Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Jan 28, 2025 1:17 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:58 pm
[I'll stop doing this now lol]

And it was just getting rather good...

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:58 pm

It's a disappointing day for debate fans as the second round grinds to a halt.

Jamie "99 problems and they're all existential" UK valiantly recovered after committing to a rather obtuse debate style. His core point just barely made it through intact, but the judges will surely dock him for his verboseness.

Oct "Right, do no wrong" Tavious parried with a decisive retort from the classic List of Fallacies (tm), but the judges are still reviewing the tape to see whether or not Slippery Slope (official lawn water slide sponsor of Shouty Seniors - UK edition) actually applies in this case.

Fans were disappointed that the exchange seems to have missed The Big Picture (official TV sponsor for Shouty Seniors - UK edition).

The season is still young! Oct will surely make more elaborate excuses for right wingers that seem to intentionally miss the forest for the trees. Jamie is reportedly already growing out his hair so there is more to set on fire in the next match. Don't forget to become a WebDip Gold donator to catch all the action.

[I'll stop doing this now lol]

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:39 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:26 pm
Ah, you're a subscriber to the slippery slope fallacy. You have explained your position well. I disagree.

I do not believe my position is fallacious but I suppose I have to acknowledge you for at least accepting I have articulated the problem that I see here.

by **Octavious** » Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:26 pm

Ah, you're a subscriber to the slippery slope fallacy. You have explained your position well. I disagree.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:54 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:41 pm
I'm confused now. That's just a series of highly unlikely lies without even a brief acquaintanceship with the truth. You really haven't understood anything I've said, have you?

Okay, here we go.

So, I started with statement #1:

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 am
"Octavious had a meeting with Nick Clegg this week, during which he praised Donald Trump's campaign strategy (while not agreeing with all of Trump's policies), defended Elon Musk, and encouraged Clegg to use his political influence to dismantle Britain's railway network."

Now, most of this is a mixture of half-truths and deliberate lies, but you described this as "pretty accurate" in general terms. You very clearly did not care that my mention of a meeting was a fiction, and you barely pushed back on the other content.

But what I have done here is strongly associate you with Nick Clegg, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump, and with a policy of dismantling the UK's rail network.

Statement #1 appears to meet the Octavian logic requirements of being in the general direction of the truth.

Then I followed up with statement #2:

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:14 pm
"Octavious, who has been lobbying senior Lib Dems to slash rail funding and previously held meetings with Nick Clegg on the issue, had a meeting last week with Elon Musk, where they promised to replace the East and West Coast main lines with Musk's hyperloop technology with first class seating reserved for whites only."

Elon Musk is a noted proponent of so-called "Hyperloop" technology as an alternative to conventional high-speed rail. Also, Elon Musk has recently shown his very public support for ultra-right wing white nationalists and people who want to bring racial apartheid back to his birth country of South Africa. It is certainly within the "general direction of the truth" to say that Elon Musk has happily associated himself, in broad daylight, with some extremely racist people and groups.

Therefore, in statement #2 I have increased the emphasis on associating you with Elon Musk, as well as calling back to the "meeting with Nick Clegg" idea I advanced in statement #1. In statement #2, I evolved the "abolish railways" position into a hyperloop scheme of the kind Elon Musk might propose, and I sprinkled in some racism because Elon Musk is associated with racists, and I am now tarring you with that brush.

Statement #2 would seem outrageous in isolation. An obvious series of lies. BUT if we have persuaded the casual reader that Statement #1 was broadly true, which I believe by Octavian logic we have done, (though by JamieT logic obviously not, Statement #1 was a pack of lies and should have been shot down as such), THEN the casual reader may also be easily persuaded that Statement #2 might well be in the general direction of the truth.

Now I come out with Statement #3:

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:44 pm
Noted hyperloop supporter and public transport opponent Octavious had a meeting with Tommy Robinson this week where he agreed to donate £1,000 to a campaign to ban muslims from buses in the UK.

Obviously utter horse shit. But if the casual reader has swallowed Statement #2, then it's only a small step to assuming that Statement #3 could be in the general direction of the truth. After all, Elon Musk is a very vocal supporter of Tommy Robinson. Tommy Robinson is an outright, bold as brass, in-your-face racist who would like all Muslims to be forcibly removed from the UK. The policy focus is still partly on public transport, and I have already, via Statement #2, associated you with a racist public transport policy being attributed to noted Tommy Robinson associate Elon Musk.

This is what the new ultra right does. This is how they work. They take small grains of truth and filter them into a package of lies. To resist such tactics we need to stand up and say "No, that's a lie" when we hear Statement #1. Because if we wait until Statement #3 it is too late, and it is MUCH harder to change people's minds.

THAT is why it is important to call out liars like David Cameron as soon as they start to fabricate lies to score political points.

THAT is why the truth matters. Not the "general direction" of the truth, in which a handful of deliberate, cynical lies can be excused. But the whole truth.

That was my point. That is why I differ from you so strongly on this.

by **kingofthepirates** » Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:02 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:37 pm
It's the intellectual battle of the century.

Watch as these two titans of tedium argue past one another about issues in UK politics that haven't mattered for years.

Oct "nothing bad ever happens" Tavious has trained his whole forum career for this fight. This great obfuscator of right wing wrongdoing is said to have perfected his "I don't support either side" schtick at last year's World Cup. His coach said he's been training his butt for months to ensure he can pull arguments out of it with ease in this historic match up.

Jamie "perpetual Armageddon" 99 UK enters the ring with a mental injury from his Gaza debates, but his post count attests to his ability to fight through the pain. Will his career-long strategy of predicting the worst possible outcomes finally yield the coveted "I told you so"? Betting markets aren't so sure, but the odds on a name-calling victory in the early rounds heavily favour this contender.

absolute cinema

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:37 pm

It's the intellectual battle of the century.

Watch as these two titans of tedium argue past one another about issues in UK politics that haven't mattered for years.

Oct "nothing bad ever happens" Tavious has trained his whole forum career for this fight. This great obfuscator of right wing wrongdoing is said to have perfected his "I don't support either side" schtick at last year's World Cup. His coach said he's been training his butt for months to ensure he can pull arguments out of it with ease in this historic match up.

Jamie "perpetual Armageddon" 99 UK enters the ring with a mental injury from his Gaza debates, but his post count attests to his ability to fight through the pain. Will his career-long strategy of predicting the worst possible outcomes finally yield the coveted "I told you so"? Betting markets aren't so sure, but the odds on a name-calling victory in the early rounds heavily favour this contender.

by **kingofthepirates** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:20 pm

I'm here! it's good reading while I wait for my weekly manga chapters to drop lol

by **Octavious** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:47 pm

I think it's fair to surmise that the only people remotely interested in this back and forth regarding a poorly remembered conversation of a fair few years ago are you and me

.

But I look forward to seeing your reply nonetheless.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 pm

I started writing a very long reply but the website has fucked me.

I'll reply tomorrow. Octavious deserves response, right in his stupid face.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm

I'm confused now. That's just a series of highly unlikely lies without even a brief acquaintanceship with the truth. You really haven't understood anything I've said, have you?
[/quote]

by **Octavious** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:41 pm

What is the lie? Do you not believe that Corbyn and McDonnell had meetings with various unions? Do you not believe that in these discussions they talked about increasing the powers of unions in disputes? Is your problem here merely about the timing of the meeting? It's a lie because it may have happened in the previous fortnight rather than the previous week? Or it's a lie because Cameron can't be certain that flying pickets was specifically mentioned?

As for the Falklands, is it a lie because Corbyn hadn't literally given the Falklands to Argentina? Because I fully agree with you that he didn't have the power to do so being an opposition leader with limited popularity. But it is painfully obvious, unless you think that the Prime Minister had forgotten the most basic rules about how government works, that this was hyperbole. That the clear meaning, which I happen to believe is 100% true, is that the policy decisions favoured by Corbyn would (if put into practice) eventually lead to Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:44 pm
Noted hyperloop supporter and public transport opponent Octavious had a meeting with Tommy Robinson this week where he agreed to donate £1,000 to a campaign to ban muslims from buses in the UK.

I'm confused now. That's just a series of highly unlikely lies without even a brief acquaintanceship with the truth. You really haven't understood anything I've said, have you?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:44 pm

Noted hyperloop supporter and public transport opponent Octavious had a meeting with Tommy Robinson this week where he agreed to donate £1,000 to a campaign to ban muslims from buses in the UK.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:43 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:36 pm
So what you're saying in a nutshell is, because the Tories failed to recognise that a Corbyn led Socialist government would be clearly superior to their own, that they are liars?

That is not what I am saying. David Cameron is a liar because the things he said were demonstrably lies. They were not true. I cannot believe you do not understand what "lie" and "truth" mean.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:36 pm
To quote from the Labour Party website

The Labour Party was formed out of the trade union movement to give working people their own political voice. The link from the workplace to the party through the affiliated trade unions is what makes it unique to this day. This link is more important than ever as we work together to tackle the urgent problems we face as a country, from stagnating wages to failing public services.
In what universe are the Labour Party leadership not having meetings with the unions? Seriously? I'd be astounded. It'd be like the Tories refusing to meet with business leaders.

The meeting specifically mentioned by David Cameron was a fiction, a lie, an untruth, and this matters in the course of the overall narrative. If he was a sincere politician with a sherd of integrity, who had a serious point to make, why would he have to make up a series of lies (as he did, demonstrably) to make his point?

by **Octavious** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:36 pm

So what you're saying in a nutshell is, because the Tories failed to recognise that a Corbyn led Socialist government would be clearly superior to their own, that they are liars?

I refer you to Obiwan Kenobe's "from a certain point of view" speech in the Empire Strikes Back.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 am
Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the history of post-war UK politics knows that the Tory party are the class enemy of "ordinary hard-working people",

This is not truth. This is opinion.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 am
Corbyn and McDonnell's fictional meeting with "the unions",

To quote from the Labour Party website

The Labour Party was formed out of the trade union movement to give working people their own political voice. The link from the workplace to the party through the affiliated trade unions is what makes it unique to this day. This link is more important than ever as we work together to tackle the urgent problems we face as a country, from stagnating wages to failing public services.

In what universe are the Labour Party leadership not having meetings with the unions? Seriously? I'd be astounded. It'd be like the Tories refusing to meet with business leaders.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 am
"Octavious had a meeting with Nick Clegg this week, during which he praised Donald Trump's campaign strategy (while not agreeing with all of Trump's policies), defended Elon Musk, and encouraged Clegg to use his political influence to dismantle Britain's railway network."

I'd be delighted that you think I move in such circles. As far as the content of the fictional meeting, I'd say that the defending Musk comment goes against the broader truth of my opinion of Musk, but I'd be more than happy to have an opportunity to discuss the future of the rail network and have no problem whatsoever with the idea that I think Trump's campaign was very effective... because it was.

Seriously, mate... compared to most of the stuff you come out with that's pretty accurate

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:14 pm

The further problem is that if the original lie goes unchallenged, it can be cited later on as though it had been fact.

So later on I could make another claim:

"Octavious, who has been lobbying senior Lib Dems to slash rail funding and previously held meetings with Nick Clegg on the issue, had a meeting last week with Elon Musk, where they promised to replace the East and West Coast main lines with Musk's hyperloop technology with first class seating reserved for whites only."

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:37 am

To deconstruct this in case anyone is even interested:

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 am
"Octavious had a meeting with Nick Clegg this week, during which he praised Donald Trump's campaign strategy (while not agreeing with all of Trump's policies), defended Elon Musk, and encouraged Clegg to use his political influence to dismantle Britain's railway network."

1. Octavious has previously declared his admiration and support for Nick Clegg; he has presumably *not* met Nick Clegg in person in the past week, *but* Nick Clegg is probably the kind of person that Octavious would happily have a friendly chat with. Therefore, by Octavian logic, it is perfectly okay for me to claim they had a meeting and present this as the truth.

2. Octavious has, in this thread, and other recent threads in the politics forum, defended Donald Trump's methods and even expressed what might be interpreted as praise for their effectiveness. He has pointed out that he is not necessarily a supporter of all of Trump's policy goals, (but I have addressed this in the brackets). Therefore since part 1 of the lie may be reasonably presented as truth by Octavian logic, it is similarly reasonable that during his fictitious meeting with Nick Clegg, if the topic of Donald Trump came up, he would make those remarks.

3. Octavious has defended Elon Musk from the harsher barbs of our criticism in this thread, so if (2) is reasonable to present as a version of the truth, so is the Musk part.

4. It's going back a bit further, but Octavious has previously stated that passenger-carrying railways should not exist in the UK. Therefore by Octavian logic we can reasonably suggest Octavious would advocate for such a policy if his meeting with Nick Clegg got onto the topic of public transport, and since we are allowed to claim that Octavious and Nick Clegg had a meeting, the final part of the assertion is also acceptable.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:32 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:52 pm
Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more compassionate to the Calais migrants than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more eager to reach a new agreement with Argentina over the Falklands than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have given the unions far more rights than the Tories? That is the general direction of the truth, and a truth I would have thought you'd support

I can't, in all honesty, remember exactly what comments I defended and what I didn't. If you can find our conversation that would be useful. I recall defending a couple of errors Cameron had made in his statements that weren't technically true, but we're in keeping with the wider truth.

It goes without saying that the entire point of a shadow government is to eventually become the actual government with the power to attempt to do everything they claim to want to do, so quite what your point is there I have no idea.

What is my point? Ok let me try to explain to you.

First of all, the three lies told by Cameron were working up to the line "The only people they never stand up for are the British people and hardworking taxpayers." (which I included in the quote).

Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the history of post-war UK politics knows that the Tory party are the class enemy of "ordinary hard-working people", and their track record at the time of Cameron's words, in overseeing the longest sustained decline in real wages in the UK since records began was proof of that. If we return to Cameron's first assertion about Corbyn and McDonnell's fictional meeting with "the unions", there is a logical incompatibility with his conclusion. The only way that his conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn "never stood up for hard-working people" could be true is if none of the 7+ million people who are represented by trade unions are British working people.

The lies Cameron told were part of a narrative leading up to a conclusion which was a lie.

My broader, simpler point is that purposeful lying by policymakers is bad.

If we simply accept lies because they vaguely refer to elements of things which could be true, even though the broader narrative is a lie, then we empower lying by our leaders and we declare that the truth does not matter. That makes bigger lies easier and easier to get away with.

That is what you are comfortable with, apparently.

What if I said this:

"Octavious had a meeting with Nick Clegg this week, during which he praised Donald Trump's campaign strategy (while not agreeing with all of Trump's policies), defended Elon Musk, and encouraged Clegg to use his political influence to dismantle Britain's railway network."

That's in keeping with the wider truth based on your previous statements, so that's fine, isn't it?

by **Octavious** » Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:52 pm

Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more compassionate to the Calais migrants than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have been significantly more eager to reach a new agreement with Argentina over the Falklands than the Tories? Do you believe that a Corbyn government would have given the unions far more rights than the Tories? That is the general direction of the truth, and a truth I would have thought you'd support

I can't, in all honesty, remember exactly what comments I defended and what I didn't. If you can find our conversation that would be useful. I recall defending a couple of errors Cameron had made in his statements that weren't technically true, but we're in keeping with the wider truth.

It goes without saying that the entire point of a shadow government is to eventually become the actual government with the power to attempt to do everything they claim to want to do, so quite what your point is there I have no idea.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sat Jan 25, 2025 2:19 pm

Alright, let's re-live our slightly younger days and go back to the original issue.

The exchange in question was at Prime Minister's Questions in January 2016.

Jeremy Corbyn, then Labour leader, asked a question to David Cameron about whether the UK ought to be standing up to Google over claims Google was evading paying its fair level of UK tax.

Pointing at Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, Cameron's facetious reply was as follows:

"The idea that those two right honourable gentlemen would stand up to anyone in this regard is laughable. Look at their record over the last week. They met with the unions and gave them flying pickets. They met with the Argentinians, they gave them the Falkland Islands. They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais, they said they could all come to Britain. The only people they never stand up for are the British people and hardworking taxpayers."

Three claims in one short statement, all of them false, most of it outright lies.

There had been no specific meetings that week between Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and any trade unions on the specific issue of flying pickets. This was a pure invention on Cameron's part.

Turning to the issue of Calais, there there was a grain of truth among the lies, which was that during that week Corbyn had visited Calais and inspected conditions at a migrant camp. The only "meeting" that had not been invented by David Cameron's speech-writers. Corbyn had expressed concern about the squalid conditions at the camp and said that the UK Government should be raising the issue urgently with the EU, as current EU asylum rules were clearly not working. He particularly suggested that a small number of the migrants, who were direct family members of UK nationals, should have their claims processed more quickly.

Notwithstanding the flippant use of the phase "bunch of migrants" being derogatory and unpleasant, revealing what a nasty character David Cameron could be, the fact was that at no point had Jeremy Corbyn made a promise that all of the migrants currently encamped at Calais "could all come to Britain".

This was a lie. David Cameron was a liar, telling lies to score cheap political points.

You defended his lies, using the phrase I have mentioned in this thread. But it was not in the general direction of the truth. It was, as you put it just now, very much against the direction of truth.

Turning to the Falklands, another lie. Corbyn and McDonnell did not have any meetings with any representatives of Mauricio Macri's right-wing Argentinian government, either that week or in any of the preceding weeks. The idea that such talks had taken place was a fiction. As the shadow government, they clearly had no power to "give away the Falkland Islands" either. Cameron's comments were a desperately inaccurate misrepresentation of a much more nuanced personal viewpoint that Jeremy Corbyn had articulated some time earlier, which was that the UK and Argentina ought to enter into meaningful talks to end the trade boycott between the Falklands and most of South America.

The idea that Corby or McDonnell had made any kind of promise to unconditionally hand the Falklands back to Argentina was a lie.

Again, you defended Cameron, using the phrase I have mentioned in this thread.

I stand by my characterisation of your position.

Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

Re: Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025