Miriam Cates/National Conservatives conference

Nobody is fangirling anyone. And why do you assume that people here don't know what Cates stands for? Most people on this thread come over as quite well-informed about the people they are discussing.

You, however, dismiss the opinions of people you haven't heard of without even finding out who they are. And then decide that your preconceptions have been confirmed after a 4-minute search.

It's a bit harder to find out who Florence Bergeaud-Blackler is if you don't speak French, but I did find this:

https://www.meforum.org/64605/florence-bergeaud-blackler-on-the-muslim-led

Having researched the issue for three decades, Bergeaud-Blackler does not consider Islam itself to be irretrievably fundamentalist. It was possible to be a Muslim by self-definition without having to wear the hijab or eat halal. It was even acceptable for Muslims to proclaim they were no longer Muslim. That is no longer the case today because a Muslim would have to hide such a sentiment or risk inviting "trouble."

...

The riots are a wake-up call—a warning that unrest is not just caused by social and economic problems. Rather, it is a religious problem that secular people ignore for fear of conflating Islam with Islamism. The solution lies in recognizing the difference between the two and taking a firm stand against the latter. The French mentality is slowly changing because French society has reached a tipping point. Accordingly, the secularists reject being tarred as "extreme right or fascist or Nazi" for saying "no" to Islamism and the MB project of a Sharia-compliant France. The solution is for all political parties to work together as democrats against theocracy.

And yet you dismiss her with "I don't want to know anything about someone giving a speech at that conference with that title. I can predict without looking that she talks fear mongering tosh."

And here you are, doing what she says is the problem and conflating Islam with Islamism.

Have you actually read any of her memoirs?

@NoWordForFluffy

Reminder of what you said: 'The trouble is if you are visiting her X timełine (or similar) youʼre boosting her algorithm and ałtering your own algorithm. Ergo, you are helping the Tories. It makes no difference if you don't directly vote for her.'

I don't need a reminder. I also said, in another post, balance. So if you do visit so-and-so, visit a page cross-spectrum. Yes, they are still linked, and still receive the clicks, but the net affect is not as marked.

Of course, I'm a bit of a boffin, so have an interest in these things.

Politics is best when not engaged with on twitter. Tribalistic posturing whereby one can never agree with anything, on principle, that anyone of a different tribe is saying is the politics of the herd.

That is so tedious.

It's always surprising to see them on a feminist board.

Indeed, @MrsOvertonsWindow. It's interesting to observe the types of threads they start / post on as well. Some surprising omissions given alleged concerns raised where they do post.

Like many women on here I try to avoid threads started to lecture women and pretend that we're all "fangirling" other women - but occasionally get sucked in in exasperation.

These threads seem to showcase a variety of misogynistic attitudes where some posters openly display a dislike or prejudice against certain women because of their political beliefs. Very like the attitudes certain men display on Twitter. It's always surprising to see them on a feminist board

Politically it's so lazy to only toe one party line, read certain newspapers, follow certain politicians.

Whatever happened to critical thinking, when did we bury it, in which decade.

It's tempting to think people are intellectually challenged, which okay is true in some cases, BUT what's everyone else's excuse?

😂😂

So you do read Tories' TwiX posts, even though that means you inadvertently help them? Which means it's OK to read Ms Cates' TwiX posts?

Reminder of what you said: 'The trouble is if you are visiting her X timełine (or similar) youʼre boosting her algorithm and ałtering your own algorithm. Ergo, you are helping the Tories. It makes no difference if you don't directly vote for her.'

When certain terms become over-used......

@OldCrone

Read a spectrum. That balances out the algorithm somewhat.

Well, yes. That's what people here are advocating for.
But you said earlier that we shouldn't read the bad Tories' posts because it 'boosts their algorithm'.
So do you agree with us that we should read all sides of a debate or that we shouldn't read any posts written by people who you don't like?

Why are you changing my words completely? I said reading their posts boosts their algorithms. Not that you "shouldn't read the bad Tories' posts".

You even copied and pasted my response to PP - which was "read a spectrum". So my answer to your question is right there.

like 37% of people in this country, I am no religion and my kids are fine. As are most peoples. Also a strange thing to say at a conference where there was a session about "Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, Is Europe Really Aware of the Endogenous Islamist Threat?" Almost like she means one particular kind of faith but didn't want to explicitly say that because she knew it would go down badly.

I'm completely lost now - what speech are you referring to and have you got a link?
Or are you just complaining about the title of the session?

Do you know who Florence Bergeaud-Blackler is?

Do you really think free speech is right wing or do you only want to censor if you don't like it?

As others have pointed out Islamism is a political project that kills and oppresses Muslims.

Read a spectrum. That balances out the algorithm somewhat.

Well, yes. That's what people here are advocating for.

But you said earlier that we shouldn't read the bad Tories' posts because it 'boosts their algorithm'.

So do you agree with us that we should read all sides of a debate or that we shouldn't read any posts written by people who you don't like?

This is the same level as “you said biology is not a spectrum, so you are a right wing bigot”.

@NoWordForFluffy

And as for not reading TwiX posts of people you're 'not allowed' to agree with, well, that's bonkers. How are you able to ensure you're seeing all sides of an argument if you're limiting your reading to 'approved' posters only?

I didn't say you couldn't read them, nor that you're not allowed to agree with them. Why change my words? That's annoying.

Read a spectrum. That balances out the algorithm somewhat.

@NoWordForFluffy

Yet if we agree with 1 or 2 things, we likely agree more / all other things? That shows poor reasoning skills at best on your part.

Not at all. There is a deep tendency for tribalism RN in politics, and the GC aren't exempt from this.

Thanks for the patronising, though.

And, yes, of course if you agree on one issue, you are likely to agree on others. This is how politics, and political parties, work. You don't have to agree on everything - that would be rare - but in general, you would find you're in harmony.

Life is not that simple. I can agree with some things that many, many, people think, across all political and religious arenas. That's just how life goes. That does not equate to 'harmony' or support.

And as for not reading TwiX posts of people you're 'not allowed' to agree with, well, that's bonkers. How are you able to ensure you're seeing all sides of an argument if you're limiting your reading to 'approved' posters only?

Yet if we agree with 1 or 2 things, we likely agree more / all other things? That shows poor reasoning skills at best on your part.

@NoWordForFluffy

Is it really only 'permitted' to disagree with absolutely everything Tory MPs say, even if they occasionally say things which are sensible / correct? That's a fucking bonkers way of living life.

No, I don't think in black and white like that. I certainly didn't say anything like the above.