About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

James · 07-02-2017, 11:40 PM

user104658 · 08-02-2017, 09:29 AM

I'd pay £100 a month to destroy ALL of the mainstream simpleton-press. All of it. Rags, TV, online.

Livia · 08-02-2017, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

Made me LOL...

Brillopad · 08-02-2017, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'd pay £100 a month to destroy ALL of the mainstream simpleton-press. All of it. Rags, TV, online.

Sounds quite elitist. Democracy isn't elitist.

user104658 · 08-02-2017, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Sounds quite elitist. Democracy isn't elitist.

I probably am an elitist but I also believe democracy is the best system we have. People should just have to take an IQ test before they're allowed to vote

Livia · 08-02-2017, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I probably am an elitist but I also believe democracy is the best system we have. People should just have to take an IQ test before they're allowed to vote

Yes, an IQ test. Because if they don't share your point of view TS, they're obviously a bit dim.

user104658 · 08-02-2017, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes, an IQ test. Because if they don't share your point of view TS, they're obviously a bit dim.

I made absolutely no allusion to what the outcome of such a vote would be, Livia. I have no automatic assumption that it would go "my way". I still think it would be far more likely to result in a meaningful (deliberated, not media-lead) outcome.

Then again I also believe that we should have an elected meritocracy, with only people who are at the absolute top of their field even allowed to run for government positions in the first place. Instead of the relentless cronyism we're currently stuck with, that places slack-jawed inbreds at the head of almost every government branch...

Livia · 08-02-2017, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I made absolutely no allusion to what the outcome of such a vote would be, Livia. I have no automatic assumption that it would go "my way". I still think it would be far more likely to result in a meaningful (deliberated, not media-lead) outcome.

Then again I also believe that we should have an elected meritocracy, with only people who are at the absolute top of their field even allowed to run for government positions in the first place. Instead of the relentless cronyism we're currently stuck with, that places slack-jawed inbreds at the head of almost every government branch...

Yeah, a lot of people are very critical about politicians. But you know, anyone can be a politician if they qualify. Everyone's willing to moan but few are willing to stand.

If people vote in a different way from you, your automatic assumption is that they have been swayed by the media. But not you, TS. You're too smart for that. I, however, have greater faith in the public than you do.

user104658 · 08-02-2017, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Yeah, a lot of people are very critical about politicians. But you know, anyone can be a politician if they qualify. Everyone's willing to moan but few are willing to stand.

I'm pretty sure I just said that that's the problem, though

.

Quote:

If people vote in a different way from you, your automatic assumption is that they have been swayed by the media. But not you, TS. You're too smart for that. I, however, have greater faith in the public than you do.

Again I have no idea where you're getting the "a different way from me" part. AGAIN I made no allusion to what the outcome of such a vote would be. I wasn't even talking about current or past real votes. I was talking about ALL votes in ANY circumstance. Past, present, future, hypothetical: I believe that by stopping unintelligent people from casting a vote, the outcome is far more likely to represent the true situation and the facts rather than hype or hysteria.

Livia · 08-02-2017, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm pretty sure I just said that that's the problem, though

.

Again I have no idea where you're getting the "a different way from me" part. AGAIN I made no allusion to what the outcome of such a vote would be. I wasn't even talking about current or past real votes. I was talking about ALL votes in ANY circumstance. Past, present, future, hypothetical: I believe that by stopping unintelligent people from casting a vote, the outcome is far more likely to represent the true situation and the facts rather than hype or hysteria.

I thought the clue was in the words.

Brillopad · 08-02-2017, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I made absolutely no allusion to what the outcome of such a vote would be, Livia. I have no automatic assumption that it would go "my way". I still think it would be far more likely to result in a meaningful (deliberated, not media-lead) outcome.

Then again I also believe that we should have an elected meritocracy, with only people who are at the absolute top of their field even allowed to run for government positions in the first place. Instead of the relentless cronyism we're currently stuck with, that places slack-jawed inbreds at the head of almost every government branch...

How does being 'at the top of their field' make them more suitable for the job -morally or otherwise? Character is probably the most important and relevant quality followed by knowledge and experience.

Being top of your field doesn't exclude anyone from being dishonest or downright corrupt or out and out dickheads. Pompous nonsence in my book.

user104658 · 08-02-2017, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad

How does being 'at the top of their field' make them more suitable for the job -morally or otherwise? Character is probably the most important and relevant quality followed by knowledge and experience.

Being top of your field doesn't exclude anyone from being dishonest or downright corrupt or out and out dickheads. Pompous nonsence in my book.

The country's leading economists are best qualified to guide the economy. The country's top educational psychologists are best qualified to be in charge of education. Someone who has been involved in and worked their way up through the healthcare system is best qualified to be in charge of healthcare.

"Pompous nonsense"? It's ****ing common sense.

But then again - you are also suggesting that the people currently in these positions and who have been there before are there because of GOOD CHARACTER, which is so utterly ludicrous I don't even know where to start

Kizzy · 08-02-2017, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The country's leading economists are best qualified to guide the economy. The country's top educational psychologists are best qualified to be in charge of education. Someone who has been involved in and worked their way up through the healthcare system is best qualified to be in charge of healthcare.

"Pompous nonsense"? It's ****ing common sense.

But then again - you are also suggesting that the people currently in these positions and who have been there before are there because of GOOD CHARACTER, which is so utterly ludicrous I don't even know where to start

It's not what you know.... it's who you bummed at prep school.

Brillopad · 08-02-2017, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The country's leading economists are best qualified to guide the economy. The country's top educational psychologists are best qualified to be in charge of education. Someone who has been involved in and worked their way up through the healthcare system is best qualified to be in charge of healthcare.

"Pompous nonsense"? It's ****ing common sense.

But then again - you are also suggesting that the people currently in these positions and who have been there before are there because of GOOD CHARACTER, which is so utterly ludicrous I don't even know where to start

Did I say that? Words in mouth.

Brillopad · 08-02-2017, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's not what you know.... it's who you bummed at prep school.

Sounds about right. The elitist - those at the top of their field.

Vicky. · 08-02-2017, 12:57 PM

Nope. I used to enjoy reading it but I am sick of the ridiculous bias that seems prominent in all papers at the moment. I wish just one would report fairly...is this too much to ask?!

arista · 08-02-2017, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nope. I used to enjoy reading it but I am sick of the ridiculous bias that seems prominent in all papers at the moment. I wish just one would report fairly...is this too much to ask?!

Yes Valid Point Vicky
but once the public own them
they have to change

As it would be 2 clicks
to cancel your £1 monthly DD

Kizzy · 08-02-2017, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Sounds about right. The elitist - those at the top of their field.

Nope not the field, the food chain.

user104658 · 08-02-2017, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nope. I used to enjoy reading it but I am sick of the ridiculous bias that seems prominent in all papers at the moment. I wish just one would report fairly...is this too much to ask?!

The problem is that you only have two options... papers that are run for profit, and papers that are funded by the government / other political interests. Neither is ever going to present fair, impartial, or even accurate news.

Kizzy · 08-02-2017, 01:19 PM

Have you heard of the Canary Vicky?

arista · 08-02-2017, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I probably am an elitist but I also believe democracy is the best system we have. People should just have to take an IQ test before they're allowed to vote

How Nice TS

Crimson Dynamo · 08-02-2017, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have you heard of the Canary Vicky?

bearing in mind Vicky posted: I used to enjoy reading it but I am sick of the ridiculous bias that seems prominent in all papers at the moment. I wish just one would report fairly...is this too much to ask?!

I dont think she wants to visit the canary