Right wing ignorance an infantile disorder

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
Not surprisingly the two most ignorant countries in the world where people give the Daily Mail prejudicial answers with the greatest frequency are Italy and United States. Both countries media are of course dominated by right wing popularism, Italy in particular. And the best respondents are Sweden which does of course have a much greater liberal tradition. I probably think that education is a stronger indicator in fairness as both Germany and Japan also score well, and their media is also right wing, albeit not quite so tribal as America's worst offender(s)

Rather worryingly I got 7 out of 9 for the UK (dispute the question on christianity a bit, as people frequently describe themselves as being christian on a tick box, but don't believe in God). Indeed, a not so long ago survey I saw, suggested more people believed in Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster than they did God. Anyway, having scored 7 out of 9 on the UK (still a very good score apparently) I then trumped it by getting 9 out of 9 for the USA, which hands me a superior understanding of their country than many of those living there

Tempted to take the test for France now

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/perceptionsquiz/index.html

Some of the average answers given though are staggeringly ignorant. I'd love to correlate the answers with the newspaper readerhsip of respondents. Something tells me that the vile digusting and odious Daily Mails readers would be streets ahead of the rest of the population. The Daily express needn't be too far removed but without any questions on who killed Princess Diana or the whereabouts of Madeline McCann their readership would be hopelessly lost
 
Again a while bunch of sweeping generalisations. For a start, the us media is considered by many to be the left of their centre. Not everyone watches Fox News by any stretch of the imagination. And to dismiss all daily mail readers as nasty is not worth answering. I will jibe at guardian readers but I will not assume that they all hold the deeply sinister views of their opinion editor seamus milne
 
Last edited:
Media bias is very subjective. We've heard on talking Stalin that the bbc is right wing. (What???) and that 90% of the news media is right wing (simply factually wrong...full stop)

But why does a relatively well produced paper such as the guardian get a fraction of the telegraphs readers (and I have never thought much of the telegraph) let alone the times?
 
The average answer for the percentage of population that are muslim in France, according to the French, is 31%:lol: and the average answer to the percentage of the population that are immigrants is 28% :lol:

Le Figaro must be proud of its efforts
 
clivex said:
For a start, the us media is considered by many to be the left of their centre.
Click to expand...

The left of their centre means what exactly? right wing popularism

Lesson in geometry for you. An extreme right (Fox) impacts on where the centre has to be unless their is a counter balancing extreme left. In the US there isn't. CNN and ABC are thought to be left wing (yeah right) but clearly they aren't.
 
Here's a dislike of mine, why does every single person on television have to wear a suit? Can't anyone go on with a pair of jeans? :)

I think the fact you never see a man on television without wearing a suit is a ******* abomination.

Sometimes I walk in my friggin living room in the morning in boxer shorts while these cunts are dressed up for the Oscars.:)
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
No it doesn't. Democrats such as Obama and Clinton are "right wing populism"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Most definitely

Try this Clive, as it's stood the test of time

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Your own 'compass' entered the Bermuda Triangle years ago and started spinning around and became so disorientated that you've bought into the narrow confines that the establishment channel you into as choice. If you were horse you'd been fitted with a visor, blinkers, and cheekpieces

You'll note that all of these supposed left of centre American Presidents are assessed as being comfortably right of centre. There are more than two colours in a rainbow Clive
 
Last edited:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • zzz.jpg
    zzz.jpg
    69.6 KB · Views: 51
  • zzz-300x226.jpg
    zzz-300x226.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 3
No it's your radar which is skewed. Clinton and Obama have never been described as "right wing populists" . " right of centre" is nit the ssme thing by anyone's definition. You would not call Kenneth clarke a right wing populist would you?
 
Last edited:
I think you're arguing against yourself again.

Go back and check where I've used the term 'right wing popularism'

If you do, you'll find that its a reference to the media, and in this case, Fox News. I even include a quote box from yourself, and name two other networks (neither of whom I believe are left wing incidentally in the same way that I don't regard the BBC is either)

Then my own post 8 goes onto describe the American Presidents as being "right of centre" (note the absence of the word populist) it's you who introduce that in post 10 for the context, and even put it in quotation marks, whilst lending a tacit acknowledgement to the idea that both have been described as "right of centre" but that this is not the same thing. If I didn't know any better you seem to be agreeing with me

Fox News is right wing popularism (if you want me to clarify it) Personally, I believe CNN and ABC are too

As regards Kenneth Clarke, not sure where he came from, but on the day when Cameron fails again to find another Tory establishment figure untainted by child sex abuse links, perhaps Clarke as a former Justice Secretary might be ...... :whistle:

I see your prediction of a Labour meltdown in South Yorkshire came true last night in the local police elections incidentally. 50% majority, Tories beaten into third by UKIP, and same turnout as previous
 
14% turnout. Seems like only activists voted. I think ukips success in rotherham council elections was rather more telling?.
 
Fair enough, in answer to a question (missed it).

I do believe they are right wing popularists though within the wider picture, but wouldn't be considered so within the narrow corridor. This isn't an endorsement though. It's lartgely the product of the perspectives of those who frame these things and write the labels that society is then encouraged to adopt and attach. It doesn't reflect the individuals behaviour in office. The narrow corridor is of course framed by people/ institutions/ cultures etc who need you to perceive two options as being diametrically opposed to each other in the name of presenting choice and freedom, when in actual fact they're very close to each other.

That people wouldn't describe Obama or Clinton as right wing popularists (or Clarke) only goes to illustrate how it works. All three of them are right of centre, but they aren't considered popularist because the right doesn't accept them. Instead they see them as left (God knows how) but it is of course because of the way they have their thoughts framed for them.

That diagram I've put up works really well. Take the extreme left of the ghosted area. This is what you (and the architects who create this hegemony) define as being left. When you pull back from it though and take the whole field view, you're really splitting hairs about shades of acceptable right wing philosophy. In fact even philosophy is too strong a word to use as that was long abandoned almost in recognition of the straight jacket that people's voting intentions are framed within. What's replaced it is something much more akin to managerialism
 
clivex said:
14% turnout. Seems like only activists voted. I think ukips success in rotherham council elections was rather more telling?.
Click to expand...

Telling in what regard?

You might recall that in 2012 Rotherham had a by election

Labour won with 46%
UKIP came second with 22%

UKIP were already established as the oppositon (the Tories came fifth incidentally, beaten by their arch rivals the BNP and Respect!). All that UKIP have done is build on that, as they have done everywhere except London

I'm struggling to see what "success" you're referring to. The last round I can find (admittedly I haven't exhausted myself looking is 2012). UKIP polled 8940 votes from 60735 which is 14%. UKIP didn't win a seat and only got within shouting distance in one ward. The BNP seemed to have been more of a factor than UKIP
 
Warbler said:
Fair enough, in answer to a question (missed it).

I do believe they are right wing popularists though within the wider picture, but wouldn't be considered so within the narrow corridor. This isn't an endorsement though. It's lartgely the product of the perspectives of those who frame these things and write the labels that society is then encouraged to adopt and attach. It doesn't reflect the individuals behaviour in office. The narrow corridor is of course framed by people/ institutions/ cultures etc who need you to perceive two options as being diametrically opposed to each other in the name of presenting choice and freedom, when in actual fact they're very close to each other.

That people wouldn't describe Obama or Clinton as right wing popularists (or Clarke) only goes to illustrate how it works. All three of them are right of centre, but they aren't considered popularist because the right doesn't accept them. Instead they see them as left (God knows how) but it is of course because of the way they have their thoughts framed for them.

That diagram I've put up works really well. Take the extreme left of the ghosted area. This is what you (and the architects who create this hegemony) define as being left. When you pull back from it though and take the whole field view, you're really splitting hairs about shades of acceptable right wing philosophy. In fact even philosophy is too strong a word to use as that was long abandoned almost in recognition of the straight jacket that people's voting intentions are framed within. What's replaced it is something much more akin to managerialism
Click to expand...

the choice is there. Conventional left wing candidates can stand in the USA but they haven't a cat in hells chance. Americans have virtually zero appetite for socialism

Far left candidates stand here and routinely do extremely badly. Even after 2008 they barely got one more single vote. And there is no argument that the system is against them or whatever because ukip spectacularly and greens to a decent extent have blown that away. Having said that the rape endorsing (not talking rotherham here but internally) and Islamist loving swp is hardly appealing to anyone not in a straight jacket.
 
All very interesting and seems very politically convenient for Chris Grayling and the government to announce the scraping of police cautions a few days after laws on cannabis are debated in parliament and throughout the political spectrum.

At a time when we need a liberal approach to minor crime including possession of drugs, he's basically deciding to start banging people up who would have previously been given a caution. Very clever.

All this when the focus this week was on taking a different approach to the war on drugs.

His opposite number also wants to get tough on crime!

You really can really some folk like a book.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top