Opinions you have that aren't popular on mumsnet(2)

[Lockdowner35]

As the last thread reached 1000 posts

I will start

Jo Swinson would have do a better job than Boris on Coronavirus

@Worst All I’m getting from both your stories is that both were offered help to get off the streets but both declined it. Hence my statement about it being a choice.

I read so much about how this country doesn’t do anything to help the homeless, but if they won’t accept it, what else can be done?

‘Jade’ would have been housed back in Wales, but didn’t want to go there. How is that anybodies fault but hers?

Your veteran friend, slightly different, I have family in the forces and know the affect that combat can have. However, he was offered accommodation, and chose not to accept it.

So many people seem to 'need' formula these days - but the human race survived for millennia before its existence.

The human race survived; many individuals didn't. Until the 20th century, infant mortality was appalling. I am not anti-breastfeeding, nor do I think that infant mortality reduced mainly BECAUSE of formula; and I do realize that misuse of formula - letting it become contaminated, or diluting it to save money - has killed many babies, especially in developing countries. But the idea that 'the human race survived, so everyone can' is a dangerous one, which could be used to argue that we should all live in caves, don't need to have a balanced diet during the winter, don't need adequate heating, etc.; and is sometimes used to argue against vaccinations and other forms of modern medicine.

I would also add that in pre-formula days, many babies survived only because of some form of wet-nursing: it was never the case that all mothers could breast-feed.

@RunningFromInsanity calling it a choice is semantics really. Yes, by dictionary definition they were given a choice.

I like to think most people would understand that there are complexities involved but unfortunately a lot of people do seem to believe that is as simple as “they made a choice to be there”.

Whoever said about trump being banned. Do you think social media companies shouldn't be able to ban anyone for anything? Bizarre.

It sets a bad precedent.
Twitter and Facebook are undeniably major parts of the democratic process in a lot of western countries and Trump is still the president.
Banning him is an overt display of bias, just one that most people here will agree with. The tweets that got him banned would barely have have raised an eyebrow coming from anyone else.
It will be interesting to see how these platforms exercise their power in future elections.

@DedlyMedally His tweets got 5 people killed. I don’t particularly care about the rioters that died but a police officer died because Trump is a sore loser.

@DedlyMedally do you really believe that? I think if anyone else had personally incited a riot in which 5 people were killed, then told the rioters mid-riot how much they were loved and how special they were ....well I like to think anyone would be banned for doing that.

@Worst
"The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!"

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

Those were the tweets that led to his permanent suspension, apparently.
I'm pretty sure I could tweet either of those with no issue.

I don't like trump. I don't like Biden either tbh. But I don't think that private media companies should have so much power that they get to be the deciders of whose has a platform and who doesn't. It's a really dangerous precedent when private companies get to decide what people see, and hold back what they don't think people should be allowed to see. I think it's something governments need to step in and address.

@Orlania

I don't like trump. I don't like Biden either tbh. But I don't think that private media companies should have so much power that they get to be the deciders of whose has a platform and who doesn't. It's a really dangerous precedent when private companies get to decide what people see, and hold back what they don't think people should be allowed to see. I think it's something governments need to step in and address.

Why? A private company can do whatever the hell they like with their own company.

You think the government should tell Mumsnet who they can and can’t ban?

You sign up to a company, you accept their rules.

It will be interesting to see how these platforms exercise their power in future elections

Being part of a social media platform is a CHOICE. Not a right or a necessity. Trump chose to govern by social media; he could have chosen more traditional platforms to make his poisonous points.
Facebook and Twitter are private companies and can do whatever the heck they want.

Why? A private company can do whatever the hell they like with their own company.

Yes, but when they start controlling the narrative and the information pushed out to the public, then that is a massive threat to society and democracy. Yes at the moment they can do what they like. This is the problem. But it won't continue. Obviously.

@ddl1 the biggest cause of infant mortality was dying in childbirth.

@Emeeno1 I also believe in forgiveness. You see some awful stories of abuse here where people rightly advise the OP to leave, but then they also advise the OP to leave when husbands are messy or watch tv or whatever. Why are they marrying people they barely know? Why can't the communicate and cooperate?

It seems like UK society is a bit unhealthy on the inside. I'm Irish and we only have 4% marriages end in divorce and I know lots of people's relationships well from being in their homes. People don't lose the head over little flaws and treat their commitment to marriage seriously. It also means disciplining yourself to be tolerant.

Yes, but when they start controlling the narrative and the information pushed out to the public, then that is a massive threat to society and democracy

Incitement to violence, sedition, and insurrection are massive threats to society and democracy. I'm glad they're not tolerated on SM.

Small babies with bows and headbands on their heads are terrible. Tacky.

Facebook and Twitter are private companies and can do whatever the heck they want.

That's true.
It's also true that they're hugely influential globally and that, if they so choose, they could exercise significant influence on the democratic process of any country with relatively free internet access.
Because it's such a new thing, there are almost no controls or checks.

I'm Irish and we only have 4% marriages end in divorce

Isn't that more to do with the divorce system in Ireland where you have to prove you've lived separate lives for a minimum of four out of the previous five years? I thought too that when you add in the amount of couples who have gone down the judicial separation route, basically a divorce in all but name, it brings the rate out to much the same as other countries.

I do agree with your point though that relationships take work, we should have more awareness on working through relationship problems as well as more awareness of which problems cannot be fixed and when to call it quits - I guess more education in general on what a healthy relationship looks like?

It's also true that they're hugely influential globally and that, if they so choose, they could exercise significant influence on the democratic process of any country with relatively free internet access.
Because it's such a new thing, there are almost no controls or checks

They have clear guidelines and policies that can be scrutinized by anyone. And what would you prefer? That governments decide what's allowed on SM? That the West to be like China in this regard? Yes, that would be great

@DedlyMedally

In the context I think the first one can be interpreted as 'I didn't mean that stuff I said in my speech condemning the insurrection'

And the second one as 'if you guys want to blow up the inauguration go ahead I won't be in danger'

@GarlicMonkey

I don't like elderly people. They're generally selfish, obnoxious & a pain in the arse. I avoid them as much as I can.

Replace elderly with black, disabled, women and see how it sounds. I imagine they’re just as eager to avoid you, if not more so.

Incitement to violence, sedition, and insurrection are massive threats to society and democracy. I'm glad they're not tolerated on SM.

How about freedom of speech. Women voicing concerns over trans ideology. Discussing their legal rights. Should that be tolerated? Because it isn't and many women have been suspended from twitter. And where do you draw the line? Who decides what should be spoken about and what shouldn't? When members of these private companies want to shut down a narrative because it doesn't support what they want as individuals? In their attempt to shape law and policy. Is that ok too? And how do you actually know the full picture of what trump has or hasn't done, when you're only shown part of the bigger picture? Because that's what twitter, and individuals working for twitter, wants you to see?

[quote DedlyMedally]@Worst
"The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!"

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

Those were the tweets that led to his permanent suspension, apparently.
I'm pretty sure I could tweet either of those with no issue.[/quote]
I think whether or not you personally could tweet those without issue would depend very much if the context of your previous tweets. In the context of Trumps recent tweets, and very public actions, they are incendiary and I am glad he was banned.

@Orlania, but what do you want? What do you suggest? Government control of social media? Do you want the government to enforce freedom of speech there? So anything goes?
Then what about those that invite violence, promote terrorism, etc?
Yes, it's awful that women are being silenced. If I expressed my opinion on some of the matters you've mentioned, I'd be silenced, too.

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

And how do you actually know the full picture of what trump has or hasn't done, when you're only shown part of the bigger picture? Because that's what twitter, and individuals working for twitter, wants you to see?

Not trying to be argumentative, but are there tweets that have been hidden or deleted where Trump is apologetic, regretful, cooperative, reasonable or placating that we don't know about? Pretty sure there aren't.

Twitter can only act on what he's written there.