Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This is a great article, and a great URL.
I'm not sure the comparison is entirely working. People like the US Presidential election because it has a massive dose of Hollywood about - it's a grand endeavour from all sides, the characters are larger than life, there's frequently a lot of drama involved (voting fraud! the fallout from a war! a hurricane!) - arguably something as vaulted a position should be.
but that's about it. there's almost no interest in the House races (they barely got a look in on the BBC's coverage) despite them being as - or possibly more, as the last two years have shown - important in deciding the actual balance of political power in the US.
(Besides, he seriously sees no frustration at Forehead and his filthy lying cronies getting in, and their hatchet job policies since then? Where is he looking?)
you get the quality of politicians you work for and deserve, something i think is hugely reflected in modern Britain
due to the fact that instead of several constituencies you literally have two opposing candidates facing off. Obvs there is an element of that in the UK too but it's more pronounced in the US.
I actually thought the debates here last time around were really good. I hope they do them next time. They also certainly got the old social medias hoppin'.
it was quite funny seeing them muddle around at the beginning as they weren't used to the format and that. Will be interesting to compare them. Whether they like it or not commentary on social media is kinda a part of the process now and they'll have to engage with it.
is it detracts from any kind of synthesis of arguments from both sides and instead you get everyone just offering extreme opinions - extreme in this case meaning 'DONT VOTE RUMNEY HE WILL EAT YOUR BABIES', 'OBAMA <3', 'CAMERON BREAKS FOETUSES' ARMS', 'MILIBLAND MORE LIKE LOL' or 'CLEGG SOLD HIS SPINE'. It doesn't seem to be a space that fence-sitters/swing voters sit well in.
there were certainly a lot of pissed off people on my feed after the 2010 election.
Also, did Sandy really give people a reminder about climate change?
I sympathise with the view that the millions on social media crowing about the Obama win got nauseating after a while. But I don't see a problem with it happening over such a short time frame. Things always get put under microscopic attention by social media at crunch times (like elections in politics) due to their very nature.
I mean, I think everything he says is wrong, this is a new experience for me.
Is this what is like for you lot when you read the Telegraph?
were absolutely livid and gutted. Don't actually remember one person being happy about it.
No mention of it in that write-up, though. Very short sighted, and fuel to the fire though. Cheers.
It's a big world event, should we just ignore it?!
It's not like there was a UK general election on the same day.
And on the contrary, my social feeds were full of people not just bemoaning the outcome of the election, but also those who were happy as their beliefs *won*, as unlike this author apparently I'm a functioning human being capable of maintaining a conversation with someone who doesn't think exactly the same as me
`Yet it was hard not to find distasteful the constant stream of British citizens urging their American friends to 'do the right thing'`
...isn't this exactly what this article is trying to do? Well, in lieu of an imminent election and all that, but it's as preachy and as ill-informed as the social media stuff he seems to despise.
What an odd, odd article.
For all their talk of quality and intelligent writing, they do publish some bollocks. Not even talking about the content of the article (though it is kind of inane), just the look-at-me, I'm-so-clever tone of the article itself.
It's got the pretentious feel of a sixth-former who has Figured It All Out, but who also has to let everyone know how clever they are, like in every single sentence. I could go on for hours about how crap this is.
'To we British' - right away, the twat is trying to make himself stand out with hypercorrect grammar. Not 'to us British' or 'us Brits' or even 'the British'.
This sounds like a 'whom is calling?' thing. Some twats will say 'whom is calling' or whatever, rather than 'who is calling', as if 'whom' is more correct in all cases. Actually, 'who' is nominative and 'whom' is accusative: they have different uses, and the case distinction is rarely that important in an analytic (generally fixed word order) language like English.
It's like the twat thinks that the unusual word form is more 'correct' than the usual. It's not, you're just trying to be clever by implying that you speak better English than everyone else.
In fact, 'to us British' is perfectly fine: 'us' gets accusative case from 'to', because the determiner phrase is the complement of the prepositional phrase. To -> us British. Sounds perfectly fine to I. And if you agree too, then it sounds fine to we. SEE WHAT I DID THERE.
'Turn on the laptop and peruse Facebook'. How can you use the word 'peruse' and then expect to be taken seriously? Oh, I don't surf the web like you lesser intellects: I peruse.
'bringing home the bacon for Barack' - oh, fuck off.
It really gets on my tits when writers get too big for their boots and try and be all clever like that.