BBC keeps hassling me

[RickLewis]

The BBC have sent me yet another email demanding that I fill out a long online form declaring that I don't have a TV, don't watch this, that or the other on my laptop or phone, and have no plans to, otherwise I'll have to buy a licence or risk a £1000 fine. And they might send some people round to check, too.

They used to send me forms too, when I had the cheaper licence for a black and white TV but they thought that I was pulling a fast one. I invited them to pop around and see my black and white TV for themselves. They didn't reply, but they also stopped sending me the form.

I really hope that Trump sues this disgusting propaganda machine into oblivion.

I hope he doesn't, but unfortunately having seen the edited and unedited versions side by side, I think the programme editors at Panorama most likely set out to deliberately deceive their viewers (ie us) or else were so incompetent at editing and checking that the effect was the same. Probably the mistake was just at that level rather than the result of any grand conspiracy at management level, but having been alerted to what happened, apparently at least 6 months ago, the BBC board should have immediately responded by taking down the video and replacing it with a non-misleading version - either the full unedited 8 hour Trump speech or else a version that made clear that the two separate extracts were not one continuous whole. Instead they have allowed themselves to be in the wrong and Trump, for once, to be in the right. Apologies and senior resignations due, and were delivered, and in a sane world that would be the end of it. However, the morons at Panorama have handed Trump and his allies a major weapon and no doubt they'll make use it for all they are worth.

It bugs me a lot because (a) I really hate being lied to by one of the few media outlets I usually trust; (b) I am not a fan of Trump or his constant legal assaults on the free press and he will now use this business to intensify and justify those assaults; (c) if the BBC goes down then the world will be the poorer for it.

[Phil8659]

The need for any media outlet is proportional to its effectiveness in a populations response to it, if that response pushes them to learn, good, if it discourages study, it is simply bad.
No such statistics I know of are available on that.

[ThinkOfOne]

The BBC have sent me yet another email demanding that I fill out a long online form declaring that I don't have a TV, don't watch this, that or the other on my laptop or phone, and have no plans to, otherwise I'll have to buy a licence or risk a £1000 fine. And they might send some people round to check, too.

They used to send me forms too, when I had the cheaper licence for a black and white TV but they thought that I was pulling a fast one. I invited them to pop around and see my black and white TV for themselves. They didn't reply, but they also stopped sending me the form.

I really hope that Trump sues this disgusting propaganda machine into oblivion.

I hope he doesn't, but unfortunately having seen the edited and unedited versions side by side, I think the programme editors at Panorama most likely set out to deliberately deceive their viewers (ie us) or else were so incompetent at editing and checking that the effect was the same. Probably the mistake was just at that level rather than the result of any grand conspiracy at management level, but having been alerted to what happened, apparently at least 6 months ago, the BBC board should have immediately responded by taking down the video and replacing it with a non-misleading version - either the full unedited 8 hour Trump speech or else a version that made clear that the two separate extracts were not one continuous whole. Instead they have allowed themselves to be in the wrong and Trump, for once, to be in the right. Apologies and senior resignations due, and were delivered, and in a sane world that would be the end of it. However, the morons at Panorama have handed Trump and his allies a major weapon and no doubt they'll make use it for all they are worth.

It bugs me a lot because (a) I really hate being lied to by one of the few media outlets I usually trust; (b) I am not a fan of Trump or his constant legal assaults on the free press and he will now use this business to intensify and justify those assaults; (c) if the BBC goes down then the world will be the poorer for it.

...having seen the edited and unedited versions side by side, I think the programme editors at Panorama most likely set out to deliberately deceive their viewers...the BBC board should have immediately responded by taking down the video and replacing it with a non-misleading version - either the full unedited 8 hour Trump speech or else a version that made clear that the two separate extracts were not one continuous whole.

Shortly after Jan 6, I recall telling a Trump supporter something like, "He knew, or should have known that that was a likely outcome". They responded with, "Is he supposed to be a mind-reader or something?". Of course, I responded, "No, you just can't be stupid".

For those without sufficient background as to what happened on Jan 6, see the quote box at the end of this post.

It wasn't until more than two hours after the riot started, that Trump finally released a video telling his supporters to stand down. Included was the following message to the rioters, "I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election stolen from us....We love you, you're very special". Of course, shortly after he was back in office, he pardoned them. Clearly, they did what Trump wanted them to do.

For all intents and purposed, just how "misleading" was the video? Yes, they should have made the edit clear, but c'mon. It's not like the underlying message was completely distorted or anything. It basically captured the essence of his message. That Trump and his supporters see him as the victim in all this is beyond the pale. As he so often does, Trump employs textbook DARVO. That so many continue to fall for it is remarkable.

The following excerpts from a recent Guardian article provides some background to this issue:

Before supporters stormed the US Capitol, Trump gave a speech to rally the crowd, who assembled in Washington under the belief that he had won the 2020 election and Biden had stolen his victory.

The word “fight” is used throughout the speech, including in the line: “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Throughout the lengthy speech, Trump details what he claimed as evidence for malfeasance in the election, though the courts rejected these claims when his team and allies brought lawsuits seeking to overturn the results.

He also calls on Mike Pence, his then vice-president, to “come through for us” by rejecting the electoral votes – something Pence did not do – saying it would be a “sad day for our country” if Pence didn’t.

“It is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy,” Trump said in the speech. “And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you … we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”

...the January 6 committee, a select congressional committee that investigated the insurrection and sought to recreate a timeline of Trump’s actions that day, found that it was Trump’s speechwriters who added the “peacefully and patriotically” language, while the calls to fight were Trump’s own words.

“President Trump used the phrase scripted for him by his White House speechwriters, ‘peacefully and patriotically’ once, about 20 minutes into his speech,” the committee wrote in its report. “Then he spent the next 50-or-so minutes amping up his crowd with lies about the election, attacking his own vice-president and Republican members of Congress, and exhorting the crowd to fight.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tion_email

[Phil8659]

For all intents and purposed, just how "misleading" was the video? Yes, they should have made the edit clear, but c'mon. It's not like the underlying message was completely distorted or anything. It basically captured the essence of his message.

Cool! I wish I was stupid enough to say his message was not his message.
Next thing you know, pineapples will be logging on saying they like to think.

Lets make a Molotov cocktail and say, it captures the essence of a Shirly Temple.

Freedom of speech now includes pasting together peoples words, I mean they did say each word, anyway we like, and claim it is in their essence, you know, like essence of skunk.

The FDA has now endorsed the Cow Patty, after all, the burger has the word cow in it.

Frank, does that sound like Esad to you?

I don't know, what is esad?

Eat shit and die.
Oh, I thought it might mean electric sadness. You know, a pouting Ai?

[Walker]

My guess …

The BBC should be okay, legally. There were no objective damages to Trump. He won the presidency and in fact he is more popular than ever, likely because he is the most transparent president ever. He didn’t win the election because of the video, but that doesn’t matter. If Trump is suing for damages he needs to prove them.

Of course if he had lost the election and sued, that wouldn't go far.

The danger to the BBC is Trump’s attorneys proving a pattern of ethical misconduct by the BBC that damages the reliability of the news, and also damages the well-deserved reputation of the BBC that was established during the patriotic WWII era, generations ago.

If they go down, it will be by reputation.

[Maia]

The BBC have sent me yet another email demanding that I fill out a long online form declaring that I don't have a TV, don't watch this, that or the other on my laptop or phone, and have no plans to, otherwise I'll have to buy a licence or risk a £1000 fine. And they might send some people round to check, too.

They used to send me forms too, when I had the cheaper licence for a black and white TV but they thought that I was pulling a fast one. I invited them to pop around and see my black and white TV for themselves. They didn't reply, but they also stopped sending me the form.

I really hope that Trump sues this disgusting propaganda machine into oblivion.

I hope he doesn't, but unfortunately having seen the edited and unedited versions side by side, I think the programme editors at Panorama most likely set out to deliberately deceive their viewers (ie us) or else were so incompetent at editing and checking that the effect was the same. Probably the mistake was just at that level rather than the result of any grand conspiracy at management level, but having been alerted to what happened, apparently at least 6 months ago, the BBC board should have immediately responded by taking down the video and replacing it with a non-misleading version - either the full unedited 8 hour Trump speech or else a version that made clear that the two separate extracts were not one continuous whole. Instead they have allowed themselves to be in the wrong and Trump, for once, to be in the right. Apologies and senior resignations due, and were delivered, and in a sane world that would be the end of it. However, the morons at Panorama have handed Trump and his allies a major weapon and no doubt they'll make use it for all they are worth.

It bugs me a lot because (a) I really hate being lied to by one of the few media outlets I usually trust; (b) I am not a fan of Trump or his constant legal assaults on the free press and he will now use this business to intensify and justify those assaults; (c) if the BBC goes down then the world will be the poorer for it.

I think the main problem with the BBC is its virtually unassailable position and influence. It's massive size, and the fact that it has existed for over a hundred years, gives it a uniquely privileged status in British society. It's not subject to market forces, but nor is it actually controlled by those who pay for it, namely, the British public, since they have no choice in the matter. Such institutions, and there are many, of course, are breeding grounds for corruption on a truly industrial scale.

The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to break it up into its various sections. News, documentaries, drama, sports, light entertainment, special interest groups, the world service, and so on. They can all keep the BBC brand name, if they like, but they'll be run more or less independently. Some of these will still require government subsidy, I suppose, which can come from general taxation, rather than a specific licence fee. But most can go to subscription or take advertising, or both, which should hopefully make them accountable.

It's not a perfect solution, and in a ideal world a public service broadcaster like the BBC surely has a place. Hopefully, with some continued, targeted subsidy, this could still be the case. Trump's lawsuit might, with any luck, be the wake up call to do something about it.

[mickthinks]

Trump … is more popular than ever, likely because he is the most transparent president ever.

Walker … is more deranged than ever, likely because his hero is the most transparently corrupt and incompetent president ever.

[Fairy]

Fast forward 2mins to get to the BBC interview that is worthy of cringe. What the actual ( bleep) is going on at the BBC?

https://youtu.be/pg3G_P1jO_c?si=DYI2R_fC03DyMPJ9

[Fairy]

This is a better view on the absurdity that is the BBC propaganda machine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUbV1dx9id8

BBC, What The Hell Was This?

[seeds]

...Instead they have allowed themselves to be in the wrong and Trump, for once, to be in the right.

Like I said in my earlier post to Maia...

"...the fact that they [the BBC] aired a program about Trump that may have included some misleading edits was nothing more than a fart in the winds of a category 5 hurricane compared to the thousands and thousands of lies that Trump has told over the last ten years..."

I would suggest that this may have simply been an instance of the BBC ineptly attempting to...

"...fight fire with fire..."

...by using Trump's own tactics against him.

However, if so, then it would be nothing more than the equivalent of them bringing a Bic lighter to somehow do battle against the fires that burned Rome.
_______

[RickLewis]

My old boss back at the research labs used to say: Never get into a mud fight with a pig. Firstly you'll never win. Secondly, after a while you'll realize that the pig enjoys it.

[iambiguous]

It doesn't really look like much philosophy was happening in that thread tbh. It seldom does when it's just iambignose going on about Donald Rumsfeld though

Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy? 

Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.

As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is not applicable?

What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?

As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true. 

As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...

"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing. 

...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".

That's probably as good a definition of Paganism as any.

Definition: "having a definite outline or specification; precisely marked or stated."
Definite: "clearly stated or decided; not vague or doubtful."

Paganism: "spiritual beliefs and practices other than those of Judaism, Islam, or especially Christianity: such as
: the spiritual beliefs and practices of ancient polytheistic religions
: the beliefs and practices of contemporary religions or spiritual movements based on ancient paganism
: a religion based on paganism
: the quality or state of being a pagan"

Let's take these definitions out of the dictionary and explore the extent to which they are applicable in regard to particular contexts revolving around conflicting assessments of "the meaning of life", of "right and wrong/good and evil", or of "a definitive assessment of existence itself?"

So, philosophically, how would we go about pinning down the most rational assessment of BBC licensing? Objectively, as it were. Or, instead, as I propose, are individual assessments predicated on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

[Maia]

It doesn't really look like much philosophy was happening in that thread tbh. It seldom does when it's just iambignose going on about Donald Rumsfeld though

Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy? 

Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.

As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is not applicable?

What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?

As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true. 

As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...

"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing. 

...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".

That's probably as good a definition of Paganism as any.

Definition: "having a definite outline or specification; precisely marked or stated."
Definite: "clearly stated or decided; not vague or doubtful."

Paganism: "spiritual beliefs and practices other than those of Judaism, Islam, or especially Christianity: such as
: the spiritual beliefs and practices of ancient polytheistic religions
: the beliefs and practices of contemporary religions or spiritual movements based on ancient paganism
: a religion based on paganism
: the quality or state of being a pagan"

Let's take these definitions out of the dictionary and explore the extent to which they are applicable in regard to particular contexts revolving around conflicting assessments of "the meaning of life", of "right and wrong/good and evil", or of "a definitive assessment of existence itself?"

So, philosophically, how would we go about pinning down the most rational assessment of BBC licensing? Objectively, as it were. Or, instead, as I propose, are individual assessments predicated on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

I think there are some things that don't have a specific definition. Paganism is one of these, as are questions about the meaning of life. With Paganism, all we can do is give a few general ideas, while always bearing in mind that these won't fit every branch of Paganism. And with regard to questions about the meaning of life, we usually don't even know the question.

[Walker]

Facts? When it comes to Trump, folks don't need no stinking facts.
That's because it's a personality issue.
Or, maybe it's something to do with hair.



This explains everything.
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/ ... -650x0.jpg

[FlashDangerpants]

It doesn't really look like much philosophy was happening in that thread tbh. It seldom does when it's just iambignose going on about Donald Rumsfeld though

Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy? 

Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.

As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is not applicable?

What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?

As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true. 

As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...

"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing. 

...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".

Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason. But the rest of me is wondering if you think that pile of self-indulgent self-important nonsense demonstrates some error of my reasoning?

When the gallant knight rides to the aid of the damsel in distress, he's not supposed to point his lance at his own face.