Current Affairs Culture wars & The rise of grifting

[JimmyJeffers]

Say what you like about @Oddball though, he clearly has an ace life outside the forum.

 

[Oddball]

In a few years time your going to look back at this period in your life and realise how silly and gullible you have been, as will many others

The guy is probably the dumbest poster ever to surface on these pages. Best let him loose so he can run free.

It’s that type of attention to detail and ability to parse information, which sets OB apart as uniquely able to understand the world around us like no other.

How about i own up to it now.
I thought @longers was talking about my posts and him being a grammar Nazi and all - shame on me.

 

[Oddball]

Say what you like about @Oddball though, he clearly has an ace life outside the forum.

You better believe it Kidda.

 

[Oddball]

Channels like BBC etc are regulated and actually have to follow U.K. broadcasting and accountability laws etc when they report so yes they are more likely to be a reliable source than some guy on YouTube who can literally say whatever he wants with no negative repercussions whatsoever.

The BBCs audience is also going to be a lot more varied than a youtubers audience due to it being a national broadcaster watched by multiple generations. Youtubers on the other literally report and give opinions that they know their followers want to here because their income is reliant on telling their audience what they want to here.

Sorry mate, i didn`t notice this stuff in your post. I thought you were having a go at me so i hit back. apologies ?

 

[longers]

Sorry mate, i didn`t notice this stuff in your post. I thought you were having a go at me so i hit back. apologies ?

No worries, its teh internets, these things happen

 

[Oddball]

I somehow doubt a regulated national news outlet has better editorial standards than a zany youtuber chosen specifically because he says what I want to hear

I somehow doubt a regulated national broadcasting organisation would cover up paedophilia in its midst.......oh wait!

 

[Jebus_lives]

On "Climate Heating" the science isn`t settled. Prof.@verryslow won`t even acknowledge the simple fact that urban heat islands are relevant or why the climate activists/alarmists have got a beef with oil companies. Maybe it doesn`t suit the Far Left grifters` agenda.
edit- What`s wrong with independent journalists/commentators on Youtube? - You think you are better informed watching the paedophile cover-up cesspit called the BBC? ?????
Grifters gonna grift.

Nothing wrong with listening to any voice in the debate. Independent journalists are essential to that. The key is working out the motivation of that voice and considering broader position (via consensus). Isn't that the whole point of the thread?

I don't really watch the BBC for in depth news content - it's too broad brush stroke and influenced by the print media agenda. And recently, it has been heavily influenced by Government for content and access. So your assertion to the contrary can pop back in it's box. They're also heavily regulated.

As for "science isn't settled" - no of course not. But that doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on climate among the scientific community (I'm sure you can find voices who disagree but again I'd question why they are an outlier and what they are using to base their decisions on). The "science isn't settled" caveats the current position of scientific understanding - by acknowledging that understanding changes and that the full impacts of something may not be fully understood. But that doesn't mean the established findings will completely change - it could well be that current predictions aren't strong enough, for example.

I wouldn't consider myself 'far left' so I'm not sure what the agenda is you're talking about. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Perhaps if you want a sensible debate on an issue you should present yourself and your position more sensibly. It usually helps.

 

[Oddball]

Nothing wrong with listening to any voice in the debate. Independent journalists are essential to that. The key is working out the motivation of that voice and considering broader position (via consensus). Isn't that the whole point of the thread?

I don't really watch the BBC for in depth news content - it's too broad brush stroke and influenced by the print media agenda. And recently, it has been heavily influenced by Government for content and access. So your assertion to the contrary can pop back in it's box. They're also heavily regulated.

As for "science isn't settled" - no of course not. But that doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on climate among the scientific community (I'm sure you can find voices who disagree but again I'd question why they are an outlier and what they are using to base their decisions on). The "science isn't settled" caveats the current position of scientific understanding - by acknowledging that understanding changes and that the full impacts of something may not be fully understood. But that doesn't mean the established findings will completely change - it could well be that current predictions aren't strong enough, for example.

I wouldn't consider myself 'far left' so I'm not sure what the agenda is you're talking about. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Perhaps if you want a sensible debate on an issue you should present yourself and your position more sensibly. It usually helps.

I`ve got to pop out now but i will reply later.

As for the last sentence in your post - i do present my self sensibly........until other members get snarky, abusive etc then i go over the top with my silly sense of humour and throw it back double- evidence the misunderstanding i had regarding @longers` post earlier. That said - good post mate ?

 

[Rita_Poon]

In a few years time your going to look back at this period in your life and realise how silly and gullible you have been, as will many others

Might not be quite that duration...

 

[verreauxi]

Folks, he is very triggerred, so perhaps don't mention the following
"Empty planes"
"Scientific consensus"
or any facile and sophomoric pun on my moniker.


Still obsessed and triggered. It's too easy...

 

[Oddball]

Why do you purposely ignore the points raised? I have already said that they are far from perfect, I don't think anyone here particularly adores them... its a tv channel ffs, not a way of life lol.

Where is your counterargument towards the complete lack of regulation on Youtube with regard to reporting? Are you not concerned that people can basically claim anything on Youtube without any kind of oversight ?

What do you think creates more echo chambers (of all types) ? the BBC or Youtube ?

John Piliger documentaries are usually ace btw, so you at least get a brownie point for seemingly liking him.

The BBC hasn`t got an instant feedback facility, Youtube has and unless the comments section gets fiddled with, an honest appraisal is right there in the open straight away. Secondly, once you sort the wheat from the chaff on Youtube it`s easy to discern the wheat from the chaff. The sneaky thing about Youtube though is they disabled the dislike counter thingy ?- I wonder why?

John Pilger is always ace so you lose some Brownie points for suggesting they`re not always smashing.

edit the BBC "being far from perfect" is a long way from "the BBC is one of the worlds most refined propaganda services"

 

[Lobster Johnson]

The BBC hasn`t got an instant feedback facility, Youtube has and unless the comments section gets fiddled with, an honest appraisal is right there in the open straight away. Secondly, once you sort the wheat from the chaff on Youtube it`s easy to discern the wheat from the chaff. The sneaky thing about Youtube though is they disabled the dislike counter thingy ?- I wonder why?

John Pilger is always ace so you lose some Brownie points for suggesting they`re not always smashing.

edit the BBC "being far from perfect" is a long way from "the BBC is one of the worlds most refined propaganda services"

So you judge the veracity of a source by the number of supportive YouTube comments it gets?

 

[Oddball]

So you judge the veracity of a source by the number of supportive YouTube comments it gets?

No.
I don`t put any more store in someone from the government telling me what is good for me either. You really shouldn`t waste time on piffling comments when you already know how to navigate Youtube. Stop messing.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Lobster Johnson]

No.
I don`t put any more store in someone from the government telling me what is good for me either. You really shouldn`t waste time on piffling comments when you already know how to navigate Youtube. Stop messing.

"The BBC hasn`t got an instant feedback facility, Youtube has and unless the comments section gets fiddled with, an honest appraisal is right there in the open straight away."

Can you clarify that for me, then?