Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Regardless of anyone's stance, this is sexist, anti-thought nonsense. Also very funny with the annotations.
"there's always someone who was in the D" mean?
Possibly quoting the content, while posting the content, does not portray the content adequately.
I apologise unreservedly.
I just didn't see it/look very hard
brings much happiness
assumed the person was adding Shatner-esque pauses for effect, was disappointed when I discovered otherwise
I am Scottish, don't have a vote, would vote yes....
Doesn't change the fact the above is sexist, anti-thought bullshit :-)
you should ring up salmond. might save a bit of bother
the video is a bit patronising but uhm, it's a political broadcast. don't really get the "typical, eh? MEN!" part either. how is her talking about her dad being a bit annoying, sexist?
that mum's can't think for themselves?
they just shouldn't bother. Nah, not worth it, no is the default after all.
She's talking about her husband, Paul. See Paul is a man, so he is interested in politics and stuff. He is always on about discussing big issues and things, trying to get the kids involved. What a piece of nonsense. He should just finish his breakfast and get the kids off to school so poor mum can have a 10 min break before getting on with the wimmens work.
There is no time in a busy 50s housewife's day to research political situations or take stock of the political climate which affects her family. That's Paul's job and it's boring. She should just go on her gut and her gut says it scary...
as if he doesn't already have enough stuff to apologize for
I'd be pretty miffed if my husband (or dad) or whoever was saying stuff like "have you made a decision yet?" cause that sounds as if he might as well add "young lady" on the end of it.
don't get why they've picked up on her putting on a voice for her husband or suggesting he's being annoying?
as for the video as a whole, I already said it was patronizing so...
if you're doing a political broadcast when you say, "the video is a bit patronising but uhm, it's a political broadcast". I don't really agree. I think there's no reason you have to be patronising. A political broadcast at its best should make you feel wanted, not tolerated.
this one is particularly bad.
no idea why you've taken that as "it's okay to be patronising"
rather in the style of 'meh' another patronising political broadcast, when this is very specific in its attitude since it both patronises woman (mothers?) and implies that men (fathers?) are actually okay.
(Although, given this is a no campaign ad, there's subtext here that the father is both switched on but a completely idiot, because he apparently believes in Scottish indepence, I guess.)
Thank Zeus, someone has FINALLY confirmed what currency we'll be using.
thank you very much.
think this will actually tap into how a lot of people think
This is shockingly bad. Vote YES guys, SAVE YOURSELVES!
And at it's root it implies the more you know about the issue the less likely you'll be to vote for that policy/party, which is silly of them.
And for that, I suppose, you've got to give them their dues for being honest. [/zing]
I don't think either choice will result in the sorts of massive changes either side want you to think. You may as well vote with your gut. There isn't any kind of evidence for anything post-Yes, it's all speculative, which is fine, but don't kid yourself that there's a plan that can be put into place because there are too many factors.
but I also agree with a stand of what you're saying there.
I'd never say that everything Yes Scotland puts out is a beacon of academia, or even particularly balanced, but I enjoyed this reworking of some typical BetterTogetherNoThanksUKOK dumbing-down being presented as "the facts" (but with credibility below that of 'the science bit' on shampoo adverts).
And I think the 'no' campaign's problem is that it exists at all. In a sense the status quo is always the thing people tend to go for so I'm not sure it should be there.
And if we didn't have a load of passionate 'NO' people then I would hope the Yes campaign would be more circumspect and really only have to field genuine queries for clarification.
Obviously this sort of thing never happens so we have a 'No' campaign and all they can really do is muck rake like mad to make the 'Yes' campaign seem like lunacy.