Politics in General
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
My ten cents.
Gay couples getting married i dont have a problem with but why would you want a church wedding when the bible is full of homophobic rhetoric
Gay couples getting married i dont have a problem with but why would you want a church wedding when the bible is full of homophobic rhetoric
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Politics in General
"Gay means happy, a pussy is a cat; a shag is a seabird and that is that."
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:51 pm
Re: Politics in General
So what you're saying is that you think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws, and that's even discounting the fact that language is a fluid, evolving thing. So, by your logic, someone or something should only be described as laconic if it comes, or they come, from the region of Laconia in Southern Greece, right? We wouldn't want to confuse these hypothetical people you conjure up: they might then believe that someone they know who is concise or abrupt is not from Liverpool, Dublin, Cornwall etc., but from ancient Sparta itself.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 amNo problem.Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:53 amJust to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?
I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)
Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.
That is the meat of my objection...
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Pretty awful human being Priti Patel could face a contempt of court charge.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:35 pm Pretty awful human being Priti Patel has been found to be bullying, but Boris Johnson just tries to make it go away.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
- Thomas Carey
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
- Location: North-West of Bradford
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady GagaRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
cheers maus
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Politics in General
I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Paddy Ashdown, the Labour Party, or the burning of the Reichstag.Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pmI guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady GagaRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Michael Schumacher, Tetris, glass, or the Andromeda Galaxy.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:27 pmI guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Paddy Ashdown, the Labour Party, or the burning of the Reichstag.Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pmI guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady GagaRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
I'm going for a mixture of Baby Spice Emma Bunton, Benny Hill and Grigori Rasputin.
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Politics in General
My options include Pat Robertson, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Roger Whittaker, William Shatner, the Stamp Act or the Arab League. That is an eclectic mix, though admittedly not on the same level as Gevin's.
Re: Politics in General
Lady Gaga is deciding whether to adopt the politics of Neil Kinnock or Thomas Carey.Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pmI guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady GagaRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
- Location: Birmingham's Eastern Fleapit
Re: Politics in General
My choice is between (t)he valiant Thomas Hobbes, Pharrell Williams, or the death sentence of Ethel and Julius Rosenburg.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
The Vicar of Dudley*
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
*(Not ordained, nor do I live Dudley. Godspeed!)
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Given she performed at the inauguration I think we have our answer.Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:10 pmLady Gaga is deciding whether to adopt the politics of Neil Kinnock or Thomas Carey.Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pmI guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady GagaRhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Geoff Hoon or Mark Reckless for me. Or Henry VI.Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:18 pmMy choice is between (t)he valiant Thomas Hobbes, Pharrell Williams, or the death sentence of Ethel and Julius Rosenburg.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
For me its Nicholas II of Russia, Pope John Paul II or Tina Fey
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Politics in General
That would be my perfect dinner party.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:02 pm For me its Nicholas II of Russia, Pope John Paul II or Tina Fey
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Leaked security footage from inside Buckingham Palace. The bit relevant to the current news is from about 1:26.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Replying to the "gay marriage" topic has been on my to-do list for a while now (almost 2 months) but better late than never.
My objection to the introduction of SSM here, was to do with the language... but moreso to do with muddying the clarity of the concept itself.
---------------------------------------
Fiona asks:
"Why is male/female the correct definition for marriage?"
That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?" Simple truth here, is while there is nothing wrong with dogs, they're not cats. Marriage is about the celebration of a certain sexual act... that one whereby the correct biological parts can be used to potentially produce offspring. Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.
---------------------------------------
Ian asks:
"What quality of a person would turn into a homophobe over a slight increase in the potential meanings of a particular word?"
Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect. That's who.
It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.
---------------------------------------
James suggests:
"You think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws."
Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.
---------------------------------------
Graeme intelligently posted the following:
"This is like complaining about the invention of mobile phones because when someone says "I have a phone" it's no longer clear whether they mean a mobile or a landline."
That is a great point. I had to think about this one. Yes, it is a great comparison for how the meaning of a word can expand and how that is not a big deal. I get you. But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example.
He also posed the conundrum:
"So if a straight couple can't or don't want to have children, should they be prevented from marrying?"
My take here: those couples get a free pass on account of possessing the correct set of complimentary sex organs that can allow conception, whether or not that is desirable or possible for the couple in question.
He pointed out that:
"Prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, someone could equally well say "I am in a relationship", giving no information about gender. I don't see how marriage is any different."
And that is a fine way to be mysterious about your relationship, should you wish to be. Marriage has always (no exceptions) had a gendered aspect to it, until recently when an overreach by a minority group managed to get it changed under the guise of 'equality'.
Another good point he brought up was:
"I wouldn't even call it a redefinition. It's still marriage, it still means the same thing, it's just opened up to a wider range of people."
How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?
If we are talking 'discrimination', there is plenty of discrimination still going on.
The sexual union of a 'man and man' or of a 'woman and woman' is fundamentally different from the union between a 'man and woman'. Different things deserve different names.
My objection to the introduction of SSM here, was to do with the language... but moreso to do with muddying the clarity of the concept itself.
---------------------------------------
Fiona asks:
"Why is male/female the correct definition for marriage?"
That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?" Simple truth here, is while there is nothing wrong with dogs, they're not cats. Marriage is about the celebration of a certain sexual act... that one whereby the correct biological parts can be used to potentially produce offspring. Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.
---------------------------------------
Ian asks:
"What quality of a person would turn into a homophobe over a slight increase in the potential meanings of a particular word?"
Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect. That's who.
It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.
---------------------------------------
James suggests:
"You think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws."
Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.
---------------------------------------
Graeme intelligently posted the following:
"This is like complaining about the invention of mobile phones because when someone says "I have a phone" it's no longer clear whether they mean a mobile or a landline."
That is a great point. I had to think about this one. Yes, it is a great comparison for how the meaning of a word can expand and how that is not a big deal. I get you. But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example.
He also posed the conundrum:
"So if a straight couple can't or don't want to have children, should they be prevented from marrying?"
My take here: those couples get a free pass on account of possessing the correct set of complimentary sex organs that can allow conception, whether or not that is desirable or possible for the couple in question.
He pointed out that:
"Prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, someone could equally well say "I am in a relationship", giving no information about gender. I don't see how marriage is any different."
And that is a fine way to be mysterious about your relationship, should you wish to be. Marriage has always (no exceptions) had a gendered aspect to it, until recently when an overreach by a minority group managed to get it changed under the guise of 'equality'.
Another good point he brought up was:
"I wouldn't even call it a redefinition. It's still marriage, it still means the same thing, it's just opened up to a wider range of people."
How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?
If we are talking 'discrimination', there is plenty of discrimination still going on.
The sexual union of a 'man and man' or of a 'woman and woman' is fundamentally different from the union between a 'man and woman'. Different things deserve different names.
S:778-ochamp
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
No it's not. And feline doesn't just describe cats. It can describe things that are cat-like. Words have can have multiple meanings and their meanings and uses can change.That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?"
So fucking what? What's the big deal if it changes?Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.
Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect.
Since you love dictionary definitions, what's a "normal" person? And if someone gets upset over the definition of marriage being changed I would not respect them.
Speaking of dictionary definitions, this is practically a dictionary definition of a reactionary. This has been the excuse against every social improvement that has ever happened. It's the slippery slope fallacy and yes, it's disturbing how easily some people will get upset at progress. We do not need to bow down to these people.It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.
How is knowing the gender of anyone's partner important? Also, maybe they're lying. You haven't learned anything important from the phrase "I am a happily married man".But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example
You are gay man correct? Do you like to have sex? Do you like to have the ability to have sex legally? Because this and some of your other points would have been the same arguments used against decriminalising homosexuality. It's more slippery slope nonsense.How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?
With regards man and boy the boy cannot consent. And do you really want to be going down the route of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?
The day a chocolate bar or a pack of jumbo hotdogs can say "I do", sure I'll be all for extending the definition.
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples? Again, sure why not. If all are consenting don't see the harm.
Brothers and sisters? Again, don't really care. Incest laws rather than marriage laws will prevent them consumating but if they wanted to get married for tax break purposes and they're consenting who cares.
These aren't gotchas. They were nonsense arguments in 2015 when the marriage equality act passed in Ireland (in fact they've been garbage long before that). They couldn't convince people then and they won't now.
The fact that you think that is what's really sad.Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
Thanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.
As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
No worries Ian, your thanks is much appreciated.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pmThanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.
As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".
There's a lot I'm not happy about with Ireland and our current government, and I'm no fan of blind patriotism or the concept of being proud of one's country but between the marriage equality and the abortion referendum, they were great days to celebrate and give ourselves a wee pat on the back.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Is contraception still a hot topic though?Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:40 pmNo worries Ian, your thanks is much appreciated.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pmThanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.
As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".
There's a lot I'm not happy about with Ireland and our current government, and I'm no fan of blind patriotism or the concept of being proud of one's country but between the marriage equality and the abortion referendum, they were great days to celebrate and give ourselves a wee pat on the back.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
I suspect it is for stronger-adhering Catholics, not so much otherwise. That said, I don't live there, so I don't pick up on the nuances of public debate; however I get the impression that there are bigger things to worry about most of the time for most people.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:49 amIs contraception still a hot topic though?Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:40 pmNo worries Ian, your thanks is much appreciated.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pm
Thanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.
As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".
There's a lot I'm not happy about with Ireland and our current government, and I'm no fan of blind patriotism or the concept of being proud of one's country but between the marriage equality and the abortion referendum, they were great days to celebrate and give ourselves a wee pat on the back.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
The old cartoons of Mohmammed thing has made the news again.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I nearly lost my job during the Charlie Hebdo terroismGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:08 pm The old cartoons of Mohmammed thing has made the news again.
I suggested that muslims lightened up.
2 fellow employees complained to my supervisor and i was reprimanded
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
My old school, that, although now it's an academy, it's trying desperately to trade on its reputation as far as I can tell.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:08 pm The old cartoons of Mohmammed thing has made the news again.
The complaint was made in the regular way by parents contacting the school directly, the people at the gates were a rent-a-mob drummed up later, my contacts tell me. I suspect that much was obvious anyway.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I'm not reading the whole 258-page thing, but the findings of the race report are interesting.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Anyway, on that, while you obviously shouldn't take the report's findings as the final objective truth, I think it's good that it is fighting against the worrying trend that for emotive subjects, statistical and scientific evidence isn't needed when we have a load of anecdotes.
It's not right to conclude that the whole country is systemically racist (or indeed sexist) without proper analysis.
And terms like "white privilege" (and "whitesplaining" and indeed "mansplaining") are lazy ways of not having to engage with the actual points people make.
It's not right to conclude that the whole country is systemically racist (or indeed sexist) without proper analysis.
And terms like "white privilege" (and "whitesplaining" and indeed "mansplaining") are lazy ways of not having to engage with the actual points people make.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
The fact the report exists is evidence of systemic racism.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
They made the report to investigate whether the prima facie evidence had a more solid grounding, yes. And there is systemic racism, but more so in some areas than others.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
No. They made the report to affirm a preordained stance that Britain is not institutionally racist and they did so with cherry picked data as well as a misunderstanding and frankly strawmanning concept of what systemic racism is. The report has been criticised by actual historians and academics who have been using statistical and scientific evidence to measure the effects of systemic racism for years. The idea that these concepts are built on anecdotes is a myth.
Also, can you give an example of a point someone might make that you feel is lazily dismissed using the term "white privilege". Do you think white privilege isn't a thing?
Also, can you give an example of a point someone might make that you feel is lazily dismissed using the term "white privilege". Do you think white privilege isn't a thing?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Not off the top of my head, but I could let you know next time it comes up.Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:30 pmAlso, can you give an example of a point someone might make that you feel is lazily dismissed using the term "white privilege". Do you think white privilege isn't a thing?
It depends on what you mean by a "thing". I just don't think it's a good term for anything that exists even though you could call having less racism against you "white privilege". It sort of implies that it's some sort of "extra bonus thing" that perhaps people don't deserve rather than the baseline that everyone should expect. Edit - It's racism that's the "thing".
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Someone my age is very often guilty of 'unconcious bias'
Funnily enough its mainly due to being chivalrous lie holding open doors for a woman or offering to carry something that looks heavy.
Also casual racism crops up.
But basically that applies to anyone who watched and enjoyed the likes of Love Thy Neighbour, Rising Damp abd Mind Your Language, in the 1970s
Funnily enough its mainly due to being chivalrous lie holding open doors for a woman or offering to carry something that looks heavy.
Also casual racism crops up.
But basically that applies to anyone who watched and enjoyed the likes of Love Thy Neighbour, Rising Damp abd Mind Your Language, in the 1970s
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
It just won't go away. Are Boris Johnson's days numbered?
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Well, given we already know that:
- the civil service have a history of leaking and are untrustworthy
- Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings were pushing for a lockdown in September
- Boris has flat-out denied it on camera
I think we can put this one to bed. It stinks of a civil service stitch-up to me. And if you think that wouldn't happen, remember plebgate, when the Met tried to stitch up the chief whip, so it can happen.
There'll almost certainly be an inquiry.
- the civil service have a history of leaking and are untrustworthy
- Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings were pushing for a lockdown in September
- Boris has flat-out denied it on camera
I think we can put this one to bed. It stinks of a civil service stitch-up to me. And if you think that wouldn't happen, remember plebgate, when the Met tried to stitch up the chief whip, so it can happen.
There'll almost certainly be an inquiry.
Re: Politics in General
I reckon Johnson did say it, given that:
- my horoscope today said to be wary of those with too much influence over my life
- horoscopes are generally trustworthy
- Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in horoscopes and he's getting more unhinged by the day
And if you don't believe me about horoscopes, well, the other day it said my life was going to take a turn for the better, and sure enough, when I needed my drink put through the self-service till at Sainsbury's that evening, it was the hottest member of staff that served me.
- my horoscope today said to be wary of those with too much influence over my life
- horoscopes are generally trustworthy
- Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in horoscopes and he's getting more unhinged by the day
And if you don't believe me about horoscopes, well, the other day it said my life was going to take a turn for the better, and sure enough, when I needed my drink put through the self-service till at Sainsbury's that evening, it was the hottest member of staff that served me.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Horoscopes are bollocks.Phil H wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:14 pm I reckon Johnson did say it, given that:
- my horoscope today said to be wary of those with too much influence over my life
- horoscopes are generally trustworthy
- Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in horoscopes and he's getting more unhinged by the day
And if you don't believe me about horoscopes, well, the other day it said my life was going to take a turn for the better, and sure enough, when I needed my drink put through the self-service till at Sainsbury's that evening, it was the hottest member of staff that served me.
Mind you, you should expect me to say that, me being a Taurus and all
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I watch Boris Johnson through a horrorscope.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
As a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:
- the civil service are untrustworthy
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Remember it's the refurbishment thing as well, so he's under attack from two angles at the same time.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:
- the civil service have a history of leaking and are untrustworthy
- Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings were pushing for a lockdown in September
- Boris has flat-out denied it on camera
I think we can put this one to bed. It stinks of a civil service stitch-up to me. And if you think that wouldn't happen, remember plebgate, when the Met tried to stitch up the chief whip, so it can happen.
There'll almost certainly be an inquiry.
Boris Johnson is more untrustworthy in any case.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:01 pmAs a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:
- the civil service are untrustworthy
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I bet he wished that he'd put his foot down on using John Lewis furniture
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
They have form.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:01 pmAs a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:
- the civil service are untrustworthy
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
With Boris now having, very clearly, said "no" to the bodies comment in the House, surely that settles it. You can't knowingly lie to the house - everyone knows that. The government also know that if he is dragged back to apologise, it will be more humiliating. If you're going to lie to the House, you obfuscate and don't give a straight answer. You don't say "no" outright.
The BBC have now retracted the Dyson story from last week, but a lie has gone halfway around the world before the truth has had a chance to put its pants on. Smear first, report facts later.
The BBC have now retracted the Dyson story from last week, but a lie has gone halfway around the world before the truth has had a chance to put its pants on. Smear first, report facts later.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3973
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Politics in General
I refer you to the word 'sweeping'. We aren't all leaking, in fact the vast majority of us are fair and balanced in our dealings, having signed up to the Civil Service code, Official Secrets Act etc etc.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:05 pmThey have form.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:01 pmAs a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:
- the civil service are untrustworthy
It may suit your agenda to tar us all, but stick to the individuals rather than the lot of us, thanks.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
I don't care whether Boris said he would let the bodies pile up or not. I care that he actually let the bodies pile up.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
Following the recent election results Corbyn needs to do the decent thing and step down as the former leader of the Labour Party.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Zero context here.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
"Shaun". "London".Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:03 pmZero context here.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.
Have a guess. Go on.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
I guessed it was the London Mayor thing but I had no idea who was standing. Someone called Shaun for the Tories it seems. Bailey apparently.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:13 pm"Shaun". "London".Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:03 pmZero context here.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.
Have a guess. Go on.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3108
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Politics in General
And herein lies the problem we have been battling for years.
In 2008 and 2012 everybody knew who Boris Johnson was. Even in 2016 everyone knew who Zac Goldsmith was. Even though we picked Shaun in 2018, we have struggled to get his name into the media, not helped by Sadiq Khan's seemingly nightly slot on BBC London whereas Shaun has had to scrap for every bit of airtime we can get for him. Only once purdah started did things get a bit better in this regard, but when the BBC seemingly fails to acknowledge your candidate, as the second-biggest party in the last election (2016), for 2.5 years, what can you do?
In 2008 and 2012 everybody knew who Boris Johnson was. Even in 2016 everyone knew who Zac Goldsmith was. Even though we picked Shaun in 2018, we have struggled to get his name into the media, not helped by Sadiq Khan's seemingly nightly slot on BBC London whereas Shaun has had to scrap for every bit of airtime we can get for him. Only once purdah started did things get a bit better in this regard, but when the BBC seemingly fails to acknowledge your candidate, as the second-biggest party in the last election (2016), for 2.5 years, what can you do?
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Politics in General
I would support Shaun Murphy for Mayor of London.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
Have you ever seen Shaun Murphy and Count Binface in the same room? Hmm
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Socialism is dead in the water the most famous one was crucified over 2000 years ago and Foot and Kinnock was crucified by the press.Mark James wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 7:29 pm Following the recent election results Corbyn needs to do the decent thing and step down as the former leader of the Labour Party.
To make matters worse we have a generation of voters born after Thatcher ruined the north.
See the by-election win for the Tories in Hartlepool for your proof.
Corbyn will not shake the ' racist' tag and wouldnt be welcomed back into the labour fold.
Lets be honest the last labour government was really Tory lite anyway.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Next to the Tories winning Hartlepool for the first time since 1974Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Politics in General
So you did realise that was joke about how Corbyn is being blamed for Labour's current disaster yeah?Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 7:12 amSocialism is dead in the water the most famous one was crucified over 2000 years ago and Foot and Kinnock was crucified by the press.Mark James wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 7:29 pm Following the recent election results Corbyn needs to do the decent thing and step down as the former leader of the Labour Party.
To make matters worse we have a generation of voters born after Thatcher ruined the north.
See the by-election win for the Tories in Hartlepool for your proof.
Corbyn will not shake the ' racist' tag and wouldnt be welcomed back into the labour fold.
Lets be honest the last labour government was really Tory lite anyway.
What Hartlepool shows is that Corbyn's Labour was more popular than Starmer's. If the last Labour government was tory lite, the current iteration is tory. So why would anyone vote for them ahead of the tories. The tory share of the vote this time around wasn't much more than what they got previous times they came second. People didn't switch from Labour to Conservative they just didn't vote Labour.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
Or there is something to be said when the government has been paying 11 million people their wages for the past year
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13355
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Politics in General
What do people think of Nicola Sturgeon's claim that another independence referendum is a matter of when - not if? She's quite clear that it's the "democratic wishes of the Scottish people" to have this referendum. But is it so clear cut? The SNP won 64 out of 129 seats - just short of half of them - but using the 8 seats from the Greens - who also support a referendum - that gives them a majority. However, the Scottish Parliament alone does not decide on whether there is to be a referendum and a majority of seats desn't equal a majority of votes, so merely having a majority of seats isn't enough to a) force it through or b) claim that it is the democratic will of the Scottish people.
So what about the votes? According to this:
Well, it seems that from the vote it's not clear either way, and when you add in the fact that people weren't just voting on whether they wanted a another referendum, it's even less clear. You could argue either way for whether a referendum should happen, but it's definitely not as clear cut as Nicola Sturgeon likes to think it is.
So what about the votes? According to this:
Actually, I don't know how they vote in Scotland. I thought it was just single transferable vote, but from that it seems not. It appears they use the Additional Member System.On the constituency vote, the three main parties that were backing Scotland staying in the UK won 50.4% of the vote. But on the list vote it was the three main parties that were supporting independence that were narrowly ahead with 50.1%.
Well, it seems that from the vote it's not clear either way, and when you add in the fact that people weren't just voting on whether they wanted a another referendum, it's even less clear. You could argue either way for whether a referendum should happen, but it's definitely not as clear cut as Nicola Sturgeon likes to think it is.