Dubstepforum.com

Do you think there's any scope to rebrand this as an offence to the environment?

See, if people don't get any privacy using e-mail or telephone then they'll have to see each other more for a proper chinwag. Great for community spirit, perhaps... but lots of extra cars on the road.

Maybe not.

*throws application for job as Labour spin doctor in bin*

Reverend Dale wrote:

they are some cool pics! Ive got an exam on Spanish separatism next week and I didnt know who Durruti was ............I need to revise!

Neurotik wrote:they'll be contuinually exploited by health scares biased propaganda

ridiculous internet, biased media, who to address when a young mind like mine is confused about today's newest issues?

it takes a while to publish a book, they're no newspapers you know?

so now all of a sudden the criteria is not anymore the format, but the content??
so it's not totally uncool to post links?
so all the people who got their butt kicked just because their arguments were supported by links (the content linked being totally disregarded most of the times) weren't as bad as most of the mature and intelligent people here claimed?

jeeeeezzz!

Neurotik wrote:

alien pimp wrote:so now all of a sudden the criteria is not anymore the format, but the content??
so it's not totally uncool to post links?
so all the people who got their butt kicked just because their arguments were supported by links (the content linked being totally disregarded most of the times) weren't as bad as most of the mature and intelligent people here claimed?

jeeeeezzz!

depending how reliable the information is, i mean to be fair with the stuff you can find on the internet i'm pretty sure i could pull up a link backing up the most out of the blue randomly nonsense filled point i wanted to make. the majority of internet readings are unreliable and lack in valid sources yet people don't have the sense to question yet accept it without question. this is the majority and it may well reflect badly on the minority looking at how quickly things are generalised under certain criteria. the internet in itself isn't a bad thing at all, the only thing that makes anything on the internet into a negative are the people using it.

so, in less words, we should check the link and the content there before dissing it, if i got it right?
if so, that stands against what the majority of the wise men here think, there's no need for me to dig for posts, almost everyone here reduced at least once all internet to wikipedia and all wikipedia to its mistakes, and used that to diss something that wasn't even from wikipedia....

you sound more and more like one of those tinfoil hats man!

avoiding my simple question?
yes or no?
i'm confused, can't dive into details before i know the main point

alien pimp wrote: so, in less words, we should check the link and the content there before dissing it?

And by all means people, don't look away from the question above, help me out of this confusion, express yourself!

i thought it's a half measure "yes" after all that stuff that followed, good to have a clear stand.

don't mind me, i'm unimportant, important is the fact that:

that stands against what the majority of the wise men here think, there's no need for me to dig for posts, almost everyone here reduced at least once all internet to wikipedia and all wikipedia to its mistakes, and used that to diss something that wasn't even from wikipedia....

which also raised this question earlier:

so it's not totally uncool to post links?
so all the people who got their butt kicked just because their arguments were supported by links (the content linked being totally disregarded most of the times) weren't as bad as most of the mature and intelligent people here claimed?

anyone thinks differently?

confusion always disappears when you don't lose yourself in imaginary middle ways between the existence and the nonexistence of useful links

but it's useful to know you're among the people who think useful links do exist, so we should check them before we decide what's their nature.
so, why do you think other people consider you're wrong?

This thread is an example why people should not discuss politics on DSF.

Reverend Dale wrote:This thread is an example why people should not discuss politics on DSF.

you think?

I know.

Go to libcom if you want to discuss politics, I know I get involved myself but I try not to.

DFS Ninjas = light hearted crack and banter not bun fights and conspiracy theories from teenage arm chair politics and tinfoil hatters.

missedthebus wrote:

Magma wrote: The Lib Dems are weaker than I can remember them. I'm actually a member of the Yellows, but the next General may end up being the first election where I don't vote for them... I really, really don't want David Cameron as Prime Minister. I'd actually rather keep Brown over that shit.

They sent me some propoganda for the MEP elections yesterday... it's now a bowl full of ash.

Tactical voting hey!

Fair play.

Ive just spent the last year writing a thesis about apathy in the British electorate - stimulating stuff!


There is an endemic problem of political cynicism and apathy and its obviously as much an issue of the choices (or lack of) presented to us in terms of the 'party package' as well as of a resounding lack of civic duty within younger cohorts of society and obviously the electoral system itself.


As a yellow do you think a change from FPTP to say AV+ (what was in the Jenkins Proposal) or another more proportional system would greater benefit the electorate and similarly stop you from making tactical voting decisions?

Yeah, my first tactical vote, I expect. Bit weird, but needs must. I'm still more in line with the Lib Dems on most issues than either of the other two main parties, but I just hate the idea of going back to a Tory government.

I remember reading a survey in the Independent (I think, could've been Guardian) in the run up to the 2005 elections that said if everyone who wanted to vote Lib Dem but didn't for tactical reasons actually voted for them, they'd actually end up in power.

I don't think that's the case now. They've lost too much by letting Charles Kennedy implode like they did... he wasn't Prime Minister material, but he was doing a good enough job of getting their message across. It's just been one massive disappointment ever since.

I reckon proportional representation is definitely the way to go. I'm not too geeky on all the ins and outs of all the different voting systems, but I think power sharing is quite important. As anyone can tell from my posts on this forum, I believe in getting people to talk in order to find compromises and solutions that benefit the most people.... I think the current system leads to parties that are too fixed and too entrenched in competing with each other over everything - what that means is that the opposing two parties will pretty much say anything in order to be seen as an alternative - and when the prize of a party's election offers so much power, it's easy to sell out your principles for votes. That definitely has to change... hopefully there are people out there that feel the same way that can write a bit more convincingly about it!

Magma wrote:
Yeah, my first tactical vote, I expect. Bit weird, but needs must. I'm still more in line with the Lib Dems on most issues than either of the other two main parties, but I just hate the idea of going back to a Tory government.

I remember reading a survey in the Independent (I think, could've been Guardian) in the run up to the 2005 elections that said if everyone who wanted to vote Lib Dem but didn't for tactical reasons actually voted for them, they'd actually end up in power.

I don't think that's the case now. They've lost too much by letting Charles Kennedy implode like they did... he wasn't Prime Minister material, but he was doing a good enough job of getting their message across. It's just been one massive disappointment ever since.

I reckon proportional representation is definitely the way to go. I'm not too geeky on all the ins and outs of all the different voting systems, but I think power sharing is quite important. As anyone can tell from my posts on this forum, I believe in getting people to talk in order to find compromises and solutions that benefit the most people.... I think the current system leads to parties that are too fixed and too entrenched in competing with each other over everything - what that means is that the opposing two parties will pretty much say anything in order to be seen as an alternative - and when the prize of a party's election offers so much power, it's easy to sell out your principles for votes. That definitely has to change... hopefully there are people out there that feel the same way that can write a bit more convincingly about it!

You make some very fair points.

Your right about the Independent survey from 05 - that in fact spearheaded alot more debate on the subject.

I argued along similar lines to what you are saying in my thesis proposal. NL should have followed through with the Jenkins Report and introduced AV+ (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=56) back in 05 or even more recently as this system would produce greater proportionality and thus efficacy for voters; there would be a greater ‘incentive to campaign across the whole country, and not just in the marginals’ , therefore meaning that there would be a greater likelihood of mobilising a larger proportion of the electorate; and in the event of a coalition government, parties would be forced to work together, potentially reducing disaffection with policy by creating greater diversity within the application of decision-making.... In respect to increasing turnout I feel that this system would help to address many of the inherent issues behind non-turnout such as efficacy; perceived influence over policy; and disaffection with policy and democracy, whilst still maintaining a stable government; constituency links; reducing disproportionality; and meaning public and opposition opinion is more widely heard.

Similarly it would give Lib Dem voters and MPs greater say. Also it would encourage greater transparency as MPs would have to actually fight their causes as opposed to being in comfortable majorities.


The crux of this argument (in terms of what were chatting about and the thread title) boils down to what is best for society, an elite democracy where decisions are made on our behalf as to what would be best for the population or more representative democracy where public opinion has greater significance.



Im not gonna post any more politics comments now! - YA BASTA