Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

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 3:05 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
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


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?
They were a couple so get ya facts right!!!!! (One of the hosts has actually recently come out as gay) (no offence Ian), that was just an example.

User avatar
Innis Carson
Devotee
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Innis Carson » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:13 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.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 99.3% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.

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 3:21 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:05 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:03 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm


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?
They were a couple so get ya facts right!!!!! (One of the hosts has actually recently come out as gay) (no offence Ian), that was just an example.
I don't think I denied they were a couple? I still amn't completely convinced of your reasoning yet ;)
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: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:36 pm

Going off at a tangent.
This business with Philip Schofield coming out as gay in his late fifties.
Am I the only one to find all these comments of 'brave ' and the like a bit distasteful.
I mean another partner has not been mentioned yet ( Andi Peters is s very private person 😀) but he effectively has intimated that he either has or a least wants to be unfaithful to his wife.
That's not brave
Last edited by Marc Meakin on Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:44 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
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.
What would you say 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.
Sure, but then is a cosmetic version of your genitals a suitable substitute for the real thing, enough to go through quite drastic surgery for?

On the other hand, I wonder if there might be more to it than just personality anyway. There might be some sort of inbuilt "body map", so that your brain expects your body to be a certain way, and this might be different for males and females. This could sometimes then be the "wrong way round". I'm not convinced about the likelihood of this though. But David Reimer is an interesting case of someone not being born in the "wrong" body, but being "turned female" at an early age when he would have been too young to know he should have been male. He went on to reject his femaleness (and then committed suicide). So having the "wrong body" is certainly not something I would completely discount.
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.
Sure. I mean, I'm not saying that the current ratio is what you should expect if everything was equal, just that part of it might be explained by intrinsic differences.
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.
I don't think "positive discrimination" (I always use the quotes because it's not a neutral term) is a sensible way of going about this. Normally the women who are in a position to potentially become an MP (or get some other high status position) are not the same ones that have suffered from the ill-effects of centuries of subjugation. The solution to discrimination against woman in various instances is not to discriminate against men in a completely different instance. If Bob got a position above Alice because of discrimination when Alice was the better applicant, does it then make sense to give Cathy a job over Dave when Dave was the better applicant? Do the two in any way cancel out? No. You've just doubled the discrimination. They would only cancel out if you view males as an entity and females as another entity, rather than looking at each person individually.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:46 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???
I'm sure you can set up your own heterosexual month. These things aren't run by governments and voted through by an act of parliament. People just organise these things and if they get enough interest, people hear about them.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:02 pm

The recent Oscars highlighted the manipulation of a situation to suggest The Academy is sexist and racist ( which it probably is ) which was wrong.
The Best film and director nominations where on merit.
Katherine Bigalow , Spike Lee , Denzel Washington and Barry Jenkins didn't make a film last year , that's why there were no people of Colour in the major categories.
Strangely though they picked a foreign language film to win the big 2 .
When no other country would have done at its own academy awards.
The problem is The Academy has ignored female and black talent for too long.
There is a societal mirroring of this , which is probably the angle Martin Peters is coming from
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 4:27 pm

Innis Carson wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:13 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:45 pm


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.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 99.3% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.
Innis Carson.....that’s a bit of a dig isn’t it????????????
EDIT: Now I know you’re gay I get your post better.
Last edited by Martin Peters on Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 4:28 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:21 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:05 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:03 pm


I was being facetious by mentioning a specific programme, but have you got any stronger evidence than popular TV output having a gay presenter?
They were a couple so get ya facts right!!!!! (One of the hosts has actually recently come out as gay) (no offence Ian), that was just an example.
I don't think I denied they were a couple? I still amn't completely convinced of your reasoning yet ;)
I’m not arguing I just made a simple comment about my opinion, I didn’t mean to start a huge debate.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:33 pm

I like a huge debate
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 4:38 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:33 pm
I like a huge debate
I can’t believe how 1 comment on a COUNTDOWN forum has caused a huge political debate......crazy!!!!!!!!!!

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 4:56 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:28 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:21 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:05 pm


They were a couple so get ya facts right!!!!! (One of the hosts has actually recently come out as gay) (no offence Ian), that was just an example.
I don't think I denied they were a couple? I still amn't completely convinced of your reasoning yet ;)
I’m not arguing I just made a simple comment about my opinion, I didn’t mean to start a huge debate.
If you're going to make comments on public forums, then surely you're inviting engagement? If not, why are you here?
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 4:58 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:56 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:28 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:21 pm


I don't think I denied they were a couple? I still amn't completely convinced of your reasoning yet ;)
I’m not arguing I just made a simple comment about my opinion, I didn’t mean to start a huge debate.
If you're going to make comments on public forums, then surely you're inviting engagement? If not, why are you here?
I’m here to chat to the community about Countdown, I saw this thread and made a simple post and didn’t think it would cause a debate.

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 5:01 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:56 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:28 pm


I’m not arguing I just made a simple comment about my opinion, I didn’t mean to start a huge debate.
If you're going to make comments on public forums, then surely you're inviting engagement? If not, why are you here?
I’m here to chat to the community about Countdown, I saw this thread and made a simple post and didn’t think it would cause a debate.
Oh, I didn't realise the proliferation of homosexuality in public had had much effect on Countdown, or did I miss undercurrents between Susie and Rachel?
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 5:09 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:01 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:56 pm


If you're going to make comments on public forums, then surely you're inviting engagement? If not, why are you here?
I’m here to chat to the community about Countdown, I saw this thread and made a simple post and didn’t think it would cause a debate.
Oh, I didn't realise the proliferation of homosexuality in public had had much effect on Countdown, or did I miss undercurrents between Susie and Rachel?
I’m straight and I’m only saying my own opinion. Shall we just stop debating sexuality please???
Last edited by Martin Peters on Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:11 pm

Innis Carson wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:13 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:45 pm


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.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 99.3% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 0.7% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:41 pm

Was there any need to out Innis ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:46 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:41 pm
Was there any need to out Innis ?
100% this. Announcing someone else's sexuality on a public forum is a no-no, regardless of whether you think they'd mind or not.
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:11 pm
Innis Carson wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:13 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm


Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 99.3% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 0.7% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.
Is this supposed to be funny?
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

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 6:46 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:41 pm
Was there any need to out Innis ?
What do you mean “out Innis”.

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 6:48 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:46 pm
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:41 pm
Was there any need to out Innis ?
100% this. Announcing someone else's sexuality on a public forum is a no-no, regardless of whether you think they'd mind or not.
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:11 pm
Innis Carson wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:13 pm


My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 99.3% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.
My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 0.7% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.
Is this supposed to be funny?
Innis is publicity gay, he appears to have made this clear in his post. If he wasn’t publicly gay he wouldn’t have told me.

That was a bit of a joke at between me and Innis.
Last edited by Martin Peters on Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Innis Carson
Devotee
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Innis Carson » Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:22 pm

For the record, I'm comfortable with it being mentioned, but thank you Marc and Fiona for your consideration.

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 7:24 pm

Innis Carson wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:22 pm
For the record, I'm comfortable with it being mentioned, but thank you Marc and Fiona for your consideration.
Thanks Innis for posting this.

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 7:34 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:09 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:01 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:58 pm


I’m here to chat to the community about Countdown, I saw this thread and made a simple post and didn’t think it would cause a debate.
Oh, I didn't realise the proliferation of homosexuality in public had had much effect on Countdown, or did I miss undercurrents between Susie and Rachel?
I’m straight and I’m only saying my own opinion. Shall we just stop debating sexuality please???
Putting this bluntly (due to my Yorkshire origins rather than aiming to cause offence) I couldn't give a monkey's what you are, as I don't think that's at all relevant. My point was that, in my experience (I may be horrendously wrong on this), stating on a discussion forum that one doesn't understand something, and asking a related question, is a clear invititation to conversation.

As for a homosexual couple getting priority in presenting possibly the third gayest programme on telly, I can't say this is striking much of a blow against the heterosexual majority.

I'll leave it to the wisdom of the crowd as to what I think are the two programmes at the top of this probably insensitive list.
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 8:47 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:34 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:09 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:01 pm


Oh, I didn't realise the proliferation of homosexuality in public had had much effect on Countdown, or did I miss undercurrents between Susie and Rachel?
I’m straight and I’m only saying my own opinion. Shall we just stop debating sexuality please???
Putting this bluntly (due to my Yorkshire origins rather than aiming to cause offence) I couldn't give a monkey's what you are, as I don't think that's at all relevant. My point was that, in my experience (I may be horrendously wrong on this), stating on a discussion forum that one doesn't understand something, and asking a related question, is a clear invititation to conversation.

As for a homosexual couple getting priority in presenting possibly the third gayest programme on telly, I can't say this is striking much of a blow against the heterosexual majority.

I'll leave it to the wisdom of the crowd as to what I think are the two programmes at the top of this probably insensitive list.
Let’s just end this debate immediately

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7625
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Matt Morrison » Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:29 pm

Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.
When did I... I don't remember this at all.

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

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:29 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:29 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.
When did I... I don't remember this at all.
Did you watch this Series of DOI? They were a couple.

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 » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:46 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:29 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.
When did I... I don't remember this at all.
I think the sequins suited you.
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 » Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:47 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:46 pm
Matt Morrison wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:29 pm
Martin Peters wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:49 pm
Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.
When did I... I don't remember this at all.
I think the sequins suited you.
It was Matt Evers but I like ya joke

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

Re: Politics in General

Post by Martin Peters » Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:06 am

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY!!!!!!!!

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:24 am

Hope all International women have a great day
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:48 pm

I don't think we've had any mention of the killing of George Floyd by a policeman on this forum, so it's become a bit of an elephant in the room. So here we are.

Obviously it's been pointed out that racism seems to be far worse in America than over here, but it still exists in this country obviously.

That said, I do think some people like to jump on bandwagons and just call everything racism though, and also create conflict where there doesn't need to be any. Sometimes people say "All lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter". These people aren't necessarily racist - it's often likely to be nothing more than a linguistic misunderstanding between the two groups. It's like people who say "When's international men's day?" aren't necessarily sexist.

Also, MP Florence Eshalomi, has accused other MPs of racism for getting her mixed up with other black MPs. Is that racism? It's more likely to be the cross-race effect. It's unfortunate, but you can't accuse people of being racist for not being able to recognise you. Learning people's faces is generally a skill you pick up unconsciously, so you can't call someone racist if they've not learnt your face properly.

This is a very emotive issue, but that's exactly when we need to stay rational and not go out on a witch-hunt with our pitchforks.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:06 pm

Black lives matter , that's not in doubt but , social distancing should also matter .
These mass protests have less effect than social media.
We wouldn't even know about the circumstances of George Floyd if it wasn't for social media.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:09 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:48 pm
That said, I do think some people like to jump on bandwagons and just call everything racism though, and also create conflict where there doesn't need to be any. Sometimes people say "All lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter". These people aren't necessarily racist - it's often likely to be nothing more than a linguistic misunderstanding between the two groups. It's like people who say "When's international men's day?" aren't necessarily sexist.
They may not be overtly racist, but they are failing (often wilfully) to understand the point of "Black Lives Matter".

Image
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
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 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:15 pm

I do think it’s a non-sequitur during a pandemic, though, that disproportionately harms BAME people.

Protest? Fine. During a pandemic? Not fine.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:34 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:09 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:48 pm
That said, I do think some people like to jump on bandwagons and just call everything racism though, and also create conflict where there doesn't need to be any. Sometimes people say "All lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter". These people aren't necessarily racist - it's often likely to be nothing more than a linguistic misunderstanding between the two groups. It's like people who say "When's international men's day?" aren't necessarily sexist.
They may not be overtly racist, but they are failing (often wilfully) to understand the point of "Black Lives Matter".
This is probably the case, and I think the cartoon is actually quite good because it is quite generous about the possibility of misunderstanding, which some people are not.

One of my Facebook friends put up a "Venn diagram" of things that people he considers obnoxious say - it was actually just a single circle implying that people who say one say them all because they completely overlap. Two of the things were "All lives matter" and "BLM protests should be stopped cos of COVID-19". Which brings me to:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:15 pm
I do think it’s a non-sequitur during a pandemic, though, that disproportionately harms BAME people.

Protest? Fine. During a pandemic? Not fine.
I think it's legitimate to have concerns about these protests.

Of course, it's been said by various people that if we have a second spike, people will blame either the Cummings effect or these protests - whichever suits their views.

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 Jun 06, 2020 11:02 pm

Anyone else think the protests would be even cooler if they just kept to social distancing rules. The same amount of people at the protests but at least making a decent effort to stay 2m apart, even 1m as a compromise. Obviously it would take up more of the streets and stuff but I just think would be a really powerful message. I'm sure its a case of being easier said than done and no doubt there are safety implications for staying in closer knit proximity for when the riot police are jerks etc. but I think it would be a hugely effective statement. Pictures of tight knit crowds marching for a common cause have historically been incredibly impactfull but in the current climate I think a socially distanced crowd would work really well as an image.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
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 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:39 pm

Image

A friend of mine is now the Mayor of Bagnor (not difficult given he's one the about 80 members of Plaid Cymru). And they managed to do a socially distant protest very well.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:38 am

Mark James wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:02 pm
Anyone else think the protests would be even cooler if they just kept to social distancing rules. The same amount of people at the protests but at least making a decent effort to stay 2m apart, even 1m as a compromise. Obviously it would take up more of the streets and stuff but I just think would be a really powerful message. I'm sure its a case of being easier said than done and no doubt there are safety implications for staying in closer knit proximity for when the riot police are jerks etc. but I think it would be a hugely effective statement. Pictures of tight knit crowds marching for a common cause have historically been incredibly impactfull but in the current climate I think a socially distanced crowd would work really well as an image.
I bet it would be more peaceful a protest too as I'm sure large crowds of people squashed together make the situation more aggressive
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
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 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:19 pm

Since it's been 10 years since we actually all did the Political Compass (which I'm really losing faith in given its UK 2019 party positions), I'd be interested to see where everyone fits on there now, to see if your position has shifted from 10 years ago.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

I've moved more socially liberal and more economically right than the last time we did this.

Economic Left/Right: 7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

Image
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

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 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:04 pm

I don't need to do the test to know I'm libertarian left.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:38 pm

Without giving specific numbers, I'm way off in the bottom left-hand corner. Some of the questions aren't very well worded though and it's not always obvious how they should be interpreted, whereas some seem to be pushing for a particular answer. I think it's simplistic and not a very good quiz overall. 4/10.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
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 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:06 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:38 pm
Without giving specific numbers, I'm way off in the bottom left-hand corner. Some of the questions aren't very well worded though and it's not always obvious how they should be interpreted, whereas some seem to be pushing for a particular answer. I think it's simplistic and not a very good quiz overall. 4/10.
I know it's a bit silly, especially given its rather bizarre placings of the parties at the UK general election, suggesting there was very little socially between the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage DUP, and the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Tories...
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:14 pm

I seem to have moved a little bit down and to the left from where I was in 2011. I'm now -4.13, -6.15.

Image

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:19 am

I've seen many political compass tests online before. All of them have been bad. That one is comfortably the worst.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:45 am

This one gives me

Economic Left/Right: -5.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

Most of these sorts of tests I've done in the past have put me in the bottom left quadrant, but much nearer the centre, which is probably a truer reflection.
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 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:43 am

I do this test now and again, and apart from the crappy questions, I seem to be drifting generally leftwards.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:03 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat May 28, 2011 4:48 pm
Mark James wrote:Has anyone tried http://www.politicalcompass.org/test yet to see where they stand politically. Apparently I'm a libertarian left, only two squares away from the Dalai Lama, although I have to say, some of the questions are stupidly put. Take the one about the business man being more important than the artist. If I disagree with that I think they think I believe the artist is more important than the business man but I don't. I think they're both equally important.
Some of the questions are pretty rubbish and some are quite hard to understand/answer. I suppose you can get a broad idea of someone's views though.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

followed by:

"The freer the market, the freer the people. "

Does this mean a genuine free market? It's sort of implicit in the first question that you'd have to agree with the second if you carried your definition through.
I quite like coming across old posts of mine (this is about nine years old) that still reflect my thoughts on the subject. It's like when I go through the spoilers threads for the 30th birthday championship, I find I've already written what I wanted to say.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:41 pm

Going back to a previous topic, JK Rowling is back in the news over her trans comments. She's written a long post about it which you can find here. I think she nailed it with this quote:
I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation
You get a lot of people on there (and not just on Twitter) who instead of arguing a case, try to "disqualify" their opponent by making them out to be a bad person who should be shunned forever more. I read Rowling's post, and I didn't find anything too egregious in it. Fortunately c4c is better than Twitter so I can post that. I probably wouldn't discuss this stuff on Facebook either.

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 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:09 pm


Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:21 pm

Mark James wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:09 pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_Andre ... 1275762689

Is this nuanced enough?
Well, that's quite interesting, but it's not really a discussion anyway. It's a clinical point by point destruction with a clear prior motive. But you don't have to go far to find holes you can pick in his posts - which is just as well because I'm not reading it all. I'll just look at the very first thing.
Firstly, she did not "lose her job" (she was a contract worker, her contract was not renewed). The distinction is important both legally and linguistically - since "losing a job" casts Forstater as the victim, implying she was fired.
This is less relevant than he's claiming. If she didn't have her contract renewed because of her tweets and that her tweets weren't actually "bad tweets", then it would be reasonable to call her a victim.

But anyway, for me this isn't about "taking sides". I think it's an interesting topic to look into. And while there are some very prejudiced and nasty "transphobic"* people out there, some people are too quick to take aim at anyone who doesn't say exactly the right things that the script demands. And JK Rowling seems to be more the latter than the former.

*I only use the quotes because I always think it's weird to describe a hatred as a phobia.

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 Jun 12, 2020 1:46 am

The giant post with very few sources is worthy of reading, without enquiring into the claims made or substantiating them - whereas the series of posts with credible references and evidence is worth picking holes in but not reading? Odd. If it's not about taking sides, then why hold the sources to different standards?

Here are a few of my key issues with Rowling's post:

1) The idea that trans women are an innate threat to cis women in single sex spaces through the UK Gender Recognition Act is probably the most consistent thread there. But there doesn't seem to be much to substantiate that this is a genuine issue: Karen White is the only UK example I've really been able to find of someone exploiting a trans identity to gain access to single sex spaces. Ireland's Gender Recognition Act was enshrined in law in 2015 - in that time, there don't appear to have been any instances of this. And indeed NatCen's 2017 report on moral issues found British cis women to be more supportive of trans women using their toilets (72% of those surveyed were 'quite/very comfortable', just 13% 'quite/very uncomfortable') than British cis men with trans men, only 65% of whom were 'quite/very comfortable' [see page 15]. It's at least debatable that this is a majority view for British cis women.

2) The suggestion that, as of late, trans women must be considered materially the same as cis women certainly isn't something I've come across in feminist communities - at best, it's niche. If anything, the key idea is that different intersections of women are materially NOT the same as each other: there is no universal experience of womanhood. We experience the world as women differently based on our genetic make-up, when we are born, where we are born, who we are born to (their material circumstances, their parental aptitude, their health), and indeed everything else. Everyone has an individual experience of it, even if there can be shared/common characteristics/experiences for women within the same demographic, but these differ a lot between demographics.

No-one is denying the biological differences between trans and cis women, or their differing medical needs (at least I don't think this is in contention), but what is the universal biological experience for cis women? Typically the notion of biological womanhood is tied to periods, period pains, fertility, wombs, vaginas, oestrogen. But what of cis women who don't menstruate, cis women who are born without a womb, infertile cis women, cis women with polycystic ovary syndrome (ergo higher levels of testosterone, with potential knock-on effects for fertility and menstruation - 20% of UK cis women, myself included)? And then what of intersex women assigned female at birth? Sure it's rare, but trans people are hardly a huge population; they are, however, another group that doesn't fit those 'universal' characteristics.

Based on the above points, I can't say I believe there is much evidence for the notion that cos women are at risk from trans women being considered to be women, whereas there is evidence that trans people have been at risk.

3) Regarding the allusion that "only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault" would want trans people in single sex spaces etc: plenty of cis women who have experienced these things support trans people's access to single sex spaces. Rowling's own hideous experiences of violence and sexual assault do NOT give her the right to speak on behalf of everyone who has experienced this. This is not merely going off-script or 'not saying exactly the right things': it is an absolute delusion that weaponises victims of abuse, many of whom are disgusted to be evoked in this way, and 'egregious' would be the very mildest word I would use to describe it. You cannot blame any victim of abuse for being less than civil in their response to this suggestion.

4) Women's refuges housing trans women is not a new or frightening development. You can read Rape Crisis Scotland's statement here, and Stonewall's comprehensive report into the provision of domestic/sexual violence services for trans women here, based on interviews with those who work for these services.

5) "Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women." Misgendering trans men is clearly exclusionary - if 'radfem' support of trans men is predicated on either undermining or dismissing their identity, they're excluding them.

This is the tip of the iceberg. The content of the post does not convince me of any genuine engagement with trans people, resources or literature, and the lack of citations does not inspire confidence either. Ultimately, if you think a topic is important enough to justify a 3,691-word essay on it (including a paragraph on the amount of research allegedly undertaken, which still somehow returns the notion that "liking Jimmy Choos" is relevant enough to the embrace of a trans identity to warrant a mention), why would you go to all that effort and barely include any sources to make your arguments credible and verifiable?

Obviously I don't support death threats, violent abuse etc towards her, but using your huge public platform to put forward unsubstantiated views that tangibly affect the lives of trans people who already experience high rates of assault and abuse (numerous sources cited above) is deeply irresponsible, and not some zero-sum topic of interest for the neutral observer.
"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: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:12 am

Warning.....boomer alert
I long for those simpler days when the way to tell if you were a man or a woman was to look inside your pants 🙂
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:14 am

As regards Ms Rowling , I'm surprised post menopausal women and those that have had hysterectomies or have been sterilised are not up in arms too
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:32 am

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:46 am
The giant post with very few sources is worthy of reading, without enquiring into the claims made or substantiating them - whereas the series of posts with credible references and evidence is worth picking holes in but not reading? Odd. If it's not about taking sides, then why hold the sources to different standards?
Well, I suppose I read Rowling's post because it was referred to in the news and it got me interested. The response is just one of many criticisms of Rowling, and I don't feel that I'm compelled to read that particular one just because someone linked to it on this forum. But also, I read Rowling's post as "Shit, I'm being attacked by a lot of people here, so I'd better try and put up some sort of defence." Whereas that guy's response was "Fuck you, Rowling. I'm going to go through your post with a fine-tooth comb and jump on anything I can find." It certainly didn't come across to me as an honest attempt to engage. The very first thing in the post confirmed this.

I won't respond line by line to all of the rest of your post, but I'm not going to disagree with the bulk of it. It is likely Rowling is wrong about a lot of the stuff.

But the thing about whether there is any difference between trans women and cis women - maybe people aren't denying this, but it's also a question of how we use our words and how that's policed. Not everyone will be aware of the prefix "cis" or what it means, so will be left wondering how they're supposed to refer to this difference, since the words they used (female, woman etc.) are no longer fit for the job. Can people say "biological woman"? But even at a more philosophical level, I think it's reasonable to ask what it really means to be a man or woman, without it being politically charged. But you seemingly can't do that in public now. Which I suppose brings me to:
not some zero-sum topic of interest for the neutral observer.
This is a difficult one, because while no-one should be acting in a way to push potentially suicidal people over the edge, we should be allowed to discuss this. And I think the lack of discussion and the polarised nature of any debate makes things worse overall.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:36 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:32 am

But the thing about whether there is any difference between trans women and cis women - maybe people aren't denying this, but it's also a question of how we use our words and how that's policed. Not everyone will be aware of the prefix "cis" or what it means, so will be left wondering how they're supposed to refer to this difference, since the words they used (female, woman etc.) are no longer fit for the job. Can people say "biological woman"?
OK, I've had a look through the Tweet and found this:
Note the use of "biological women" instead of the correct adjective "cis".

Rejecting "cis" is another transphobic staple, which is why Rowling (a professional writer) doesn't use it. She's casting herself as a neutral in this - but adopting the language of her chosen side.
But I do see this as language police. Who gets to decide how we use words?

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 » Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:04 am

"You can't have nuanced discussion on twitter"

"No, I'm not going to respond to or engage with the numerous valid criticisms on Twitter."

"Why is nuanced discussion on Twitter impossible? It's a mystery!"

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:15 am

So I guess JK Rowling has stirred up a TERF war
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9936
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:56 am

Mark James wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:04 am
"You can't have nuanced discussion on twitter"

"No, I'm not going to respond to or engage with the numerous valid criticisms on Twitter."

"Why is nuanced discussion on Twitter impossible? It's a mystery!"
I don't think it's that no-one on Twitter is capable of nuanced discussion. But if you say anything controversial (and you're famous so lots of people see your stuff), then a lot of people will just jump on you with abuse, ad hominem attacks etc. And it's likely to be every time you post as well. So while you're trying to respond to more reasoned points, people will be jumping on you left, right and centre, so it will be hard to concentrate on the specific debate with the person/people making more reasoned points.

Also, another couple of things I was going to say:

First of all, about having a frank and open conversation about these topics - we're effectively told we can't do this because trans people will commit suicide. It's really tragic that so many trans people are in a position where they contemplate and even carry this out. But this is more likely to be the result of the more abusive stuff they get, or the mental health problems they have from thinking they've been born in the wrong body. Not discussions like this. So I see this attempt to shut down legitimate discussion as coercion.

And if people are allowed to decide what people call them, why do trans people get to decide what non-trans people are called - i.e. cis?

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4307
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon O'Neill » Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:04 am

Who has ever thought Twitter, or any other social media platform, would be a place to have a serious discussion about anything?

Now a Countdown forum, on the other hand, is perfect.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd » Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:35 am

C4c > twitter.

Change my mind.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests