public of what was going on, which creates division. He also didn't change course when things started getting worse, essentially he has caused more deaths than there needed to be. In terms of convincing a trump supporter, I think at this stage you can manipulate anything to look as you want it to, we're living in a post-truth world currently, hopefully that will change and we'll get some sanity back next year

I agree but in most places that is the case where you just wear masks in closed public spaces like public transport or in shops etc. Potentially it could be a bit overboard with the rules in some places but i think theyre taking a better safe than sorry approach

Do you think theyre useless for professions like doctors, dentists and tattoo artists?