Quite right & we still let them flaunt their simplicity as nothing but managers of the mundane & redundant. 6000-yrs & we can't get simple management right? That we allow them any pillar & especially now get away with calling themselves "Lawmakers", these are our own crimes & self-destruction. We don't need a million laws to live & only need a single law against detriment. They aren't special, they are thieves & liars & should be treated as such, just as they treat their public...ACCOUNTABILITY.
Overall, though I may personnally have the beliefs of the opposition, I think the proposition had the strongest, most consistent and relevant arguments.
Overall, though I may personnally have the beliefs of the opposition, I think the proposition had the strongest, most consistent and relevant arguments.
CONT. Brendan O'neill appeared to suggest that politicans had no interest in the views of the public, and instead arrogantly used methods such as 'nudge tactics' to gain popularity amongst the public.
CONT. He continued to state that our psycological flaws as a race mean that there are many inconsistencies with our historically tribal, over defined political system in relation to our ever-changing, undefined political instincts suggesting that parties have an argument to manipulate and simplify the views of the public to make voting for them more comprehensible.
After listening to points made by the floor and the two secondary speakers, I think both sides of the panel have accepted that politicans have become disengaged with the public and that methods of gathering information have become more personal. However, despite the scepticism of (opposition secondary speaker) Brendan O'neill, the proposition secondary speaker, Matt Grist believes that 'nudge tactics' are not nearly as influential in shaping behaviour as what most people think.
CONT. Richard said that he believed this was the third time in modern history that politicians had felt disengaged with the public and spent time to address the lack of enthusiasm amongst the public.
CONT. Richard also joins the the (primary proposition) speaker in relevance to the public being sinical of politicians, he believes in order for governments to be realistically productive and positively risk taking, the public must recognize that mistakes are an invetabilty. This is likely to encourage governments to be more honest with the publice meaning they are less prone to manipulating or hiding the truth.
Richard Wilson, the opposition primary speaker, states that there are three factors which demonstrate and determine how the public now view governments and politics as a whole; the use of the Internet, social influences and challenges and the decline of membership in the last 20 years.
CONT. According to Gerry, there is nothing wrong with engaging with the electorate in a more smarter way and new enticement methods do not matter providing parties go about them democratically. However, he says that this can be arduous because politicians find it difficult to relate to an ever distant public.
The primary proposition speaker, Gerry Stocker argues that we as a society should learn lessons from social sciences in the past and accept a new form of potical persuasion instead of being sceptical. He continues to say that politicans have realised that the public may frequently misunderstand risks and are influenced by social pressures and moral beliefs, Gerry believes we should learn from this and make advertisements based on how people really make decisions.
CONT. Do we need to refresh our views of how to engage the majority in decision-making beyond ideological choices? How can we best restore the electorate to their rightful place as subjects and masters of their democratically elected representatives?"*
But The Debate asks *"should the public be flattered by such close scrutiny of our behaviour? Is there a danger of viewing the ‘public’ as lab rats in need of nudging to entice us to make the right choices, incentivised to engage more pro-socially and vote for the right parties? Isn’t this view of the public patronising or manipulative? Or is such scepticism old-fashioned?
CONT. Politics has incorporated a new aspect of policymaking, by which the publics decision and behaviour can be more accurately judged to produce the most effective slogans, posters and general party advertisement.
CONT. Intense psychological experimentation has meant that politicans embrace more seductive methods to manipulate the public into thinking that their party is better suited to an individuals' beliefs.
The debate appeared to be a reflection on Politicians introducing a new form of more personnal politics and persuasion to return trust to the electorate. In recent years, parties from all corners of the political spectrum have used exploratoins in behavioural sciences to best please the ever-changing demands of 21st century voters.
This has been flagged as spam show
nice video thanks for sharing very interesting .. god bless
neilengen 3 months ago
Quite right & we still let them flaunt their simplicity as nothing but managers of the mundane & redundant. 6000-yrs & we can't get simple management right? That we allow them any pillar & especially now get away with calling themselves "Lawmakers", these are our own crimes & self-destruction. We don't need a million laws to live & only need a single law against detriment. They aren't special, they are thieves & liars & should be treated as such, just as they treat their public...ACCOUNTABILITY.
Iggyocracy 1 year ago
*** the following is a personal conclusion of the debate, please start from the first (oldest) comment so the conlcusion makes sense***
MrItherandom 1 year ago
Overall, though I may personnally have the beliefs of the opposition, I think the proposition had the strongest, most consistent and relevant arguments.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
Overall, though I may personnally have the beliefs of the opposition, I think the proposition had the strongest, most consistent and relevant arguments.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. Brendan O'neill appeared to suggest that politicans had no interest in the views of the public, and instead arrogantly used methods such as 'nudge tactics' to gain popularity amongst the public.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. He continued to state that our psycological flaws as a race mean that there are many inconsistencies with our historically tribal, over defined political system in relation to our ever-changing, undefined political instincts suggesting that parties have an argument to manipulate and simplify the views of the public to make voting for them more comprehensible.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
After listening to points made by the floor and the two secondary speakers, I think both sides of the panel have accepted that politicans have become disengaged with the public and that methods of gathering information have become more personal. However, despite the scepticism of (opposition secondary speaker) Brendan O'neill, the proposition secondary speaker, Matt Grist believes that 'nudge tactics' are not nearly as influential in shaping behaviour as what most people think.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. Richard said that he believed this was the third time in modern history that politicians had felt disengaged with the public and spent time to address the lack of enthusiasm amongst the public.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. Richard also joins the the (primary proposition) speaker in relevance to the public being sinical of politicians, he believes in order for governments to be realistically productive and positively risk taking, the public must recognize that mistakes are an invetabilty. This is likely to encourage governments to be more honest with the publice meaning they are less prone to manipulating or hiding the truth.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
Richard Wilson, the opposition primary speaker, states that there are three factors which demonstrate and determine how the public now view governments and politics as a whole; the use of the Internet, social influences and challenges and the decline of membership in the last 20 years.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. According to Gerry, there is nothing wrong with engaging with the electorate in a more smarter way and new enticement methods do not matter providing parties go about them democratically. However, he says that this can be arduous because politicians find it difficult to relate to an ever distant public.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
The primary proposition speaker, Gerry Stocker argues that we as a society should learn lessons from social sciences in the past and accept a new form of potical persuasion instead of being sceptical. He continues to say that politicans have realised that the public may frequently misunderstand risks and are influenced by social pressures and moral beliefs, Gerry believes we should learn from this and make advertisements based on how people really make decisions.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. Do we need to refresh our views of how to engage the majority in decision-making beyond ideological choices? How can we best restore the electorate to their rightful place as subjects and masters of their democratically elected representatives?"*
MrItherandom 1 year ago
But The Debate asks *"should the public be flattered by such close scrutiny of our behaviour? Is there a danger of viewing the ‘public’ as lab rats in need of nudging to entice us to make the right choices, incentivised to engage more pro-socially and vote for the right parties? Isn’t this view of the public patronising or manipulative? Or is such scepticism old-fashioned?
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. Politics has incorporated a new aspect of policymaking, by which the publics decision and behaviour can be more accurately judged to produce the most effective slogans, posters and general party advertisement.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
CONT. Intense psychological experimentation has meant that politicans embrace more seductive methods to manipulate the public into thinking that their party is better suited to an individuals' beliefs.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
The debate appeared to be a reflection on Politicians introducing a new form of more personnal politics and persuasion to return trust to the electorate. In recent years, parties from all corners of the political spectrum have used exploratoins in behavioural sciences to best please the ever-changing demands of 21st century voters.
MrItherandom 1 year ago
Brendan O'Neill's speech hits the nail on the head
CeriDingle 1 year ago