Has social media made the UK more right wing?

[Palerider]

The point is that they've got no way of knowing how "we" think, because there's no opportunity for 99.99% of people to actually express what they think. What he means by "we" is the handful of people who control the country.

I've seen the PM of Singapore giving a similar answer, but it's less of an issue when the person saying it isn't a murderous dictator, and to my knowledge Lee Hsien Loong isn't killing people and subjugating his people.

I agree with your point and I am fully onboard with democracy but many, many people are not interested in other people's choices and want to demonise them for those choices. i.e Daily Mail readers! Now many people call Daily Mail readers because they see them as demonising certain sectors. So they demonise Daily Mail readers for demonising others. Vicious circle of oneupmanship.

I don't really want to engage in murderous dictator top trumps, but let's be honest, death tolls are often more a measure of how many people you happened to be in charge of rather than how evil you are. Mao is at the top because China's a big country, but the reality is that most of his deaths were caused by failed economic policies leading to famine (not that he wasn't also a murderous dictator, of course). Is that worse that Cromwell (is he technically a lefty too?), who killed 40% of the Irish population? Or Pol Pot, who was in charge of a smaller country, but managed a genocide of over 20% of the people? Or Bagosora, who deliberate killed 75% of the Tutsi population? Does it even matter whether the deaths were deliberate genocide, incompetence, or callousness and negligence?

I'm not interested in murderous dictators top trumps either but it does show that neither the right or the left are particularly fond of opposition and quite open to killing their own if it achieves their political objectives. My point is there is no moral high ground where the left or right sit unchallenged.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The irony meter is off the scale the last couple of pages.

I like the idea that someone posting dictator top trumps doesn't use social media. It's a classic hallmark of someone who does.

Unless he shares an extremism reading list with Steve Bannon, the guy is obviously lying.

 

[Alvin-blue-qhd]

Mao is still the person we respect the most.
His era, Chinese history between 1921-1976, that period of history is not a mysterious ancient history. Every family has some elderly who once lived in that period of history.
No, we will never call him a murderous dictator.
Some people don't even know how to say “你好”, but they have full confidence and feel that they understand Chinese history better than Chinese.
Perhaps it's too aggressive, but I don't think that's a good idea. Good night, everyone.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The point is that they've got no way of knowing how "we" think, because there's no opportunity for 99.99% of people to actually express what they think. What he means by "we" is the handful of people who control the country.

I've seen the PM of Singapore giving a similar answer, but it's less of an issue when the person saying it isn't a murderous dictator, and to my knowledge Lee Hsien Loong isn't killing people and subjugating his people.


I don't really want to engage in murderous dictator top trumps, but let's be honest, death tolls are often more a measure of how many people you happened to be in charge of rather than how evil you are. Mao is at the top because China's a big country, but the reality is that most of his deaths were caused by failed economic policies leading to famine (not that he wasn't also a murderous dictator, of course). Is that worse that Cromwell (is he technically a lefty too?), who killed 40% of the Irish population? Or Pol Pot, who was in charge of a smaller country, but managed a genocide of over 20% of the people? Or Bagosora, who deliberate killed 75% of the Tutsi population? Does it even matter whether the deaths were deliberate genocide, incompetence, or callousness and negligence?

It’s worth pointing out that the user to which you are responding has proven himself to be a bad faith poster across quite a few threads in this forum and, judging by their post in this one—“I don’t use social media, and I am centrist and think both sides are bad, but here’s a list of supposedly “leftist” dictators to show the left is the worst—they’re probably following down that same path on this subject.

 

[Palerider]

I like the idea that someone posting dictator top trumps doesn't use social media. It's a classic hallmark of someone who does.

Unless he shares an extremism reading list with Steve Bannon, the guy is obviously lying.

Troll I presume.

 

[Palerider]

It’s worth pointing out that the user to which you are responding has proven himself to be a bad faith poster across quite a few threads in this forum and, judging by their post in this one—“I don’t use social media, and I am centrist and think both sides are bad, but here’s a list of supposedly “leftist” dictators to show the left is the worst—they’re probably following down that same path on this subject.

Definite Troll.

 

[Palerider]

Just to be clear on this I just put something like 'who has killed the most people in history' into google. I posted the response I got. I suspected Stalin was top but was proven wrong. My point is that both right and left are very, very similar in their brutality when challenged.

For the benefit of my trolls, I do not control the internet and therefore have no control over the answers the internet returns.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Troll I presume.

Didn't someone mention irony earlier?

Projection is also off the scale.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Just to be clear on this I just put something like 'who has killed the most people in history' into google. I posted the response I got. I suspected Stalin was top but was proven wrong. My point is that both right and left are very, very similar in their brutality when challenged.

For the benefit of my trolls, I do not control the internet and therefore have no control over the answers the internet returns.

Isn't this the Pete Townshend defence?

 

[domalino]

The point is that they've got no way of knowing how "we" think, because there's no opportunity for 99.99% of people to actually express what they think. What he means by "we" is the handful of people who control the country.

I've seen the PM of Singapore giving a similar answer, but it's less of an issue when the person saying it isn't a murderous dictator, and to my knowledge Lee Hsien Loong isn't killing people and subjugating his people.


I don't really want to engage in murderous dictator top trumps, but let's be honest, death tolls are often more a measure of how many people you happened to be in charge of rather than how evil you are. Mao is at the top because China's a big country, but the reality is that most of his deaths were caused by failed economic policies leading to famine (not that he wasn't also a murderous dictator, of course). Is that worse that Cromwell (is he technically a lefty too?), who killed 40% of the Irish population? Or Pol Pot, who was in charge of a smaller country, but managed a genocide of over 20% of the people? Or Bagosora, who deliberate killed 75% of the Tutsi population? Does it even matter whether the deaths were deliberate genocide, incompetence, or callousness and negligence?

The numbers are all bollocks anyway.

Think of a conflict like the Russian civil war where you have about 4 sides, 20 countries involved and 15 million dead.

Are the communists to blame for all of those? Or does everyone get allocated their individual shares of death, or is it the allies White Russians fault for turning the October revolution into civil war instead of accepting the new regime? What about when the newly formed ussr took back the lands japan seized during the civil war, is that blood on Russias hands or japans? What about the famines that all sides helped create and made worse? What about the casualties in the mini civil wars that followed in countries the bolsheviks got defeated in?

Maybe it’s just me but it seems very childish trying to go back 100 years and divvy it up like a restaurant bill.