Donald I, emperor of the world.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

midlandsgrimpeur

Active Member
I'll argue with those who do it in good faith, even if points of agreement are unlikely. But if someone is going to repeatedly spout demonstrable lies on a forum, it's not in good faith; it's not even just attention seeking, it's a deliberate ploy to get everyone onto their lawn and to undermine rational debate.

Pushing back in worthwhile but only where it's worthwhile. Best way to "push back" against our local MUGa is to ignore it and it then goes quieter, and its mirrored Twitter content gets more ignored by the likes of Google (and the forum is a better place for everybody else).

I don't disagree in relation to bad faith actors. I think I was more generally interested in how and where do we find points of agreement on a wider level? We have a Reform party growing in popularity and whilst some of their supporters will be entrenched in their desire to vote for them, others will be on the fence and those who may be persuaded to vote Reform are also voters that surely those of us not in the Reform camp would rather find common ground with so as to dissuade them from this route.

How to we heal the division in such cases?
 

briantrumpet

Legendary Member
I don't disagree in relation to bad faith actors. I think I was more generally interested in how and where do we find points of agreement on a wider level? We have a Reform party growing in popularity and whilst some of their supporters will be entrenched in their desire to vote for them, others will be on the fence and those who may be persuaded to vote Reform are also voters that surely those of us not in the Reform camp would rather find common ground with so as to dissuade them from this route.

How to we heal the division in such cases?

Blowed if i know, given that those politicians are actively trying to widen divides, as they see that as their way to power. Reform aren't interested in consensus: they know from history that if they can get about 30% of the population on board with their unicorn agenda ('legitimate concerns', nothing will have any cost whatsoever, and let's overlook the xenophobia), they have a good chance of seizing power to do their destructive worst.

I suppose in a best-case scenario, the US goes to pot in the next few years to show that populism isn't the solution, and that division is a sure way to catastrophic results.

1758537589966.png
 

All uphill

Senior Member
I don't disagree in relation to bad faith actors. I think I was more generally interested in how and where do we find points of agreement on a wider level? We have a Reform party growing in popularity and whilst some of their supporters will be entrenched in their desire to vote for them, others will be on the fence and those who may be persuaded to vote Reform are also voters that surely those of us not in the Reform camp would rather find common ground with so as to dissuade them from this route.

How to we heal the division in such cases?

I believe the well tested approach to achieve some useful dialogue is to start on common ground and work outwards.

Trump, and many others, prefer to work from the point where they think they have strength and their opponent is vulnerable. Sure sign of a bully.

On social media many people just like to futilely shout at each other.
 

briantrumpet

Legendary Member
September 22, 2025
George Monbiot
@georgemonbiot.bsky.social

Apparently, it’s socially unacceptable to compare anyone or anything to Hitler. Mention Hitler, and you’ll be shouted down with a chorus of “Godwin’s Law”. Well sod that. Until we start comparing Trump to Hitler, we’re unprepared for what is barrelling towards us. 🧵1/4

Hitler’s atrocities did not come from nowhere. They were developed and made permissible by a belief system, spread through propaganda and supported by powerful backers. Hitler’s belief system was similar to Trump’s, and spread by similar means. 2/4

Hitler continually tested the boundaries, seeing what he could get away with in terms of rhetoric, power grabs and assaults on other people. As Establishment resistance folded, he found he could get away with more and more. Trump is on the same path. 3/4

There is no obvious limit to how far Trump is prepared to go. He wants everything. He wants everyone to swear undying loyalty to him. He is prepared to do anything to get it. “Anything” might currently seem unimaginable to us. It's time we started imagining it. 4/4
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Active Member
I believe the well tested approach to achieve some useful dialogue is to start on common ground and work outwards.

Trump, and many others, prefer to work from the point where they think they have strength and their opponent is vulnerable. Sure sign of a bully.

On social media many people just like to futilely shout at each other.

I think one of the possible points is the disconnect between party and policy with Reform. I have said it before, but I suspect a sizeable chunk of the vote is for Farage on the 'cult of personality' basis and this is quite possibly why they are strong as a Party in the polls. Interestingly, a lot of what they are advocating Policy wise is not anywhere near as popular. Today's announcement that they would get rid of Indefinite Leave to Remain appears via polling not to have much support amongst the public.

Perhaps one way to start to conversation and turn a few heads is to start connecting Reform to its actual policies and scrutinise the real impact. Holding Farage and his minions to account is the best way forward. Unfortunately at the moment we still have a media that seems unwilling to do this
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Pinno718

Über Member
The issue with this is how do we reach consensus?

I am not sure there is much efficacy in reaching a consensus. With reasoned debate with different actors who contribute different angles and facts and you learn stuff innit, whereas, with a hypothetical MAGA/conspiracy theorist/extremist you get reams of the same old bullshit playbook.
 
Top Bottom