The Conservative Party

[west didsblue]

Surely there is all the difference in the world between refusing to engage with despicable opinions and refusing to accept verifiable fact. Using recent events as a template, we can accept or reject the various explanations for why the conservative candidate won the teeside mayor election as our consciences dictate. What is unarguable fact is that the conservative candidate won. I despise Nigel Farage but if he had presented that fact then, like it or not (and subject to fact checking) I would have to accept it.

The frog thing appears to be peer reviewed accepted science. The fact that someone with despicable opinions is weaponising that doesn’t change the science. You can dismiss the conclusions all you like but the science underpinning it remains unless and until disproven by further research of equal or greater academic rigour and peer reviewed to an equal or greater extent.

The fact that it’s boris Johnson who tells you the sun is shining doesn’t mean, without more, that you can conclude that it’s raining. You’d be well advised to check for yourself, but facts are facts.

Of course there’s a world of difference between verifiable fact and despicable opinions but my point is about engaging with individuals or using them as examples. When people are utter cunts I tend to ignore them whatever they say. By engaging with their factual output it legitimises them as individuals and I personally think they’re better off ignored.

 

[Chris in London]

Of course there’s a world of difference between verifiable fact and despicable opinions but my point is about engaging with individuals or using them as examples. When people are utter cunts I tend to ignore them whatever they say. By engaging with their factual output it legitimises them as individuals and I personally think they’re better off ignored.

By all means ignore the **** but I think Damocles’ point is that you can’t dismiss the science just because you don’t like the person who is citing it.

 

[west didsblue]

By all means ignore the **** but I think Damocles’ point is that you can’t dismiss the science just because you don’t like the person who is citing it.

I thought he used it as an example of the stupidity of the world not taking any notice of Jones when he quotes verifiable fact and he said that was the equivalent of dismissing the science. In reality ignoring the **** is just ignoring the ****, and citing him as a source of truth for one verifiable fact doesn’t mean that he should stop being ignored. I’m sure there’s plenty of frog experts who could be cited in his place if it’s actually of interest to someone.

 

[threespires]

I pop into this thread quite regularly, the fact that we now appear to be reduced to talking about frog sexuality and toilet building regs would suggest to me that there is nothing meaningful left to say about this government other than requote Cromwell and Avery : "let us have done with you. In the name of God, go"

 

[mexico1970]

I completely got the point but my question is since when have the likes of Jones and the Maga fuckwits ever believed in science? Genuine question.. ..

The point Damo was making is that because of where a fact or message come from is enough for an idealogue to rant at even if the fact no matter how vague is actually true.

They will totally ignore the truth and place an embargo on common sense just for that fact nugget, they will just shout at the moon because of where the message comes from, it's like if they believe the fact then they will then think like the person they hate, considering how many people these types hate at one time you can assume that they are pretty close minded after they tell their brains not to listen.

Don't like him
Can't believe her
Wont like him
Can't believe her

Isn't political discourse or indeed a conversation it's a child sticking its finger in its ears and chanting some slogan to drown out the hurty noise.

Furthermore my point was aimed at Bob who came out the traps like an Alsatian at a finger buffet.

 

[mexico1970]

Defending Alex Jones over fucking frogs is the sign of a man who has lost perspective. The idea that Alex Jones is derided and mocked because we ‘don’t like his politics’ is breathtakingly stupid and shows an absence of empathy for those that have suffered at the hands of Jones and his ilk. It’s fuck all to do with politics and everything to do with Jones being a vile ****. Capiche?

Jesus fucking Christ. Fucking frogs. It is so revealing that this example was used to illustrate a fucking point that we already fucking know. People say silly things to demonstrate a point? Fuck me! Who knew? What next? Football fans are tribal and often defend their team no matter what?

Fuck that shit and the conspiracy theorist it rode in on.

He's not defending Alex Jones, he's making a point your anger can't come to terms with because you're an entrenched idealogue, you know this to be true bob.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

He's not defending Alex Jones, he's making a point your anger can't come to terms with because you're an entrenched idealogue, you know this to be true bob.

I’m sure you give Meghan the same courtesy.

Fortunately, you’ve never made a factually correct comment for us to have to debate whether you are an credible source.

 

[mexico1970]

By all means ignore the **** but I think Damocles’ point is that you can’t dismiss the science just because you don’t like the person who is citing it.

Now you'll have to guide the poor cherubs through the minefield of lateral thinking after you kick the hate crutch away from them and they sway on the precipice of becoming something they hate by association.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Now you'll have to guide the poor cherubs through the minefield of lateral thinking after you kick the hate crutch away from them and they sway on the precipice of becoming something they hate by association.

Says the bloke that thinks it’s okay to shoot anyone who enters your house without any thought of the wider picture?

Parody poster these days.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

By all means ignore the **** but I think Damocles’ point is that you can’t dismiss the science just because you don’t like the person who is citing it.

I think, respectfully, the whole commentary here on Alex Jones sort of misses the point of why the “they’re turning the frogs gay” thing is a meme and has popular cultural relevance in the first place.

It’s not the ‘frogs’ bit, it’s the ‘they’re’ bit.

Nobody knows or frankly cares about the factual accuracy of whether the frogs are actually becoming gay - maybe some zoologists, but not your average man on the street. The part that people are ridiculing is that Jones has taken this credible study as proof that the government is deliberately putting things in the water with the mendacious intent of causing harm or… making people gay. Which is, of course, absurd.

It is an example of a right wing commentator taking something with some factual basis and completely twisting it to crowbar the results into their myopic worldview that we’re being oppressed by a global conspiracy.

So to be like “actually, I think you’ll find the frogs really are becoming gay” is a bit like… okay fine… but that wasn’t the point anybody was making.