Thank you for the piece, David, as always an excellent read to start the weekend.
I'm going to offer something different which I think shows the polls aren't as good for Biden as the headline figures suggest.
Taking the latest PBS/Marist poll and comparing it to the 2016 vote and looking at the four "regions" of the US:
In the Northeast which provided 19% of the vote in 2016, Biden leads 62-34 whereas Clinton won the region 55-40 in 2016. That might give Biden a shot at PA and Maine 2 but the Democrats already have a stranglehold on most of the other states.
In the West (21% of the vote in 2016), Biden leads 60-36 compared to 55-39 last time. Biden might win Arizona but all he is doing is piling up votes where he doesn't need them in California.
In the South (37% of the vote in 2016), Trump leads 49-45 whereas he won the region 52-44 in 2016 so the position is little changed with Biden so the question is whether Biden is making any headway in Georgia or Florida or is Trump piling up votes in Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi to name but three.
Finally, to the battleground, the Midwest which contributed 23% of the vote last time and which Trump won 49-45. Currently he is up 52-45 so he has improved his position on 2016.
So my reading is Trump's position is far stronger than the headline numbers suggest. Biden is piling up votes where he doesn't need them (the Northeast and the West) but not picking them up where he does in the Midwest and South.
This election is far from over.
That's a welcome reality check, but, on those swings, Biden would pick up PA, ME-2, AZ, FL & NC, with Trump taking MN in the other direction for a margin of 298-240 in Biden's favour.
It is close though. FL+ME-2, or PA+(NC or FL) would both be enough to hand Trump victory.
I had another look at this, and if you adjust the swing in the Marist poll in the South a little in Trump's favour, so that the change on 2016 is Biden +0, Trump -1 (instead of Biden +1, Trump -3 as in the poll), then Trump wins the Electoral College, with Biden taking PA, ME-2 & AZ and Trump picking up MN, to give Trump victory in the Electoral College by 30, while losing the popular vote by 5.9% and 8 million (on the same electorate size as 2016). Florida is the tipping point state.
As a nightmare scenario it is suitably scary, but it's not implausible.
Mulling over the logic behind characters in cartoons having to be voiced by an actor of the ethnicity portrayed, isn't it more 'problematic' that the words spoken are written by someone of different ethnicity?
And will Bart have to be voiced by a male actor now, along with Nelson, Ralph, Todd etc?
The same debate is going on in drama, art, publishing - eg the idea is forming that white writers should only write white characters, Asians can do Asians, gays can do gays.
It is utterly toxic. Goodbye the new Othello
Goodbye female authors writing about male characters next?
In that case JK Rowling better watch out in case she's...oh wait...
The Simpsons thing is particularly stupid and regressive. The whole point of voice acting is that the performer doesn't have to look anything like their character, hence the sixtysomething Nancy Cartwright can play a 10 year old boy and James Earl Jones can be Darth Vader. Taken to its logical end actors will be forbidden to use anything other than their own accent, which would be particularly bad news for Black British actors in Hollywood.
In retrospect it started last year with the predominantly black cast of "The Lion King" remake on the grounds of it being set in Africa despite the fact Lions aren't people and the human concepts of skin colour/ethnicity simply aren't applicable.
It certainly did not start there, people have raised that kind of issue for a long time, but the actual problems of representation in the media are not addressed by an approach which makes adhering to a character bio more important than anything else (though if that was part of the Lion King reasoning it makes even less sense).
People who should know better do it all the time - Samuel L Jackson initially criticised the casting of a black british actor for Get Out rather than a black american who would have a different, more relevant experience of the issues of the movie. A truly great actor apparently had difficulty with the concept of someone acting.
WIth the recent moves if voice actors don't want to continue the roles anymore, fine, that's their choice, but I found the family guy example strange since he referred to having done the role as an honour. If they think it is wrong for a white guy to do it and so won't anymore, then I don't see how it was an honour, but rather a mistake they regret.
It does seem as if some actors seem not to understand what acting actually is.
The only way we can even hope to address racism and prejudice is through empathy and imagination - the ability to understand and empathise with people who are not obviously like us, to treat others as we would want to be treated.
All this putting people in boxes and saying that they cannot possibly imagine or act like someone in a different box is designed to prevent us developing and using the imaginative empathy we need.
Remember the poignant slogan of those fighting against slavery: a coin with a black man and the saying “Am I not a man and brother?” Brother, note.
Or see Andrea Levy’s Small Island and the wonderfully insightful, sympathetic and rounded way she describes all the characters, white and black, old and young etc.
Or Alan Bennett who at the age of 41 wrote with such tenderness and insight about people in retirement in “Sunset across the Bay”.
We do need to fight back against this idiotic and self-defeating hysteria that says that you can only write about or act or speak on behalf of people exactly like you.
By this time next week, the Author Brigade of Righteousness will have moved on. Statues last week...
I suppose it will be OK to continue showing Gandhi on TV - because white people can play the part of racists?
Are you commenting on Ben Kingsley playing the leading role. Son of Rahimtulla Harji Bhanji?
In that case he shouldn't have played Don Logan in Sexy Beast!
Ben Kingsley is dual heritage so seems fair enough to play both a Gujerati and a Brit.
Surely he should only play those with the same dual heritage. If this nonsense doesn't prioritise some -isms over others (which presumably should be an -ism too), then the logical endpoint is that we can only play ourselves which would at least rid us of costume dramas.
Ah so Johnson isn't unfit or unhealthy, he's just a terrible PM. Thanks MoS
Yes but at least he did not appoint Long-Bailey or Russell-Moyle to his top team and have to sack them weeks later.
No he appointed a corrupt Robert Jenrick and a moronic Home Sec instead
You should be very careful about accusing people of being corrupt. Is it the Home Secretary being a woman or being BAME that offends you?
People were none too careful about accusing RLB of being an antisemite.
Rather more evidence for Jenrick's corruption some might argue.
Antisemites might argue, nobody reasonable could that.
On RLB's ledger for antisemitism there are dozens and dozens of instances of antisemitism.
On Jenrick we have people banging on about one housing contract endlessly. If there were dozens and dozens of instances of alleged corruption then I think we'd have heard more than just one by now. 🙄
Go on then 24 instances. Your time starts now. I think this is known as 'proof or ban'.
Not worth my time or effort thanks, can't be arsed.
Wait for the EHRC report if you like but there have been dozens of instances in the past and unless I've missed your being a Moderator I don't think its appropriate to suggest bans.
But you seem so certain. Surely there must be 24 cite able antisemitic acts you can reach to in an instant. Of course I'm not Mike but if I was I would be very concerned about such blatant slander on my site.
Yes I am and if Mike were to ask me to substantiate it or remove it then I would, but you're not Mike and nor it seems are you interested in politics if you weren't aware of RLB's long, long history of antisemitism.
Its been a running theory on this site that she was only kept in the Shadow Cabinet in order to be sacked next time she did anything antisemitic knowing it would only be a matter of time! Why would that be the case if this was her first instance of antisemitism?
You're skating on thin ice here. If there were good evidence of anything anti-semitic about RLB, Starmer would have had a perfect excuse not to put her in the Shadow Cabinet in the first place, and would have made this clear. He has sacked her, as I said previously, because of a zero tolerance approach to the SC being perceived to support/re-tweet anything anti-semitic. She was not victimised - any other SC member who didn't heed the warning on anti-semitism would have been given short shrift as well. The only previous evidence against her was one occasion at a hustings when she didn't handle well an audience member droning on about conspiracies.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Yes, medium-term Twitter is in trouble. Its sole USP is being THE forum for vivid argument and political debate: it slants left but there are plenty of rightwingers to keep it engaging.
If the rightwingers abandon it as too dangerous or hostile, which they are doing, then it would very quickly die. It would be a sterile echo chamber, not worth the hassle. Imagine PB populated solely by Corbynites or Brexiteers, who else would join?
Quite a dilemma for Twitter.
I think there is a strand of thought that twitter is banning dissenting voices so to be heard they need to move
Yes, that is definitely a phenomenon. I am far from convinced Parler is a rival - it seems clunky, and an echo chamber in itself.
But Twitter has a fundamental issue to solve. If it wants to be THE forum for debate (and what else can it be?) then it has to be resilient and protect rightwing voices, as they are in the minority, and they are the ones being cancelled - or quitting.
If it cannot bring itself to do this, it will self-destruct.
Perhaps they should employ Mike Smithson, Our Genial Host, as the daily boss of the site. He has done a sterling job of keeping PB reasonably civil, while at the same time preserving an essential diversity of views. That is why PB is still going, fifteen years later.
PB might outlast Twitter
The USP of Twitter is that you can "shout at the telly" and the people on the telly will hear you.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Out of pure curiousity, I looked at their "Mission Statement" and it sounds like if people thought Twitter could be vile....
I do not use Twitter much. I doubt I will use Parler at all.
Parler is coming along nicely as a repository for the extremists of the far right, and may in time also attract some of the very far left. No loss to Twitter - makes their life easier. It may appeal to a handful of people who post on PB.
Mulling over the logic behind characters in cartoons having to be voiced by an actor of the ethnicity portrayed, isn't it more 'problematic' that the words spoken are written by someone of different ethnicity?
And will Bart have to be voiced by a male actor now, along with Nelson, Ralph, Todd etc?
The same debate is going on in drama, art, publishing - eg the idea is forming that white writers should only write white characters, Asians can do Asians, gays can do gays.
It is utterly toxic. Goodbye the new Othello
Goodbye female authors writing about male characters next?
In that case JK Rowling better watch out in case she's...oh wait...
The Simpsons thing is particularly stupid and regressive. The whole point of voice acting is that the performer doesn't have to look anything like their character, hence the sixtysomething Nancy Cartwright can play a 10 year old boy and James Earl Jones can be Darth Vader. Taken to its logical end actors will be forbidden to use anything other than their own accent, which would be particularly bad news for Black British actors in Hollywood.
In retrospect it started last year with the predominantly black cast of "The Lion King" remake on the grounds of it being set in Africa despite the fact Lions aren't people and the human concepts of skin colour/ethnicity simply aren't applicable.
It certainly did not start there, people have raised that kind of issue for a long time, but the actual problems of representation in the media are not addressed by an approach which makes adhering to a character bio more important than anything else (though if that was part of the Lion King reasoning it makes even less sense).
People who should know better do it all the time - Samuel L Jackson initially criticised the casting of a black british actor for Get Out rather than a black american who would have a different, more relevant experience of the issues of the movie. A truly great actor apparently had difficulty with the concept of someone acting.
WIth the recent moves if voice actors don't want to continue the roles anymore, fine, that's their choice, but I found the family guy example strange since he referred to having done the role as an honour. If they think it is wrong for a white guy to do it and so won't anymore, then I don't see how it was an honour, but rather a mistake they regret.
It does seem as if some actors seem not to understand what acting actually is.
The only way we can even hope to address racism and prejudice is through empathy and imagination - the ability to understand and empathise with people who are not obviously like us, to treat others as we would want to be treated.
All this putting people in boxes and saying that they cannot possibly imagine or act like someone in a different box is designed to prevent us developing and using the imaginative empathy we need.
Remember the poignant slogan of those fighting against slavery: a coin with a black man and the saying “Am I not a man and brother?” Brother, note.
Or see Andrea Levy’s Small Island and the wonderfully insightful, sympathetic and rounded way she describes all the characters, white and black, old and young etc.
Or Alan Bennett who at the age of 41 wrote with such tenderness and insight about people in retirement in “Sunset across the Bay”.
We do need to fight back against this idiotic and self-defeating hysteria that says that you can only write about or act or speak on behalf of people exactly like you.
By this time next week, the Author Brigade of Righteousness will have moved on. Statues last week...
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Yes, medium-term Twitter is in trouble. Its sole USP is being THE forum for vivid argument and political debate: it slants left but there are plenty of rightwingers to keep it engaging.
If the rightwingers abandon it as too dangerous or hostile, which they are doing, then it would very quickly die. It would be a sterile echo chamber, not worth the hassle. Imagine PB populated solely by Corbynites or Brexiteers, who else would join?
Quite a dilemma for Twitter.
I think there is a strand of thought that twitter is banning dissenting voices so to be heard they need to move
But Twitter has a fundamental issue to solve. If it wants to be THE forum for debate (and what else can it be?) then it has to be resilient and protect rightwing voices, as they are in the minority, and they are the ones being cancelled - or quitting.
The idea that right wing voices "need protecting" on Twitter is the most ludicrous thing I have read from the sites most ludicrous poster.
The desperate attempt to claim victimhood is quite sensationally pathetic to see.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Out of pure curiousity, I looked at their "Mission Statement" and it sounds like if people thought Twitter could be vile....
I do not use Twitter much. I doubt I will use Parler at all.
Parler is coming along nicely as a repository for the extremists of the far right, and may in time also attract some of the very far left. No loss to Twitter - makes their life easier. It may appeal to a handful of people who post on PB.
They can keep it. It will be a gift to the security agencies though. I expect they all have phantom accounts and lists of free-speech-commenters
@Foxy was warning us of the situation there a week or so ago.
Yep. I see Samworth Bros get named as a focus too. Food production again...
Is the situation in terms of hospital admissions calming down (that report mentions cases up to June 16) from what you hear?
More generally, food processing plants really do seem like perfect transmission environments.
No, it is a working age population, with milder disease, at least at present. I think we have 62 inpatients with it, but few in ICU. At the peak we had over 200 inpatients and 55 on ICU.
Thanks. Hopefully, as in North Wales, the additional testing + isolation will work and the number of new cases will decline soon.
The Mayor of Leicester only heard about a lockdown when Peston blogged on it. Seems that the characteristic communications incompetence of the government.
What lockdown ? The 'evidence' is actually a denial:
In a blog, Peston quoted an unnamed senior Government official as saying: “It would need to be driven by the data and we’re not at that stage right now. We are very actively managing [this] and analysing it at the moment. Time will tell."
Yes, Soulsby is a sound guy, and while poorly not many are needing to be inpatients. The five schools closed for deep cleaning were infected teachers from what I hear, rather than pupils.
Inpatient numbers dropped over the week, and there are pop up testing centres at Victoria Park and at Spinney Hill. No need to panic at present.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Yes, medium-term Twitter is in trouble. Its sole USP is being THE forum for vivid argument and political debate: it slants left but there are plenty of rightwingers to keep it engaging.
If the rightwingers abandon it as too dangerous or hostile, which they are doing, then it would very quickly die. It would be a sterile echo chamber, not worth the hassle. Imagine PB populated solely by Corbynites or Brexiteers, who else would join?
Quite a dilemma for Twitter.
I think there is a strand of thought that twitter is banning dissenting voices so to be heard they need to move
But Twitter has a fundamental issue to solve. If it wants to be THE forum for debate (and what else can it be?) then it has to be resilient and protect rightwing voices, as they are in the minority, and they are the ones being cancelled - or quitting.
The idea that right wing voices "need protecting" on Twitter is the most ludicrous thing I have read from the sites most ludicrous poster.
The desperate attempt to claim victimhood is quite sensationally pathetic to see.
Parler has a few million users, Twitter has 321 million a month.
I don't think Twitter is worried about some nutters being banned from their platform. Of course it is interesting to see the same people who were insistent that Facebook wasn't in trouble when I said it was, say the same about Twitter with little evidence for it. Partisanship is responsible for that, I think.
I think both are in trouble. It is the nature of the beast. Social media evolves fast. Myspace? Bebo? Snapchat?
Facebook has gone from youthful amazebomb to granny-posts-a-photo. Twitter is now evolving from sassy news and political arguments to Lefties ranting at... no one, in the end.
Neither arc is positive.
But other media will take over. Who knows what.
On this I pretty much agree with you.
Facebook will die first I think - but I believe in 10 years we will be using something else.
Snapchat will be the first to shut down, as it's been totally eclipsed by Instagram (which I realise is owned by Facebook).
Why on Earth would Facebook die first? Its one of the worlds most profitable companies!
Facebook is turning a profit every single year, it is currently the 14th most profitable company in the globe - beating global giants Intel and Exxon and falling just behing Royal Dutch Shell and Wells Fargo.
Twitter on the other hand is currently loss-making and has made a loss most years since it was launched.
Ah so Johnson isn't unfit or unhealthy, he's just a terrible PM. Thanks MoS
Yes but at least he did not appoint Long-Bailey or Russell-Moyle to his top team and have to sack them weeks later.
No he appointed a corrupt Robert Jenrick and a moronic Home Sec instead
You should be very careful about accusing people of being corrupt. Is it the Home Secretary being a woman or being BAME that offends you?
People were none too careful about accusing RLB of being an antisemite.
Rather more evidence for Jenrick's corruption some might argue.
Antisemites might argue, nobody reasonable could that.
On RLB's ledger for antisemitism there are dozens and dozens of instances of antisemitism.
On Jenrick we have people banging on about one housing contract endlessly. If there were dozens and dozens of instances of alleged corruption then I think we'd have heard more than just one by now. 🙄
Go on then 24 instances. Your time starts now. I think this is known as 'proof or ban'.
Not worth my time or effort thanks, can't be arsed.
Wait for the EHRC report if you like but there have been dozens of instances in the past and unless I've missed your being a Moderator I don't think its appropriate to suggest bans.
But you seem so certain. Surely there must be 24 cite able antisemitic acts you can reach to in an instant. Of course I'm not Mike but if I was I would be very concerned about such blatant slander on my site.
Yes I am and if Mike were to ask me to substantiate it or remove it then I would, but you're not Mike and nor it seems are you interested in politics if you weren't aware of RLB's long, long history of antisemitism.
Its been a running theory on this site that she was only kept in the Shadow Cabinet in order to be sacked next time she did anything antisemitic knowing it would only be a matter of time! Why would that be the case if this was her first instance of antisemitism?
You're skating on thin ice here. If there were good evidence of anything anti-semitic about RLB, Starmer would have had a perfect excuse not to put her in the Shadow Cabinet in the first place, and would have made this clear. He has sacked her, as I said previously, because of a zero tolerance approach to the SC being perceived to support/re-tweet anything anti-semitic. She was not victimised - any other SC member who didn't heed the warning on anti-semitism would have been given short shrift as well. The only previous evidence against her was one occasion at a hustings when she didn't handle well an audience member droning on about conspiracies.
No thin ice at all.
She was criticised for her antisemitism and her soft nature on antisemitism repeatedly during the leadership campaign. Including by some of her fellow MPs and leadership rivals (though not Starmer who had no need to do so).
If you're claiming to be genuinely shocked that RLB has put her foot in it with antisemitism now then I think you're hopelessly naive.
Ah so Johnson isn't unfit or unhealthy, he's just a terrible PM. Thanks MoS
Yes but at least he did not appoint Long-Bailey or Russell-Moyle to his top team and have to sack them weeks later.
No he appointed a corrupt Robert Jenrick and a moronic Home Sec instead
You should be very careful about accusing people of being corrupt. Is it the Home Secretary being a woman or being BAME that offends you?
People were none too careful about accusing RLB of being an antisemite.
Rather more evidence for Jenrick's corruption some might argue.
Antisemites might argue, nobody reasonable could that.
On RLB's ledger for antisemitism there are dozens and dozens of instances of antisemitism.
On Jenrick we have people banging on about one housing contract endlessly. If there were dozens and dozens of instances of alleged corruption then I think we'd have heard more than just one by now. 🙄
Go on then 24 instances. Your time starts now. I think this is known as 'proof or ban'.
Not worth my time or effort thanks, can't be arsed.
Wait for the EHRC report if you like but there have been dozens of instances in the past and unless I've missed your being a Moderator I don't think its appropriate to suggest bans.
But you seem so certain. Surely there must be 24 cite able antisemitic acts you can reach to in an instant. Of course I'm not Mike but if I was I would be very concerned about such blatant slander on my site.
Yes I am and if Mike were to ask me to substantiate it or remove it then I would, but you're not Mike and nor it seems are you interested in politics if you weren't aware of RLB's long, long history of antisemitism.
Its been a running theory on this site that she was only kept in the Shadow Cabinet in order to be sacked next time she did anything antisemitic knowing it would only be a matter of time! Why would that be the case if this was her first instance of antisemitism?
You're skating on thin ice here. If there were good evidence of anything anti-semitic about RLB, Starmer would have had a perfect excuse not to put her in the Shadow Cabinet in the first place, and would have made this clear. He has sacked her, as I said previously, because of a zero tolerance approach to the SC being perceived to support/re-tweet anything anti-semitic. She was not victimised - any other SC member who didn't heed the warning on anti-semitism would have been given short shrift as well. The only previous evidence against her was one occasion at a hustings when she didn't handle well an audience member droning on about conspiracies.
No thin ice at all.
She was criticised for her antisemitism and her soft nature on antisemitism repeatedly during the leadership campaign. Including by some of her fellow MPs and leadership rivals (though not Starmer who had no need to do so).
If you're claiming to be genuinely shocked that RLB has put her foot in it with antisemitism now then I think you're hopelessly naive.
That's not evidence of antisemitism at all though, is it? It's accusations, but you don't provide the evidence. Being insufficiently vigorous in the fight against racism wouldn't make you a racist, would it?
Just to be clear, I have no time for RLB, but there are easier things to be against her for than an imagined history of antisemitism.
Facebook the company will probably do fine. They own Whatsapp and Insta, they are still acquiring other companies and ideas, they are so big it is hard to see them failing for decades
I am talking (and I think CHB is talking) about Facebook the social media platform. It is visibly in decline. And once a social media platform gets the whiff of unpopularity, it can fall spectacularly quickly: Myspace
Yes, Facebook Inc - although I am quite sure they change their name and Zuck gets kicked out at some stage - is very much like a Google, its value is in advertising.
But Facebook the website, I believe is dying slowly and will be supplanted - and is being - by Instagram and by WhatsApp.
Personally I think Facebook's name is forever damaged after Cambridge Analytica and it's been on the slow crash since then.
A rebrand would likely do them well.
Twitter I find far more interesting, the CEO seems far more likeable than Zuck for a start.
RLB will herself be important here. She undoubtedly knows that Corbyn is and was a complete toad. She undoubtedly also knows that Starmer is far better. Given she's only 12 years old, there's a long path ahead of her, and the allies she may keep on the left are hopeless, whereas a little footwork in the middle ground will help with the more capable people in Labour.
Parler is rubbish, the right’s backside, up which it is determined to disappear.
Yes, I don't think it is going to work. Too obviously RIGHT. And glitchy
There is room for a political social medium, however, to overtake Twitter, as a space that *really protects free speech*. I wonder if it might come from China. What a troll to the entire West that would be. The Chinese did Tik Tok.
TikTok is the most revolutionary thing to happen to social media in a long time. I think what makes it so successful is that it blends a universal experience with something very tailored to specific demographics. It's like going back to the era of 4 TV channels.
The only curious thing about RLB is why the left invested all its hopes and dreams in her. It was such an unforced error. If they had somehow managed to square themselves with Rayner for example they would have won.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Yes, medium-term Twitter is in trouble. Its sole USP is being THE forum for vivid argument and political debate: it slants left but there are plenty of rightwingers to keep it engaging.
If the rightwingers abandon it as too dangerous or hostile, which they are doing, then it would very quickly die. It would be a sterile echo chamber, not worth the hassle. Imagine PB populated solely by Corbynites or Brexiteers, who else would join?
Quite a dilemma for Twitter.
I think there is a strand of thought that twitter is banning dissenting voices so to be heard they need to move
Yes, that is definitely a phenomenon. I am far from convinced Parler is a rival - it seems clunky, and an echo chamber in itself.
But Twitter has a fundamental issue to solve. If it wants to be THE forum for debate (and what else can it be?) then it has to be resilient and protect rightwing voices, as they are in the minority, and they are the ones being cancelled - or quitting.
If it cannot bring itself to do this, it will self-destruct.
Perhaps they should employ Mike Smithson, Our Genial Host, as the daily boss of the site. He has done a sterling job of keeping PB reasonably civil, while at the same time preserving an essential diversity of views. That is why PB is still going, fifteen years later.
PB might outlast Twitter
The USP of Twitter is that you can "shout at the telly" and the people on the telly will hear you.
Not if the only things you can shout are leftwing. Or Woke.
Also the cancel culture is a real menace to Twitter. Why risk your entire career for a misplaced remark? People will shrink away
Yes, the most frightened right wing snowflakes may even start to hide their twitter accounts, out of sheer paranoia. Imagine that happening.
Parler is rubbish, the right’s backside, up which it is determined to disappear.
Yes, I don't think it is going to work. Too obviously RIGHT. And glitchy
There is room for a political social medium, however, to overtake Twitter, as a space that *really protects free speech*. I wonder if it might come from China. What a troll to the entire West that would be. The Chinese did Tik Tok.
If Trump joins Parler and leaves Twitter it could change everything because I can't see leftists being able to withstand the temptation to engage with him on there.
The only curious thing about RLB is why the left invested all its hopes and dreams in her. It was such an unforced error. If they had somehow managed to square themselves with Rayner for example they would have won.
Rayner was never a true believer. I said at the time she was far more happy ideologically, to work with Starmer.
I will tell you - with no proof - that Rayner went to Starmer very early on and agreed to not stand against him, because it would damage her relationship with RLB too much. That is why she stood only for Deputy.
Parler is rubbish, the right’s backside, up which it is determined to disappear.
Yes, I don't think it is going to work. Too obviously RIGHT. And glitchy
There is room for a political social medium, however, to overtake Twitter, as a space that *really protects free speech*. I wonder if it might come from China. What a troll to the entire West that would be. The Chinese did Tik Tok.
If Trump joins Parler and leaves Twitter it could change everything because I can't see leftists being able to withstand the temptation to engage with him on there.
Trump doesn't engage, just broadcast, so I don't think that would make any difference. A Trump bot that reposted his stuff on Twitter would be the same as his own account.
Facebook the company will probably do fine. They own Whatsapp and Insta, they are still acquiring other companies and ideas, they are so big it is hard to see them failing for decades
I am talking (and I think CHB is talking) about Facebook the social media platform. It is visibly in decline. And once a social media platform gets the whiff of unpopularity, it can fall spectacularly quickly: Myspace
Yes, Facebook Inc - although I am quite sure they change their name and Zuck gets kicked out at some stage - is very much like a Google, its value is in advertising.
But Facebook the website, I believe is dying slowly and will be supplanted - and is being - by Instagram and by WhatsApp.
Personally I think Facebook's name is forever damaged after Cambridge Analytica and it's been on the slow crash since then.
A rebrand would likely do them well.
Twitter I find far more interesting, the CEO seems far more likeable than Zuck for a start.
Neither Whasisfaceapp nor Instagram can supplant Facebook because they are far too limed in their scope. That is not to say FB will not be supplanted. But it won't be by anything that is currently available because nothing provides the same level of variable usability.
I've not seen anything about 'excess deaths' by country from COVID19 for a while.
I was wondering if there is any reliable information from the USA yet or not? The situation there seems awful regarding cases and hospitalisations but not so much yet reported deaths - and I was wondering if that's because deaths haven't happened yet, or if they're not getting reported as COVID?
The only curious thing about RLB is why the left invested all its hopes and dreams in her. It was such an unforced error. If they had somehow managed to square themselves with Rayner for example they would have won.
Rayner was never a true believer. I said at the time she was far more happy ideologically, to work with Starmer.
I will tell you - with no proof - that Rayner went to Starmer very early on and agreed to not stand against him, because it would damage her relationship with RLB too much. That is why she stood only for Deputy.
Rayner is porridge thick too.
RLB isn't, but she's got a long way to go before she's up to speed.
Ah so Johnson isn't unfit or unhealthy, he's just a terrible PM. Thanks MoS
Yes but at least he did not appoint Long-Bailey or Russell-Moyle to his top team and have to sack them weeks later.
No he appointed a corrupt Robert Jenrick and a moronic Home Sec instead
You should be very careful about accusing people of being corrupt. Is it the Home Secretary being a woman or being BAME that offends you?
People were none too careful about accusing RLB of being an antisemite.
Rather more evidence for Jenrick's corruption some might argue.
Antisemites might argue, nobody reasonable could that.
On RLB's ledger for antisemitism there are dozens and dozens of instances of antisemitism.
On Jenrick we have people banging on about one housing contract endlessly. If there were dozens and dozens of instances of alleged corruption then I think we'd have heard more than just one by now. 🙄
Go on then 24 instances. Your time starts now. I think this is known as 'proof or ban'.
Not worth my time or effort thanks, can't be arsed.
Wait for the EHRC report if you like but there have been dozens of instances in the past and unless I've missed your being a Moderator I don't think its appropriate to suggest bans.
But you seem so certain. Surely there must be 24 cite able antisemitic acts you can reach to in an instant. Of course I'm not Mike but if I was I would be very concerned about such blatant slander on my site.
Yes I am and if Mike were to ask me to substantiate it or remove it then I would, but you're not Mike and nor it seems are you interested in politics if you weren't aware of RLB's long, long history of antisemitism.
Its been a running theory on this site that she was only kept in the Shadow Cabinet in order to be sacked next time she did anything antisemitic knowing it would only be a matter of time! Why would that be the case if this was her first instance of antisemitism?
You're skating on thin ice here. If there were good evidence of anything anti-semitic about RLB, Starmer would have had a perfect excuse not to put her in the Shadow Cabinet in the first place, and would have made this clear. He has sacked her, as I said previously, because of a zero tolerance approach to the SC being perceived to support/re-tweet anything anti-semitic. She was not victimised - any other SC member who didn't heed the warning on anti-semitism would have been given short shrift as well. The only previous evidence against her was one occasion at a hustings when she didn't handle well an audience member droning on about conspiracies.
No thin ice at all.
She was criticised for her antisemitism and her soft nature on antisemitism repeatedly during the leadership campaign. Including by some of her fellow MPs and leadership rivals (though not Starmer who had no need to do so).
If you're claiming to be genuinely shocked that RLB has put her foot in it with antisemitism now then I think you're hopelessly naive.
That's not evidence of antisemitism at all though, is it? It's accusations, but you don't provide the evidence. Being insufficiently vigorous in the fight against racism wouldn't make you a racist, would it?
Just to be clear, I have no time for RLB, but there are easier things to be against her for than an imagined history of antisemitism.
OK then. How about being against her for retweeting in gushing tones a link to a newspaper interview that included the claim that those who rejoined the Labour Party to support the leadership of Keir Starmer should "hang their heads in shame"? And then still failing to delete the tweet when told to do so by Keir Starmer's office?
I've not seen anything about 'excess deaths' by country from COVID19 for a while.
I was wondering if there is any reliable information from the USA yet or not? The situation there seems awful regarding cases and hospitalisations but not so much yet reported deaths - and I was wondering if that's because deaths haven't happened yet, or if they're not getting reported as COVID?
The FT analysis (to May 23rd for the US) doesn't show anything too bad, though obviously not covering this latest resurgence in numbers.
The only curious thing about RLB is why the left invested all its hopes and dreams in her. It was such an unforced error. If they had somehow managed to square themselves with Rayner for example they would have won.
Rayner was never a true believer. I said at the time she was far more happy ideologically, to work with Starmer.
I will tell you - with no proof - that Rayner went to Starmer very early on and agreed to not stand against him, because it would damage her relationship with RLB too much. That is why she stood only for Deputy.
Despite publicly endorsing her friend, it wouldn't shock me at all if Rayner actually voted for Starmer as leader.
Facebook the company will probably do fine. They own Whatsapp and Insta, they are still acquiring other companies and ideas, they are so big it is hard to see them failing for decades
I am talking (and I think CHB is talking) about Facebook the social media platform. It is visibly in decline. And once a social media platform gets the whiff of unpopularity, it can fall spectacularly quickly: Myspace
Yes, Facebook Inc - although I am quite sure they change their name and Zuck gets kicked out at some stage - is very much like a Google, its value is in advertising.
But Facebook the website, I believe is dying slowly and will be supplanted - and is being - by Instagram and by WhatsApp.
Personally I think Facebook's name is forever damaged after Cambridge Analytica and it's been on the slow crash since then.
A rebrand would likely do them well.
Twitter I find far more interesting, the CEO seems far more likeable than Zuck for a start.
Neither Whasisfaceapp nor Instagram can supplant Facebook because they are far too limed in their scope. That is not to say FB will not be supplanted. But it won't be by anything that is currently available because nothing provides the same level of variable usability.
Facebook OWNS Insta and FB
Are you sure Facebook OWNS Facebook?
That's a pretty bold claim, and you better have the evidence to back it up.
JLR being part nationalised under a Tory government? Heh.
If we'd realised that the Tories would nationalise private medicine, plant a forest of money trees and seize parts of British industry, we might not have bothered to oppose them .
Prediction of how the opinion polls might look in about 18 months' time.
Con 35% Lab 35% Farage's new party 15%
More likely to be - Lab 45% Con 33% LD 12%
I just don't see Labour ever having that kind of gap, I think it will be close up until the election, to be honest.
There is a train wreck coming down the line. I can't see how the incumbent government irrespective of stripe manages that crash. If the Conservatives can avoid armageddon, good for them, and for us, I just don't see how they do it.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Yes, medium-term Twitter is in trouble. Its sole USP is being THE forum for vivid argument and political debate: it slants left but there are plenty of rightwingers to keep it engaging.
If the rightwingers abandon it as too dangerous or hostile, which they are doing, then it would very quickly die. It would be a sterile echo chamber, not worth the hassle. Imagine PB populated solely by Corbynites or Brexiteers, who else would join?
Quite a dilemma for Twitter.
Aside from whether banning incitement to violence or whatever destroys political debate, I'm not sure politics is even the main use-case for Twitter.
I did sign up for Parler hoping for an alternative to Twitter, thanks to its increasing failure to just show me the tweets in the order that people tweeted them instead of clogging up the feed with the same repeated shit that somebody liked over and over again.
But Parler the signup process takes you through a "who to follow" thing which consists 100% exclusively of lunatics. Not just right-wing people, strictly crazy people only. This will in turn dissuade any non-lunatic.
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
I was unaware he was in the Shadow Cabinet. Maybe just on the Frontbench.
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
I was unaware he was in the Shadow Cabinet. Maybe just on the Frontbench.
I may not be the most savvy of posters on her but who the fuck is Russel- Moyle? He sounds like a hyphenated Tory but it seems he ain't. Has working man eventually realised he's been screwed over more by what's pretended to be his own?
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
I was unaware he was in the Shadow Cabinet. Maybe just on the Frontbench.
I may not be the most savvy of posters on her but who the fuck is Russel- Moyle? He sounds like a hyphenated Tory but it seems he ain't. Has working man eventually realised he's been screwed over more by what's pretended to be his own?
He may be the most left-wing member of the House of Commons. MP for Brighton Kemptown.
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
I was unaware he was in the Shadow Cabinet. Maybe just on the Frontbench.
I may not be the most savvy of posters on her but who the fuck is Russel- Moyle? He sounds like a hyphenated Tory but it seems he ain't. Has working man eventually realised he's been screwed over more by what's pretended to be his own?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle is a hard-left quasi-Trotskyite Corbynite who said in his election victory speech on general election night that he would fight in the streets and in the courts and et cetera. He waved the mace around in the House of Commons because he didn't like the fact that Brexit was happening. He was one of the gaggle of ultra-Remoaniac MPs who formed a protective phallanx around John Bercow in order to prevent Parliament from being prorogued, as if they were pretending to protect the House of Commons against King Charles the First. Oh, and he's the first still-serving MP to be openly HIV+.
Linehan became obsessed with the Trans-TERF war, and in the end it was all he could talk about. Quite bizarre. A warning to others.
Such a talented comic writer, as well. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of his mental health and he can back to writing fun things.
People are moving from Twitter to Parler in increasing numbers.
Yes, medium-term Twitter is in trouble. Its sole USP is being THE forum for vivid argument and political debate: it slants left but there are plenty of rightwingers to keep it engaging.
If the rightwingers abandon it as too dangerous or hostile, which they are doing, then it would very quickly die. It would be a sterile echo chamber, not worth the hassle. Imagine PB populated solely by Corbynites or Brexiteers, who else would join?
Quite a dilemma for Twitter.
I think there is a strand of thought that twitter is banning dissenting voices so to be heard they need to move
Yes, that is definitely a phenomenon. I am far from convinced Parler is a rival - it seems clunky, and an echo chamber in itself.
But Twitter has a fundamental issue to solve. If it wants to be THE forum for debate (and what else can it be?) then it has to be resilient and protect rightwing voices, as they are in the minority, and they are the ones being cancelled - or quitting.
If it cannot bring itself to do this, it will self-destruct.
Perhaps they should employ Mike Smithson, Our Genial Host, as the daily boss of the site. He has done a sterling job of keeping PB reasonably civil, while at the same time preserving an essential diversity of views. That is why PB is still going, fifteen years later.
PB might outlast Twitter
It only works because there is one of you.
If there were two posters like you (at the same time, not sequentially) posting your crap at each other, then you’d both have to go. As it is, OGH can afford to cut you some slack, although why he puts up with stunts like coming back under a different name minutes after being banned for unacceptable behaviour is mystery? Most sites would regard that as even more unacceptable.
Why is the Junior Senator from Illinois not mentioned more often as a potential Vice Presidential nominee?
She's a woman of colour, and a war veteran, and has a decent amount of experience, having been in the House before the Senate.
Junior Senator for Illinois... One parent American, the other foreign... Lived in Hawaii...
Who does she sound like again...
Is it Ivanka? We must have discussed Tammy Duckworth before, because I have already backed her, and it is vanishingly unlikely I did my own research.
LOL. Convinced by the watertight case @rcs1000 just made, I headed over to Unibet who offer 33/1 about Duckworth. On arrival, their overnight trader took one look at Oddschecker and declined my stake.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
Russel-Moyle will presumably be out of the SC again soon. Another Corbynite (I thought RLB was the last) setup to fail and they've walked straight into it
I was unaware he was in the Shadow Cabinet. Maybe just on the Frontbench.
I may not be the most savvy of posters on her but who the fuck is Russel- Moyle? He sounds like a hyphenated Tory but it seems he ain't. Has working man eventually realised he's been screwed over more by what's pretended to be his own?
He may be the most left-wing member of the House of Commons. MP for Brighton Kemptown.
He's very unpleasant.
I haven't seen a single speech of his in the Commons that hasn't been dripping with vitriol.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
I think Sturgeon is benefiting from the awfulness of Johnson who doesn't appear to have recovered from his Covid encounter yet.
Comments
As a nightmare scenario it is suitably scary, but it's not implausible.
Absolute wank.
The desperate attempt to claim victimhood is quite sensationally pathetic to see.
Inpatient numbers dropped over the week, and there are pop up testing centres at Victoria Park and at Spinney Hill. No need to panic at present.
Personally I am quite happy with gender and colour blind casting, except where essential to the plot.
Facebook is turning a profit every single year, it is currently the 14th most profitable company in the globe - beating global giants Intel and Exxon and falling just behing Royal Dutch Shell and Wells Fargo.
Twitter on the other hand is currently loss-making and has made a loss most years since it was launched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5TVLEaqqdI
She was criticised for her antisemitism and her soft nature on antisemitism repeatedly during the leadership campaign. Including by some of her fellow MPs and leadership rivals (though not Starmer who had no need to do so).
If you're claiming to be genuinely shocked that RLB has put her foot in it with antisemitism now then I think you're hopelessly naive.
Houston is at capacity. They can double capacity for a short while.
Just to be clear, I have no time for RLB, but there are easier things to be against her for than an imagined history of antisemitism.
But Facebook the website, I believe is dying slowly and will be supplanted - and is being - by Instagram and by WhatsApp.
Personally I think Facebook's name is forever damaged after Cambridge Analytica and it's been on the slow crash since then.
A rebrand would likely do them well.
Twitter I find far more interesting, the CEO seems far more likeable than Zuck for a start.
I will tell you - with no proof - that Rayner went to Starmer very early on and agreed to not stand against him, because it would damage her relationship with RLB too much. That is why she stood only for Deputy.
I was wondering if there is any reliable information from the USA yet or not? The situation there seems awful regarding cases and hospitalisations but not so much yet reported deaths - and I was wondering if that's because deaths haven't happened yet, or if they're not getting reported as COVID?
RLB isn't, but she's got a long way to go before she's up to speed.
https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
Con 35%
Lab 35%
Farage's new party 15%
I see something more like:
Tories 40%
Labour 43%
Lab 45%
Con 33%
LD 12%
That's a pretty bold claim, and you better have the evidence to back it up.
If people stopped posting things like this, then they'll be in trouble:
https://twitter.com/EmmaJanePettit/status/1276565600232505344
But Parler the signup process takes you through a "who to follow" thing which consists 100% exclusively of lunatics. Not just right-wing people, strictly crazy people only. This will in turn dissuade any non-lunatic.
She's a woman of colour, and a war veteran, and has a decent amount of experience, having been in the House before the Senate.
One parent American, the other foreign...
Lived in Hawaii...
Who does she sound like again...
If there were two posters like you (at the same time, not sequentially) posting your crap at each other, then you’d both have to go. As it is, OGH can afford to cut you some slack, although why he puts up with stunts like coming back under a different name minutes after being banned for unacceptable behaviour is mystery? Most sites would regard that as even more unacceptable.
No village can suffer two idiots.
I haven't seen a single speech of his in the Commons that hasn't been dripping with vitriol.