Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:34 am

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:06 pm
None of this is to say that I accept the original premise, that higher tax kills aspiration. People are motivated by more than just cash.
Just out of interest, how did you come up with 75%? If punitive tax doesn't kill aspiration why stop there? Why not 85% or 95% or even 100%?

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:53 am

75% was a nice round number that took the overall picture into "profit" vs. the status quo.

With a high non-100% number there is still a financial reward for increasing income. At 100% this is not the case. Between 0% and 100% it's a sliding scale of how much financial reward you get. Apparently it's painstakingly obvious to everyone else that the aspiration-death tipping-point is somewhere between 40% (aspiration alive and well) and 75% (aspiration would be dead). For me it's nowhere near as clear.

In theory you could quite easily come up with a logarithmic function that never reaches 100% tax, so there's always a financial incentive for the absolute mercenaries.

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Conor » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:01 am

I don't think 75% is such a crazy marginal tax rate, but 50k is too early for it to kick in - in some places it's barely above the median income. The £20,000 threshold from the 70s translates into around £150k today. And while people do respond to more than financial incentive, they are disproportionately disincentivized by feeling unfairly treated.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:02 pm

If Amazon ,Starbucks etc paid all the tax that they morally should , then maybe we don't need to tax the wealthy so much...maybe 49%
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:58 pm

What do you think of a woman losing her job for saying that people can't change their biological sex?

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley » Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:44 am

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:53 am
75% was a nice round number that took the overall picture into "profit" vs. the status quo.
What about National Insurance? Are you abolishing it or keeping it the same as it is now?

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:26 am

Paul Worsley wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:44 am
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:53 am
75% was a nice round number that took the overall picture into "profit" vs. the status quo.
What about National Insurance? Are you abolishing it or keeping it the same as it is now?
Same as it is now for all other taxes, in the worked example above.

Realistically I'd try to get rid of it by hiking some more rich people taxes - corporation tax, inheritance tax, second home rental tax.. stuff like that.

However, it now seems more remote a possibility than ever that I will get the chance to impose sweeping tax reforms in my life. So it's a purely academic exercise.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:27 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:58 pm
What do you think of a woman losing her job for saying that people can't change their biological sex?
Why have both you and JK Rowling chosen to differentiate between a woman losing her job for that and a man (or other gender)? Why didn't you say "a person losing their job"?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:49 am

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:27 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:58 pm
What do you think of a woman losing her job for saying that people can't change their biological sex?
Why have both you and JK Rowling chosen to differentiate between a woman losing her job for that and a man (or other gender)? Why didn't you say "a person losing their job"?
I lazily copied the headline. I can't speak for JK Rowling though. But I didn't name any cats after the products of her twisted mind.

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley » Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:26 am

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:46 pm
- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury
Don't do any interviews with Nick Ferrari.

Someone earning £100K pa would be pay a whopping £15K extra under your proposed tax regime.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:09 am

Paul Worsley wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:44 am
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:53 am
75% was a nice round number that took the overall picture into "profit" vs. the status quo.
What about National Insurance? Are you abolishing it or keeping it the same as it is now?
I know this is a bit of an aside, but having an extra thing called National Insurance is just an added complication. Functionally it's no different from just being part of income tax so they might as well incorporate it in. Nothing needs to materially change. It's completely pointless having a separate name for it as far as I can see.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:10 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:26 am
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:46 pm
- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury
Don't do any interviews with Nick Ferrari.

Someone earning £100K pa would be pay a whopping £15K extra under your proposed tax regime.
You're quite right (although I think its £11k more). The tipping point is about 69k.
What I should've said that on the whole, those earning 50-100k will be paying less.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:16 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:09 am
Paul Worsley wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:44 am
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:53 am
75% was a nice round number that took the overall picture into "profit" vs. the status quo.
What about National Insurance? Are you abolishing it or keeping it the same as it is now?
I know this is a bit of an aside, but having an extra thing called National Insurance is just an added complication. Functionally it's no different from just being part of income tax so they might as well incorporate it in. Nothing needs to materially change. It's completely pointless having a separate name for it as far as I can see.
Except for the invisible bit that is Employers' NI. People would riot if they knew how much tax they were actually paying.
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:06 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:16 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:09 am
Paul Worsley wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:44 am


What about National Insurance? Are you abolishing it or keeping it the same as it is now?
I know this is a bit of an aside, but having an extra thing called National Insurance is just an added complication. Functionally it's no different from just being part of income tax so they might as well incorporate it in. Nothing needs to materially change. It's completely pointless having a separate name for it as far as I can see.
Except for the invisible bit that is Employers' NI. People would riot if they knew how much tax they were actually paying.
Sure, but that is a completely different thing from employee's NI really. They could still get rid of that.

And even then, I'm not sure how much of a distinction there is to be made between what the employee and the employer pays. If an employer is hiring someone, they might say "Given the contribution they will make to the company, paying more than £x a year for them would not be worthwhile." So they can pay them £x a year if there was no employer contribution, or if they have to make the NI contribution, they can pay them £x minus this contribution. It's basically money that isn't available for buying bread whether it comes directly from the employer or passes through the employee first.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:18 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:06 pm
Fiona T wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:16 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:09 am


I know this is a bit of an aside, but having an extra thing called National Insurance is just an added complication. Functionally it's no different from just being part of income tax so they might as well incorporate it in. Nothing needs to materially change. It's completely pointless having a separate name for it as far as I can see.
Except for the invisible bit that is Employers' NI. People would riot if they knew how much tax they were actually paying.
Sure, but that is a completely different thing from employee's NI really. They could still get rid of that.

And even then, I'm not sure how much of a distinction there is to be made between what the employee and the employer pays. If an employer is hiring someone, they might say "Given the contribution they will make to the company, paying more than £x a year for them would not be worthwhile." So they can pay them £x a year if there was no employer contribution, or if they have to make the NI contribution, they can pay them £x minus this contribution. It's basically money that isn't available for buying bread whether it comes directly from the employer or passes through the employee first.
It's all part of PAYE tax. Yep - you'd abolish both, pay people the extra 13% or whatever it is then take it off them in tax. Which is effectively what's happening - it's a tax on your wages that you don't see because your employer pays it.
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Paul Worsley » Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:37 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:10 pm
You're quite right (although I think its £11k more). The tipping point is about 69k.
What I should've said that on the whole, those earning 50-100k will be paying less.
The "tipping point" is 64K by my calculations*. It would be dishonest to suggest that anyone earning 50-100K would be paying less, because anyone earning 64K+ would be paying more, and anyone earning £100K and above would be getting skinned.


* I think you may be forgetting to add on the 3K tax on earnings between 20K and 50K. I used the moneysavirngexpert.com income tax calculator to work out current tax burdens.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:31 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:49 am
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:27 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:58 pm
What do you think of a woman losing her job for saying that people can't change their biological sex?
Why have both you and JK Rowling chosen to differentiate between a woman losing her job for that and a man (or other gender)? Why didn't you say "a person losing their job"?
I lazily copied the headline. I can't speak for JK Rowling though. But I didn't name any cats after the products of her twisted mind.
Anyway, returning to this - what do you think you can glean from someone referring to her as a woman rather than a person? It doesn't seem obvious to me that it would imply any particular viewpoint on the subject.

I'm not exactly sure what Maya Forstater exactly put in these tweets:
Maya Forstater, 45, did not have her contract renewed after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans to let people declare their own gender.
And that obviously must have some relevance.

But basically people (almost all people anyway, and let's leave aside intersex people for now because that's not this is really about) are born biologically male or biologically female. It's in your genes and you can't change that. But then you also have this more vague term "gender" that people use, often interchangably, but not always, with sex. Some people say they have been born in the wrong body so self-identify as the other gender from their biological sex. It's unclear where this comes from, and this is a question for science, rather than social justice warriors, for want of a better term.

But then the question is: should government documents record someone's biological sex or their self-declared gender (or neither or both)? I would argue that if you're going down the self-declared route, then really I'd go further and ask what is the point in it being officially recorded at all. No-one in any official capacity really needs to know in the same way that they don't need to know if you're homosexual, heterosexual or something else. So in summary:

Do official organisations need to know your biological sex? Arguably so, arguably not.
Do official organisations need to know your self-declared gender? I would say not. I don't see why they would.

In any case, it's certainly reasonable to question any of this, but it seems that lunatics these days have made some discussions off limits, and label people as bigots for wanting to have these discussions.

There's other stuff I could say, but I'll leave it for now and see if any discussion develops.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:19 pm


Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:02 pm

That is interesting but I'm not sure how much it changes. It starts off by saying that people with XX or XY chromosomes can still end up intersex, but clearly most people don't and that's not what this is about anyway.

Then it talks about "male" and "female" brains and how you can't make a clear distinction. But if anything that would undermine the transgender argument. If someone with male sexual characteristics said that they felt female, what does it mean to feel female anyway? You can't make a clear distinction between male and female brains personalities anyway as the article makes clear. So maybe that's part of the problem - that people have this set idea of what male and female is supposed to mean in terms of personality and behaviour.

I'm presenting one side of this, but this is because I do find it a little bit disturbing that someone has lost their job over this (although the exact details are unclear), and people have also turned on JK Rowling. I think sensible discussion can be had.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:02 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:02 pm
That is interesting but I'm not sure how much it changes. It starts off by saying that people with XX or XY chromosomes can still end up intersex, but clearly most people don't and that's not what this is about anyway.

Then it talks about "male" and "female" brains and how you can't make a clear distinction. But if anything that would undermine the transgender argument. If someone with male sexual characteristics said that they felt female, what does it mean to feel female anyway? You can't make a clear distinction between male and female brains personalities anyway as the article makes clear. So maybe that's part of the problem - that people have this set idea of what male and female is supposed to mean in terms of personality and behaviour.

I'm presenting one side of this, but this is because I do find it a little bit disturbing that someone has lost their job over this (although the exact details are unclear), and people have also turned on JK Rowling. I think sensible discussion can be had.
I think we can accept that she is factually wrong... compare her quotes below to the facts laid out in Mark's link:
My belief … is that sex is a biological fact, and is immutable. There are two sexes, male and female. Men and boys are male. Women and girls are female. It is impossible to change sex.
The next question is whether it's acceptable for her to go about referring to people's sex in a way that dispenses with the facts, just because it's her view. I think the answer is no - it makes her a total prick. But being a total prick isn't against the law (which we know because you're not in prison). So should this be a matter for the law?

There are some other questions here...

1. Should a company be able to sack someone because they hold despicable/offensive views on any "protected characteristic"?
2. Should a company be able to sack someone because they express such views on social media (assuming that this is in violation of the terms of their employment because it would bring the company into disrepute)?
3. Should a company be able to non-renew a fixed term contract because of either of the above?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:12 am

My understanding is that your terms and conditions of your contract which you sign should contain the relevant information.
Then it's your choice to sign or not.
I know Ts and C's are open to abuse by employers , just recently with Roger Ailes at Fox News treating women like meat because of the NDA that all employees must sign.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2182
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:11 pm

If the conversation were about race I don't think we'd be discussing this. Would an employee be sacked for racist comments over their social medias? Yes, probably, they would. It is acceptable from a free speech standpoint? That's another argument altogether. Where does free speech end and hate speech begin? I'm not sure. Is there a question of consistency? Absolutely, and if you're being sacked for racism then you need to be sacked for "it is impossible to change sex". I believe the law has been interpreted by case law (Daley vs Twitter 2012) that a social media public post is considered to be a public statement and therefore liable under the appropriate legislation for public statements - harassment, libel, et al.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:46 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:11 pm
If the conversation were about race I don't think we'd be discussing this. Would an employee be sacked for racist comments over their social medias? Yes, probably, they would. It is acceptable from a free speech standpoint? That's another argument altogether. Where does free speech end and hate speech begin? I'm not sure. Is there a question of consistency? Absolutely, and if you're being sacked for racism then you need to be sacked for "it is impossible to change sex". I believe the law has been interpreted by case law (Daley vs Twitter 2012) that a social media public post is considered to be a public statement and therefore liable under the appropriate legislation for public statements - harassment, libel, et al.
Race is a completely different issue, unless you're talking about people changing race.

But it is completely different though isn't it? Your parents, your skin colour - these are things you are born with and are generally accepted as things you can't change. So discriminating against someone on this basis is clearly unacceptable.

And anyway, making the claim that it is impossible to change sex isn't specifically discriminating against people - it's just making a truth claim. Why is this something that everyone has to agree with now? Who decides what things just have to be accepted and what things don't? And to be honest, Rhys, by saying what you've said without any reasoning or argument suggests that you're just blindly going along with the "right on" opinion whatever it happens to be.
Absolutely, and if you're being sacked for racism then you need to be sacked for "it is impossible to change sex".
Why? And how are we defining sex? You're not even talking about gender now - that incredibly vague concept that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Are you saying someone should be sacked for how they would define the word "sex"? That's what this boils down to really. It's possible that the person in question said some more offensive things generally in her tweets, but to suggest that someone should be sacked simply for saying it's impossible to change sex is crazy, Rhys.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2182
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:37 pm

Feminism 101: there is a difference between sex and gender. To suggest that sex cannot be changed is blindingly nonsense, otherwise a sex change wouldn't be a thing. Gender is claimed to be a social construct, making a comment about roles in society rather than about biology.

Sex changes prove it's downright nonsense to say sex cannot be changed and is simply a discriminating statement.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:17 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:37 pm
Feminism 101: there is a difference between sex and gender.
Why feminism, and who's disagreeing? But what would you say the difference is?
To suggest that sex cannot be changed is blindingly nonsense, otherwise a sex change wouldn't be a thing.
Some people call it gender reassignment surgery.
Gender is claimed to be a social construct, making a comment about roles in society rather than about biology.
OK, but does a cosmetic construction of a penis or vagina count as a real biological one? What are you saying defines sex exactly? Was this guy a tiger?

Even if you would define it so that you can change sex through cosmetic changes, there are certain underlying biological traits that do not change when you do this. Would you have a word or words to describe these differences between people? It would make sense to.
Sex changes prove it's downright nonsense to say sex cannot be changed and is simply a discriminating statement.
You've not made a convincing case for either claim.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:13 am

Have you literally ever done any reading or research into this topic or are you just wanking yourself off on the proposition of a big fun C4C debate like a Braintree Ben Shapiro? I think I know which one it is. more liek gammon chipper lolzzz!!

- is 'not renewing a contract' synonymous with 'sacking' someone? i'd have thought the latter was more of an active termination and the former more of a passive one.
- if you become aware of an employee actively abusing people online for their gender identity - which you've conveniently left out of your posts - how can you continue to employ them? you're setting yourself up for a very, very messy situation if you then employ someone who is trans or non-binary. her going 'oh i wouldn't misgender someone at work!' doesn't really fly when she's posted tweet after tweet aggressively misgendering and mocking someone online. (not convinced that a person who posts about how preferred pronouns are 'like Rohypnol' is someone who I'd trust to keep their shit to themselves at work tbh.)

it's worth mentioning that the UK press are exceptionally poor at covering trans issues - i took a practice NCTJ exam on ethics and it described 'transsexual' as a 'sexual orientation', which is frighteningly wrong. The Star ran a story about Ian Huntley identifying as trans so that he could get into a women's prison - this was then repeated in national newspapers even after they had run a correction admitting it was false. etc etc

ultimately tho... dunno why any of this affects you in any way or why you need to be 'convinced'. live your life Gev. it's Christmas. go outside. have a drink. have a cuddle with an animal. stop posting about shit you are uninformed on and start reading/listening. want links? i might share some if i feel like you're engaging in the topic in good faith rather than invoking glinner-esque 'identifying as a tiger' shite (old man shouting at clouds, like where to even begin). merry xmas xoxo
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:36 am

I don't think you've been following the thread. I mentioned ages ago that I didn't know exactly what went into the tweets, but this has clearly become a much more general discussion since then. It's not just about that specific case.

But yeah, I'll have a look at the report.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:54 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:13 am
Have you literally ever done any reading or research into this topic or are you just wanking yourself off on the proposition of a big fun C4C debate like a Braintree Ben Shapiro? I think I know which one it is. more liek gammon chipper lolzzz!!

- is 'not renewing a contract' synonymous with 'sacking' someone? i'd have thought the latter was more of an active termination and the former more of a passive one.
- if you become aware of an employee actively abusing people online for their gender identity - which you've conveniently left out of your posts - how can you continue to employ them? you're setting yourself up for a very, very messy situation if you then employ someone who is trans or non-binary. her going 'oh i wouldn't misgender someone at work!' doesn't really fly when she's posted tweet after tweet aggressively misgendering and mocking someone online. (not convinced that a person who posts about how preferred pronouns are 'like Rohypnol' is someone who I'd trust to keep their shit to themselves at work tbh.)

it's worth mentioning that the UK press are exceptionally poor at covering trans issues - i took a practice NCTJ exam on ethics and it described 'transsexual' as a 'sexual orientation', which is frighteningly wrong. The Star ran a story about Ian Huntley identifying as trans so that he could get into a women's prison - this was then repeated in national newspapers even after they had run a correction admitting it was false. etc etc

ultimately tho... dunno why any of this affects you in any way or why you need to be 'convinced'. live your life Gev. it's Christmas. go outside. have a drink. have a cuddle with an animal. stop posting about shit you are uninformed on and start reading/listening. want links? i might share some if i feel like you're engaging in the topic in good faith rather than invoking glinner-esque 'identifying as a tiger' shite (old man shouting at clouds, like where to even begin). merry xmas xoxo
This is a really annoying post. You are clearly more knowledgeable about the case at hand than anyone else in the debate and could've been helpful at picking up on factual errors, or linking source material which I doubt anyone else had seen, without resorting to mockery and insult which you must surely see will read as arrogant. This is not Twitter. This is not a war. People are here to learn, to debate, to highlight logical errors in others' thinking, and to crystallise their own positions. You've painted people into boxes of a view or agenda (by suggesting that he "conveniently" left stuff out) and it's you who lacks the good faith to assume that they might actually just think that, based on what they have read/heard/experienced.

If your end point is to use a discussion board to suggest that people don't discuss an issue or have an opinion, then it might be worth re-visiting your thought process.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:15 pm

Woah, the condescension. Anyway, Jono: it says a lot that you're claiming I'm the annoying or arrogant one in this discussion, as opposed to the person who started a 'debate' on a story they've not looked into properly and a subject that they've made it clear they know absolutely nothing about. A subject that I surely don't need to point out is highly charged and could do with a little care in being handled, given that this community is no stranger to trans and non-binary people.

Am I really so out of line to think that a *discussion board* would benefit from participants learning just a little bit about the topic at hand before demanding answers to entry-level questions that they could easily find online? Especially when there are people in our own community who have skin in this game. It's just asking people to take a bit of responsibility for their own baseline education on a topic - if this is a horrible concept to you, might I suggest rethinking your own thought process?

If I felt like questions were being asked from a point of view of actually wanting to learn, or came out of having read around the subject, rather than just try and argue for the sake of it/treat it all as a big abstract, I would have been happy to share resources. And I still will. But highly pointed comments about 'going along with the right on opinion' are a massive red flag, and I have no fucking patience for it. The stats vary but even these (low, compared to other sources I've seen) stats suggest 1 in 4 trans people have attempted suicide, media coverage is sensationalist hellfire for trans people (as noted in my previous post), and the small but vocal transphobic lobby online has targeted the Mermaids charity, which helps trans young people... so with all that going on, I'd rather spend my time chatting to people who want to learn from a place of good faith rather than being bombarded with a Hydra of questions asked just to try and win an argument on a derelict board.
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:28 pm

I'm trying to work out if this is a flouncy castle moment ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:29 pm

I always enter into these discussions as a blank slate and if people hold views that I find troubling, I'm happy to explain why I have arrived at my perspective, hammer out the points where we differ, and either agree to disagree or just move on. This goes for literally any subject matter, no matter how absurd/heinous the view. This forum in particular is a great place to engage in that kind of discourse because, even though the prevailing political views are fairly uniformly left/liberal, there's a fair bit of variety of lives/backgrounds and everyone's willing to justify positions that they probably think are self-evident, without the pre-entrenchment that comes with pretty much all public debate on highly-charged topics.

On this forum the baseline assumption has always been that no matter how obvious the perspective might be to you, it should be justifiable. If we lost that it would be a big shame.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:59 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:00 pm
I'd be interested to know how much different it is. Let's say we start a business together and make £100k profit in year 1. What would be the difference between us paying ourselves £12k salaries and taking £76k out in dividends, vs. paying ourselves £50k salaries? I'm not being lazy... genuinely can't get through the prose on the gov.uk site. I should know this.

Let's say they're exactly the same. Couldn't we sell the business with £76k of cash in the bank? Do we then pay capital gains? Whack it all into pensions? Buy securities? Entrepreneurial relief seems to mean that it will all get taxed at 10%?

Of course, under the Jono regime all of these loopholes would be closed, and I would still debate the premise that it would measurably stifle aspiration.

Started to try and work this out, but it's not particularly straightforward.

At £100K profit, you will also have been charging and passing on VAT at 20%.

Basically dividends are taxed at 7.5% at basic rate and 32.5% at higher rate. But your 76K will be subject to 20% Corporation tax (approx £13K - so becomes 63K), so is broadly equivalent to the Income tax and Employee NI that you'd pay as an employee. The first 2k of dividends are not (currently) taxed further. You would not be paying employer's NI on the dividend tax which is where the real advantage comes.

Yep, you could wind up and take any retained profits with ER - doing so prevents you starting a similar business for 2 years under phoenixing rules. I think ER is already on the radar for reform.

Pension contributions can be made before tax, as they can for any employee. There really isn't a difference there. Your pension will be taxed when you take it - no free money :)
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:19 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:13 am
Have you literally ever done any reading or research into this topic or are you just wanking yourself off on the proposition of a big fun C4C debate like a Braintree Ben Shapiro? I think I know which one it is. more liek gammon chipper lolzzz!!
Yeah, hilarious.
- is 'not renewing a contract' synonymous with 'sacking' someone? i'd have thought the latter was more of an active termination and the former more of a passive one.
Right, and it wasn't me that brought up the term "sacking" (just did a word search to make double sure), but in any case we're talking more about the rights and wrongs and what's reasonable to do and I'm not sure how much difference it makes.
Jennifer Steadman wrote:- if you become aware of an employee actively abusing people online for their gender identity - which you've conveniently left out of your posts - how can you continue to employ them? you're setting yourself up for a very, very messy situation if you then employ someone who is trans or non-binary. her going 'oh i wouldn't misgender someone at work!' doesn't really fly when she's posted tweet after tweet aggressively misgendering and mocking someone online. (not convinced that a person who posts about how preferred pronouns are 'like Rohypnol' is someone who I'd trust to keep their shit to themselves at work tbh.)
I've had a look through the report, and I'm not sure I could find evidence of her "actively abusing" people. The Rohypnol tweet was pretty weird I'll grant, but I'll quote it for context:
Pronouns are Rohypnol. They change our perception, lower our
defences, make us react differently, alter the reality in front of us
They’re meant to.
They numb us.
They confuse us.
They remove our instinctive safety responses.
They work.
It's a metaphor. Not a particularly good one I'd say, and using Rohypnol in your metaphor isn't particularly wise if you don't want to annoy people (like using analogies involving Hitler) but on the other hand, we at c4c should be able to view it dispassionately, and I don't think it's that offensive really.

There are a lot of tweets quoted in the report, but this one largely sums up her view I would say:
Of course in social situations I would treat any transwomen as an honourary female, and use whatever pronouns etc...I wouldn't try to hurt anyone's feelings but I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like "transwomen are women"
I don't think this is unreasonable. But it goes back to the debate about how we define "woman".
Jennifer Steadman wrote:ultimately tho... dunno why any of this affects you in any way or why you need to be 'convinced'. live your life Gev. it's Christmas. go outside. have a drink. have a cuddle with an animal. stop posting about shit you are uninformed on and start reading/listening. want links? i might share some if i feel like you're engaging in the topic in good faith rather than invoking glinner-esque 'identifying as a tiger' shite (old man shouting at clouds, like where to even begin). merry xmas xoxo
Just an interesting discussion point you know.
Jennifer Steadman wrote:Am I really so out of line to think that a *discussion board* would benefit from participants learning just a little bit about the topic at hand before demanding answers to entry-level questions that they could easily find online? Especially when there are people in our own community who have skin in this game. It's just asking people to take a bit of responsibility for their own baseline education on a topic - if this is a horrible concept to you, might I suggest rethinking your own thought process?
I don't think my posts have been particularly uninformed really. I don't believe that any extra knowledge that you may have puts you in a better position to answer the basic question of how we define "sex", and whether it's reasonable for someone to say that they consider biology to be a real thing when it comes to determining it. And there are other issues that we haven't discussed here like this:
In particular while it may be disappointing or upsetting to some male people who identify as women to be told that it is not appropriate for them to share female-only services and spaces, avoiding upsetting males is not a reason to compromise women’s safety, dignity and ability to control their own boundaries as to who gets to see and touch their bodies.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:54 am

I think the final arbiter must be with the courts.
What prison will you go if you commit a crime.
If you identify as a woman but were born male ?.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:19 pm

There are a lot of tweets quoted in the report, but this one largely sums up her view I would say:
Of course in social situations I would treat any transwomen as an honourary female, and use whatever pronouns etc...I wouldn't try to hurt anyone's feelings but I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like "transwomen are women"
I don't think this is unreasonable. But it goes back to the debate about how we define "woman".
I think it is unreasonable. Imagine if someone said "Of course in social situations I would treat any black person as a person,...I wouldn't try to hurt anyone's feelings but I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like "black people are people".

I agree with you that it comes down to how we define woman but until we have that debate we can't use words like "literal delusionals" because that suggests the debate is already settled.

In my opinion the science currently shows it's not settled and that the definition of woman (and man) needs to be more nuanced. Sure in the broad scenario most people are xx or xy (and whether or not that is even a useful way to define "woman" is part of the debate) but we can't ignore the fringe cases.

And even if we do ignore the fringe cases and focus on the xx xy dichotomy, you can't tell by looking at someone what their genes are. The conversation always leads back to gender performative expectations and whether or not trans people "pass".

Which brings us on to
In particular while it may be disappointing or upsetting to some male people who identify as women to be told that it is not appropriate for them to share female-only services and spaces, avoiding upsetting males is not a reason to compromise women’s safety, dignity and ability to control their own boundaries as to who gets to see and touch their bodies.
I understand the fear but I think it's misplaced. Are "female" only spaces any safer than general society? Isn't domestic abuse in lesbian relationships higher than the norm? Why isn't there the fear of sharing spaces with lesbians? The idea that we will get an epidemic of pervy men identifying as women just so they can see women getting changed or whatnot is just ridiculous fear mongering. A trans woman being forced to use the men's toilets is actually more likely to be harassed or harmed.

And again if a trans person "passes", they have and will continue to use female only spaces without incident whereas women who pass the likes of Maya's genetic criteria but who look kind of masculine or otherwise don't conform to gendered stereotypes can be on the receiving end of harassment.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:46 pm

Mark James wrote:
Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:19 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:19 pm

There are a lot of tweets quoted in the report, but this one largely sums up her view I would say:
Of course in social situations I would treat any transwomen as an honourary female, and use whatever pronouns etc...I wouldn't try to hurt anyone's feelings but I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like "transwomen are women"
I don't think this is unreasonable. But it goes back to the debate about how we define "woman".
I think it is unreasonable. Imagine if someone said "Of course in social situations I would treat any black person as a person,...I wouldn't try to hurt anyone's feelings but I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like "black people are people".

I agree with you that it comes down to how we define woman but until we have that debate we can't use words like "literal delusionals" because that suggests the debate is already settled.

In my opinion the science currently shows it's not settled and that the definition of woman (and man) needs to be more nuanced. Sure in the broad scenario most people are xx or xy (and whether or not that is even a useful way to define "woman" is part of the debate) but we can't ignore the fringe cases.

And even if we do ignore the fringe cases and focus on the xx xy dichotomy, you can't tell by looking at someone what their genes are. The conversation always leads back to gender performative expectations and whether or not trans people "pass".
OK, yes, the way she says it is probably unreasonable. But I suppose ultimately the science won't settle the debate in a manner that is satisfactory to everyone anyway. Ultimately words like "sex", "gender", "man" and "woman" are just human constructs, and as such they can be defined in any number of ways. In any case, I don't think a "sex change" or "gender reassignment surgery" mean anything from a biological point of view, as they are really just crude cosmetic operations.
Which brings us on to
In particular while it may be disappointing or upsetting to some male people who identify as women to be told that it is not appropriate for them to share female-only services and spaces, avoiding upsetting males is not a reason to compromise women’s safety, dignity and ability to control their own boundaries as to who gets to see and touch their bodies.
I understand the fear but I think it's misplaced. Are "female" only spaces any safer than general society? Isn't domestic abuse in lesbian relationships higher than the norm? Why isn't there the fear of sharing spaces with lesbians? The idea that we will get an epidemic of pervy men identifying as women just so they can see women getting changed or whatnot is just ridiculous fear mongering. A trans woman being forced to use the men's toilets is actually more likely to be harassed or harmed.

And again if a trans person "passes", they have and will continue to use female only spaces without incident whereas women who pass the likes of Maya's genetic criteria but who look kind of masculine or otherwise don't conform to gendered stereotypes can be on the receiving end of harassment.
You're probably largely right about this, but I thought it was interesting enough to bring up.

The question of trans-women in sport is another one and there was an interesting programme presented by Martina Navratilova on the subject quite recently, but it doesn't appear to be on the iPlayer any more.

And should people entering into sexual relationships with people have a right to know? Related case.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:59 pm

Mixed sex couples can now have civil partnerships. But didn't these things only exist in the first place because the Labour government of the time didn't go far enough to allow same sex marriages? If that happened earlier, would anyone even be calling for the existence of civil partnerships? So shouldn't we be getting rid of them now rather than extending them? How many other ways do we need for governments to be able to validate people's personal relationships? Personally I'd get rid of the legal concept of both marriage and civil partnerships.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:00 pm

Forcing someone to retire because they're too old is not something that belongs in the modern world. And I'm surprised that an intellectual organisation such as Oxford University would still practice this.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:16 pm

Nigel Farage has said that he'll be changing the name of the Brexit Party to the Reform Party, and one of his things post-Brexit will be campaigning for proportional representation. But, assuming this happens and Farage actually puts his weight behind it, how will this pan out? Part of Farage's "appeal" is the simplicity of his arguments and how he comes across as your regular bloke down the pub (I mean, he doesn't to me at all but go with it). And it is easy to argue for PR in the abstract by just pointing out the number of people who voted for each party and the number of seats they got. But one of the reasons the AV referendum failed was that people like David Cameron were allowed to get away with arguing that AV ballots were complicated and that the system itself was complicated and unfair. Your typical Nigel-Farage-worshipping bloke down the pub must love the simple ballot where you just put a cross in a box. Anything else and it starts getting too egg-heady. So how will Nigel Farage argue the case for proportional representation with a pint and a fag when people start questioning how the actual system would work? On the other hand, could he actually be the guy that electoral reform needs?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:34 pm

Going back to the trans debate, there's a BBC news article here about it and whether children can give informed consent to block puberty etc.

Obviously we can go round in circles talking about what it means to be a man or a woman, but it's interesting that the prevailing "liberal" view seems to be in conflict with itself. On the one hand, there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, no such thing as a "male brain" or a "female brain", and if men and women are more likely to end up in particular jobs, it's because of biases in society. But on the other hand, you can be born a body of the wrong sex.

I would certainly like to see more science on this matter, rather than it being settled in the court of Twitter, but ultimately I think wherever the science lands, having "gender reassignment surgery" is ultimately cosmetic surgery, and doesn't change who or what you really are anyway. For example, if by magic my body was suddenly turned into a woman's body overnight (as in, a proper fully functioning one, not a cosmetic approximation), what would I do? I've been male all my life and see myself as male, so does that mean I should want to have my body changed back again? No. I still think a normal female body would be preferable to a female body that has been butchered to resemble a male body.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:26 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:34 pm
Going back to the trans debate, there's a BBC news article here about it and whether children can give informed consent to block puberty etc.

Obviously we can go round in circles talking about what it means to be a man or a woman, but it's interesting that the prevailing "liberal" view seems to be in conflict with itself. On the one hand, there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, no such thing as a "male brain" or a "female brain", and if men and women are more likely to end up in particular jobs, it's because of biases in society. But on the other hand, you can be born a body of the wrong sex.

I would certainly like to see more science on this matter, rather than it being settled in the court of Twitter, but ultimately I think wherever the science lands, having "gender reassignment surgery" is ultimately cosmetic surgery, and doesn't change who or what you really are anyway. For example, if by magic my body was suddenly turned into a woman's body overnight (as in, a proper fully functioning one, not a cosmetic approximation), what would I do? I've been male all my life and see myself as male, so does that mean I should want to have my body changed back again? No. I still think a normal female body would be preferable to a female body that has been butchered to resemble a male body.
In relation to this a former trans patient is trying to sue the hospital that started his or her transition but she was under eighteen at the time so is using the ' I didn't know what I was doing ' approach.
Unfortunately I only half heard it on the BBC news this morning so can't give you too many details
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:06 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:26 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:34 pm
Going back to the trans debate, there's a BBC news article here about it and whether children can give informed consent to block puberty etc.
In relation to this a former trans patient is trying to sue the hospital that started his or her transition but she was under eighteen at the time so is using the ' I didn't know what I was doing ' approach.
Unfortunately I only half heard it on the BBC news this morning so can't give you too many details
It's probably the same case that I linked to above.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:16 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:34 pm
Going back to the trans debate, there's a BBC news article here about it and whether children can give informed consent to block puberty etc.

Obviously we can go round in circles talking about what it means to be a man or a woman, but it's interesting that the prevailing "liberal" view seems to be in conflict with itself. On the one hand, there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, no such thing as a "male brain" or a "female brain", and if men and women are more likely to end up in particular jobs, it's because of biases in society. But on the other hand, you can be born a body of the wrong sex.

I would certainly like to see more science on this matter, rather than it being settled in the court of Twitter, but ultimately I think wherever the science lands, having "gender reassignment surgery" is ultimately cosmetic surgery, and doesn't change who or what you really are anyway. For example, if by magic my body was suddenly turned into a woman's body overnight (as in, a proper fully functioning one, not a cosmetic approximation), what would I do? I've been male all my life and see myself as male, so does that mean I should want to have my body changed back again? No. I still think a normal female body would be preferable to a female body that has been butchered to resemble a male body.
I don't think any sensible person, liberal or otherwise, would argue that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women. In certain contexts, yes, but that's a huge strawman you've put up just to set fire to.

Also to use the phrase "butchered" is going to enrage people on the other side of the debate to you. I don't know anything about gender reassignment surgery, or any surgery for that matter. But if you actually want to have an informed debate with the people who disagree with you (and there are those people within this community), then using inflammatory language is doing yourself a disservice. Nobody will engage you because you are wearing the same badge as the absolute pondlife who just fear anyone not like themselves.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:29 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:16 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:34 pm
Going back to the trans debate, there's a BBC news article here about it and whether children can give informed consent to block puberty etc.

Obviously we can go round in circles talking about what it means to be a man or a woman, but it's interesting that the prevailing "liberal" view seems to be in conflict with itself. On the one hand, there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, no such thing as a "male brain" or a "female brain", and if men and women are more likely to end up in particular jobs, it's because of biases in society. But on the other hand, you can be born a body of the wrong sex.

I would certainly like to see more science on this matter, rather than it being settled in the court of Twitter, but ultimately I think wherever the science lands, having "gender reassignment surgery" is ultimately cosmetic surgery, and doesn't change who or what you really are anyway. For example, if by magic my body was suddenly turned into a woman's body overnight (as in, a proper fully functioning one, not a cosmetic approximation), what would I do? I've been male all my life and see myself as male, so does that mean I should want to have my body changed back again? No. I still think a normal female body would be preferable to a female body that has been butchered to resemble a male body.
I don't think any sensible person, liberal or otherwise, would argue that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women. In certain contexts, yes, but that's a huge strawman you've put up just to set fire to.

Also to use the phrase "butchered" is going to enrage people on the other side of the debate to you. I don't know anything about gender reassignment surgery, or any surgery for that matter. But if you actually want to have an informed debate with the people who disagree with you (and there are those people within this community), then using inflammatory language is doing yourself a disservice. Nobody will engage you because you are wearing the same badge as the absolute pondlife who just fear anyone not like themselves.
To be fair Gevin using the term butcher for circumcision too
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9929
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:03 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:16 pm
I don't think any sensible person, liberal or otherwise, would argue that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women. In certain contexts, yes, but that's a huge strawman you've put up just to set fire to.
Who said anything about sensible people? But anyway, a lot of people just use contexts where it suits what they're trying to argue for rather than contexts where there is a greater scientific basis for it. For example, why aren't there more women in certain sciences or in parliament? There are various possible reasons, and it's likely that several factors are at play. And one of these could be that women are on average intrinsically less inclined to go into these professions. Of course, where there is a significant difference, it should be investigated, and it's perfectly acceptable to take steps to encourage girls to take an interest in certain subjects where they are proportionally under-represented and to look for any societal biases that might exist. But you shouldn't assume from the outset that it must all be down to societal bias, and the solution is certainly not nonsense like all-women shortlists.
Also to use the phrase "butchered" is going to enrage people on the other side of the debate to you. I don't know anything about gender reassignment surgery, or any surgery for that matter. But if you actually want to have an informed debate with the people who disagree with you (and there are those people within this community), then using inflammatory language is doing yourself a disservice. Nobody will engage you because you are wearing the same badge as the absolute pondlife who just fear anyone not like themselves.
OK, maybe it was too emotive a word. I also know basically nothing about gender reassignment surgery, but I do know that the changes are not at a deeper biological level, such as to your chromosomes. Obviously there is also hormonal treatment which isn't merely cosmetic, but this is still just one part of it.

But what do you think generally about the points I made, other than disagreeing with how I worded them?

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:40 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:03 pm
But what do you think generally about the points I made, other than disagreeing with how I worded them?
Ok - there's a conflict in what you described as the prevailing liberal view. But you're wrong about what the prevailing liberal view is.

Not suffering from gender dysphoria or knowing too much about it, I don't know about the benefits of gender reassignment surgery. But I do think that the genitals are probably a non-negligible part of one's gender identity. You can't just dissociate the body that lugs us around with the personality or identity.
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 11:03 pm
Who said anything about sensible people? But anyway, a lot of people just use contexts where it suits what they're trying to argue for rather than contexts where there is a greater scientific basis for it. For example, why aren't there more women in certain sciences or in parliament? There are various possible reasons, and it's likely that several factors are at play. And one of these could be that women are on average intrinsically less inclined to go into these professions. Of course, where there is a significant difference, it should be investigated, and it's perfectly acceptable to take steps to encourage girls to take an interest in certain subjects where they are proportionally under-represented and to look for any societal biases that might exist. But you shouldn't assume from the outset that it must all be down to societal bias, and the solution is certainly not nonsense like all-women shortlists.
Whatever you think about positive discrimination, the fact is that of the many factors at play in under-representation of minorities in government (not that this is necessarily the most obvious or egregious example of such inequality, but as you brought it up), the one we can say with almost absolute certainty is a huge factor, is the historical subjugation of women. We can surely both agree on that. So knowing that you've got this huge confounding variable, it's very difficult to begin to tell whether women's intrinsic inclination to enter a certain high-status profession is higher, the same, or lower than men's. The reality could be any of those and the fact that there are more men in parliament is no indication at all.

Women-only shortlists and other examples of positive discrimination are a pragmatic attempt to equalise for baseline inequality. I do think there are cases where it's a very good idea - such as when taking no action would lead to a greater disparity down the line as a result of the inequality of the starting position. Is the number of women in parliament an example of this? Possibly.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:39 am

There are always going to be differences between men and women and ethnic minorities.
Women generally would prefer going to knitting or sewing circles although men are capable of both activities.
I have been a rambler for many years and the amount of ramblers that are people of colour is almost nil.
Ditto line dancing.
People will follow certain paths for certain reasons ,.
I have only know two women who had liked the film Inception.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Martin Peters
Acolyte
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:07 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:55 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:39 am
There are always going to be differences between men and women and ethnic minorities.
Women generally would prefer going to knitting or sewing circles although men are capable of both activities.
I have been a rambler for many years and the amount of ramblers that are people of colour is almost nil.
Ditto line dancing.
People will follow certain paths for certain reasons ,.
I have only know two women who had liked the film Inception.
I don’t get why LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get priorities over other straight people like me and most of us (no offence) I have NOTHING against LGBT 🏳️🌈 but I don’t know why they get priority. I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC OR SEXIST.
Last edited by Martin Peters on Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:35 am

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:55 am

I don’t get why LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get priorities over other straight people like me and most of us (no offence) I have NOTHING against LGBT 🏳️🌈 but I don’t know why they get priority.
Priority in what?
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:52 am

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:55 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:39 am
There are always going to be differences between men and women and ethnic minorities.
Women generally would prefer going to knitting or sewing circles although men are capable of both activities.
I have been a rambler for many years and the amount of ramblers that are people of colour is almost nil.
Ditto line dancing.
People will follow certain paths for certain reasons ,.
I have only know two women who had liked the film Inception.
I don’t get why LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get priorities over other straight people like me and most of us (no offence) I have NOTHING against LGBT 🏳️🌈 but I don’t know why they get priority.
Just so you know Martin , any sentence that starts I have nothing against (insert minority here ) , but.....usually means you do 🙂
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Martin Peters
Acolyte
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:07 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:54 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:52 am
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:55 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:39 am
There are always going to be differences between men and women and ethnic minorities.
Women generally would prefer going to knitting or sewing circles although men are capable of both activities.
I have been a rambler for many years and the amount of ramblers that are people of colour is almost nil.
Ditto line dancing.
People will follow certain paths for certain reasons ,.
I have only know two women who had liked the film Inception.
I don’t get why LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get priorities over other straight people like me and most of us (no offence) I have NOTHING against LGBT 🏳️🌈 but I don’t know why they get priority.
Just so you know Martin , any sentence that starts I have nothing against (insert minority here ) , but.....usually means you do 🙂
I’m not sexist or homophobic I just believe that LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get mentioned more and they have LGBT month, why don’t we have Heterosexual month???

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:05 pm

You'll be asking for White history month and international men's day next 😀
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Martin Peters
Acolyte
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:07 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:07 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:05 pm
You'll be asking for White history month and international men's day next 😀
I don’t get that I won’t argue over it that’s my opinion and I’ll just leave that Marc.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:06 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:54 am
I’m not sexist or homophobic I just believe that LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get mentioned more and they have LGBT month, why don’t we have Heterosexual month???
The need for any event like this is effectively showing two fingers to those who would wish to oppress people of whatever the group is in question.

When e.g. gay people (insert your minority of choice here) aren't insulted, assaulted, imprisoned and restricted in living their lives, then they won't have a need to pull together into a community and demonstrate that they do exist, they have a right to exist, and will work together to defend that right as a human being to live as they wish to.

Do heterosexuals need to defend their way of life and their right to liberty, work, marriage etc? When that happens, let's get the flag out for the hets as well.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Martin Peters
Acolyte
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:07 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:08 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:06 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:54 am
I’m not sexist or homophobic I just believe that LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get mentioned more and they have LGBT month, why don’t we have Heterosexual month???
The need for any event like this is effectively showing two fingers to those who would wish to oppress people of whatever the group is in question.

When e.g. gay people (insert your minority of choice here) aren't insulted, assaulted, imprisoned and restricted in living their lives, then they won't have a need to pull together into a community and demonstrate that they do exist, they have a right to exist, and will work together to defend that right as a human being to live as they wish to.

Do heterosexuals need to defend their way of life and their right to liberty, work, marriage etc? When that happens, let's get the flag out for the hets as well.
Ian Volante So right there, homos and heterosexuals should be respected equally, but LGBT seem to be getting priority at the min #justsaying #saynotosexism #gaypride #straightpride.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:27 pm

You keep using this word "priority" - in what sense?
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:45 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:08 pm

Ian Volante So right there, homos and heterosexuals should be respected equally, but LGBT seem to be getting priority at the min #justsaying #saynotosexism #gaypride #straightpride.
In what sense? I can't think of any obvious examples, possibly apart from RuPaul's Drag Race.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:43 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:06 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:54 am
I’m not sexist or homophobic I just believe that LGBT 🏳️🌈 people get mentioned more and they have LGBT month, why don’t we have Heterosexual month???
The need for any event like this is effectively showing two fingers to those who would wish to oppress people of whatever the group is in question.

When e.g. gay people (insert your minority of choice here) aren't insulted, assaulted, imprisoned and restricted in living their lives, then they won't have a need to pull together into a community and demonstrate that they do exist, they have a right to exist, and will work together to defend that right as a human being to live as they wish to.

Do heterosexuals need to defend their way of life and their right to liberty, work, marriage etc? When that happens, let's get the flag out for the hets as well.
I guess you have to draw the line somewhere though.
The repressed cannibals and necrophilliacs to name two 😀
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Martin Peters
Acolyte
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:07 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:45 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:08 pm

Ian Volante So right there, homos and heterosexuals should be respected equally, but LGBT seem to be getting priority at the min #justsaying #saynotosexism #gaypride #straightpride.
In what sense? I can't think of any obvious examples, possibly apart from RuPaul's Drag Race.
Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:03 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:45 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:08 pm

Ian Volante So right there, homos and heterosexuals should be respected equally, but LGBT seem to be getting priority at the min #justsaying #saynotosexism #gaypride #straightpride.
In what sense? I can't think of any obvious examples, possibly apart from RuPaul's Drag Race.
Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.
I was being facetious by mentioning a specific programme, but have you got any stronger evidence than popular TV output having a gay presenter?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests