|
the newspapers are whinging about how it's NOT FAIR WAAAH that the information is freely available on the internet but they're not allowed to publish it, a. good and b. them describing it as "unenforceable" and therefore not worth having as a law when clearly they aren't printing it because it is enforceable is p lol e 84 is the atomic number of polonium which the editors of the sun should substitute for sugar in their tea XMNN fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Apr 18, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/04/labours-mcdonalds-ban-virtue-signalling-worst-kindquote:This whole fiasco smacks of virtue signalling of the worst kind. It may feel very principled to turn down an exhibition booking, but that’s not how Party staff who are being laid off will see it. Nor will many Party members who will be asked to stump up the shortfall with yet another raffle or fundraising event on top of the hours of their time they donate to getting Labour candidates elected. Blarite Labour MP there, outright saying he'd rather money to principles. It's good to see everyone in Labour adopting this honest approach to politics Corbyn's started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
XMNN posted:the newspapers are whinging about how it's NOT FAIR WAAAH that the information is freely available on the internet but they're not allowed to publish it, a. good and b. them describing it as "unenforceable" and therefore not worth having as a law when clearly they aren't printing it because it is enforceable is p lol I mean, god forbid journalists (even the tabloids vaguely count) be held to slightly higher standards of integrity than the general public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Source: Indy I don't understand the importance of the distinction between 'impose' and 'introduce' here - in either case, he's intending to bring in a new contract against the wishes of doctors, correct? And it's that action (whatever word you use) that he may not have the legal authority to undertake? Though it's pretty funny watching him try to backpedal on literally months of repeated threats to impose a new contract.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
TACD posted:This is far more interesting than celebrity scandal TBH. The distinction is that imposing the contract sounds like something you're forcing, whereas introducing the contract obviously means we were always within our rights to do it and we're not forcing anything it's perfectly legal and routine what are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Doesn't forcing someone into a contract go against virtually every single principle of contract law ever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Doesn't forcing someone into a contract go against virtually every single principle of contract law ever? Well they're not being forced, they have the option to not accept it and go do some other work. See, totally above board!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Doesn't forcing someone into a contract go against virtually every single principle of contract law ever? We're not forcing anyone we're introducing a new contract as part of a perfectly normal thing we do all the time please stop talking about force and imposition we have NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IMPOSING A CONTRACT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
The Daily Mail want to buy Yahoo!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The Daily Mail want to buy Yahoo! Ah, an enterprise of fading relevance want to buy the corpse of one. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The Daily Mail want to buy Yahoo!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ah, an enterprise of fading relevance want to buy the corpse of one. Daily Mail online is the most popular news site in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Doesn't forcing someone into a contract go against virtually every single principle of contract law ever? Junior Doctors get a new job roughly every 6 months to two years throughout their junior doctorhood, so it's no unusual to be getting a new contract (well, a new version of the same contract with a new hospital) two or three times a year. So no, not really. JDs are short term contractors, they basically have the choice of signing it and working, or not signing it and not working*. *Or refusing to sign and going in anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Whatever next? Lycos? Geocities? Ask Jeeves? MySpace!?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Daily Mail online is the most popular news site in the world. Technically so is yahoo, 4th in the world according to alexa  Guess what #1 is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
I was just thinking they dhould blow it up when I got to the end and saw a generous Russian MP was offering to buy it and do just that. I hope they sell it to that guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Daily Mail online is the most popular news site in the world. The Daily Mail is not a news site.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Whatever next? Lycos? Geocities? Ask Jeeves? MySpace!? Astonishingly Yahoo actually still have a lot of users in the Mail's general demo (old white people who are scared of everything) because of the sheer amount of effort they put into marketing to the older, first-time-user generation in the dotcom boom. They set up their home page and webmail with Yahoo in 2001 and still use it to this day, normally on the same machine. Still makes absolutely no sense for DMGT to buy them because they're already the most popular news source on the web (because there are lots of scared old white people all over the world and it turns out a steady supply of tutting about the ethnics, trumpeting the latest cures and causes of cancer, and creep shots of children is as popular with them whether they're in Florida or the Home Counties).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Junior Doctors get a new job roughly every 6 months to two years throughout their junior doctorhood, so it's no unusual to be getting a new contract (well, a new version of the same contract with a new hospital) two or three times a year. They can come to Wales, we need health staff and won't have the new contract. Tories saving the Welsh NHS! They're not so bad after all! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Fans posted:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/04/labours-mcdonalds-ban-virtue-signalling-worst-kind 'Virtue signalling'. Jesus. Guess we know what kind of websites he frequents, then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, most of the time I've seen the phrase "virtue signalling" used, its by people like gamergaters and neoreactionaries as a way to slag off ess jay double yous. So, you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
The 'celebrity threesome' is kind of stretching the definition of celebrity. I'd honestly not seen hide nor hair of him in the media for maybe 10 years+, and even then i didn't give a poo poo. If he didn't have a threesome on a regular basis I would maybe give a tiny nugget of a poo poo... Nope. Still nothing. Maybe it's just a failing hasbeen using the superinjunction to try and make his fading public life seem exciting again, or maybe his late-night-entertainment establishment isn't pulling in the punters like it used to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:The 'celebrity threesome' is kind of stretching the definition of celebrity. I'd honestly not seen hide nor hair of him in the media for maybe 10 years+, and even then i didn't give a poo poo. If he didn't have a threesome on a regular basis I would maybe give a tiny nugget of a poo poo... Nope. Still nothing. I didn't know peter stringfellow was gay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:The 'celebrity threesome' is kind of stretching the definition of celebrity. I'd honestly not seen hide nor hair of him in the media for maybe 10 years+, and even then i didn't give a poo poo. If he didn't have a threesome on a regular basis I would maybe give a tiny nugget of a poo poo... Nope. Still nothing. wait, who do you think it is? Because Elton John is most definitely a celebrity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:'Virtue signalling'. Jesus. Also refusing £30,000 because of your principles is not Virtue Signalling. Virtue Signalling would be accepting the money, but thinking saying "Yeah we're totally going to do something about it" makes it better. Which is his actual stance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:wait, who do you think it is? Because Elton John is most definitely a celebrity. The american site I ended up on said 'PJS' stood for, well, that guy with the initials 'P.J.S' I didn't probe any further cos I stopped caring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
I think that when using initials to discuss a case they are barred from reporting that the newspapers would not use the actual initials of the persons involved. also what the gently caress is virtue signalling? is that like putting a carnation on virgins at a dance or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
can confirm gen china edited his post to say husband afterwards btw, i saw the change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:
the idea that individuals display examples of what they view as personal traits during a conversation, for some reason assumed to be hypocritical or not genuine because it's being used by a psychopath it's not a bad way to describe the process but it now has connotations of The Great Left Other
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Yeah the initials used in stories like these are random, they don't relate to the people at all. Also lol if this Blairite did pick up virtue signalling from some neo reactionary community. I can't wait for some Tories to start calling people cuckolds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The Daily Mail is not a news site. No, it's a celebrity gossip site and quite different to the print version. The printed Mail is aimed at older pensioners; the online version at a much younger crowd. Yes, there's millions of people accessing their site each month, but they're reading stories about famous people getting divorced, the dress sense of actresses at film premieres, blah blah etc etc. If the print version stories (mainly stupid bullshit written to scare and anger old people) were reproduced on the website version, they'd lose their audience pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I think that when using initials to discuss a case they are barred from reporting that the newspapers would not use the actual initials of the persons involved. "You're just saying that because you want people to think you're a good person!" It's great because it's impossible to argue against and can be used to dismiss absolutely anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:The american site I ended up on said 'PJS' stood for, well, that guy with the initials 'P.J.S' Wait I actually guessed right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait I actually guessed right? did you guess Elton John?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
No, the correct answer to guess wasOzyMandrill posted:I stopped caring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
I may have missed the discussion, but did you see that Telegraph article about how Corbyn has leeched at least £1.5m out of your hard earned taxes, by having the temerity to be paid for his job for the last 34 years? It was as batshit as you're thinking. They even had a backbench Labour MP call it shocking or something. I'd post a link but the telegraph seems to have changed to blocking access if you're using an ad-blocker since yesterday, and I'm not giving them any money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
"I wish there was something more society could do to tackle poverty." *rolls eyes* "Yeah, hero, we get it already."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
The second person then writes a Spectator article.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
The realllllly stupid thing about 'virtue signalling' is that it completely totalises the various reasons people say things you disagree with into one neat bundle. Why even bother considering that the motivation behind expressing an idea or a feeling could be genuine when it's easier to just dismiss it? Not to mention the weird projection. "The only reason I would possibly say such a thing is if I wanted to look good." Now what does that say about the accuser?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
The mental divide between "look good because you do X" and "you look good doing X because X is good" is the most confusing part of it, to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
