|
Pissflaps posted:The fact that Corbyn's appointment has led to this is one aspect of why he is a disaster. Yes but people elected to criticise him while he was taking office too. Someone even resigned in protest because he'd won. And it wasn't like people subsequently waited six months before going "This isn't really working", the campaign against him began immediately, again, literally during his acceptance. It seems to me that this would have happened regardless of what he did, and therefore Labour did themselves no favours by doing so.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Based on Corbyn's track record of personal mandates trumping parliamentary democracy i'm not sure how you conclude that such reasoning is silly. Such as...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Based on Corbyn's track record of personal mandates trumping parliamentary democracy i'm not sure how you conclude that such reasoning is silly. You misread me, I perhaps wasn't clear I think not voting Labour if as you have stated before you are a labour supporter and oppose the Tories for any other reason than you disagree with Labour policy is silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Such as...? Such as the his failure to quit when he lost the support of his MPs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
its a good thing pissflaps isn't voting in the leadership election as his posts itt are grounds for purging
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Based on Corbyn's track record of personal mandates trumping parliamentary democracy i'm not sure how you conclude that such reasoning is silly. Again, the usual advice at this period is to hold your nose and vote labour anyway, because even if you dislike the current state of the party, it is better than the Tories. This is what I've been told for close to a decade now, and I hardly see how it's reasonable to criticise people for not voting labour in previous elections and then make the same argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Jose posted:its a good thing pissflaps isn't voting in the leadership election as his posts itt are grounds for purging You're better than this Jose. spectralent posted:Again, the usual advice at this period is to hold your nose and vote labour anyway, because even if you dislike the current state of the party, it is better than the Tories. This is what I've been told for close to a decade now, and I hardly see how it's reasonable to criticise people for not voting labour in previous elections and then make the same argument. I'm not criticising people for not voting Labour. I'm criticising people who vote for other parties turning Labour into a party that cannot win an election. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You're better than this Jose. During the last election you criticised people for not voting Labour. And you have also made the "A bad labour government is better than a tory one" argument ITT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Jose posted:its a good thing pissflaps isn't voting in the leadership election as his posts itt are grounds for purging They certainly make me want to purge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
spectralent posted:During the last election you criticised people for not voting Labour. And you have also made the "A bad labour government is better than a tory one" argument ITT. You'd have to provide me with quotes of my posts showing this as I don't think this happened. I recall pointing out that anybody who voted for a party other than Labour is responsible for Labour not winning the election (i.e. SNP, Green and UKIP voters as well as Tories), but this wasn't intended as a criticism rather a statement of electoral fact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You'd have to provide me with quotes of my posts showing this as I don't think this happened. So your entire argument basis here isn't actually anything containing an opinion, it's just various statements of fact? EDIT: For reference, merely one of the posts: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3717282&pagenumber=131&perpage=40#post445053186 Which is a weirdly aggressive way to say "as a casual observation that lays no accountability anywhere, not enough ballots were in Labour's favour to afford them a chance to form a government". spectralent fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
To change the subject briefly: I'm reading about the supposedly mandatory age verification that porn sites are going to require if they want to peddle their filthy anti-Christian smut to good God-fearing Britons: http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/07/digital-economy-bill-age-verification-broadband-uso/ It mentions the use of content filters, which all the big four ISPs now use (after pressure from the government) and talks about the orders to block access to a whole bunch of file-sharing websites. I'm on a tiny little ISP that's far too small to have any of this stuff, and so I can still get to all the file-sharing sites in question. Just wondering how effective that's been for people who do use the big four. Is it actually now any harder to get to KAT or the Pirate Bay than it was before the blocks were mandated? edit: also, I wonder how they're actually going to enforce the age checks. In the consultation they talked about some kind of unique online ID or even requiring proof of address or similar, which seems insanely draconian to me. IF YOU WANT TO SEE NIPPLES I'LL NEED YOUR HOME ADDRESS, CITIZEN. But whatever, Britain is weird and Theresa May is even weirder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Zephro posted:But whatever, Britain is weird and Theresa May is even weirder. Theresa May is basically the creepy friendly torturer dude from 1984 so this doesn't surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
spectralent posted:So your entire argument basis here isn't actually anything containing an opinion, it's just various statements of fact? This seems to be a straw man argument. You're making an argument that I didn't and attributing it to me. spectralent posted:EDIT: For reference, merely one of the posts: I see nothing in that post that contradicts what I'm saying. If your issue is with my use of the word 'blame', i'm merely echoing the language used in the post I'm replying to. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Zephro posted:It mentions the use of content filters, which all the big four ISPs now use (after pressure from the government) and talks about the orders to block access to a whole bunch of file-sharing websites. I'm on a tiny little ISP that's far too small to have any of this stuff, and so I can still get to all the file-sharing sites in question. Just wondering how effective that's been for people who do use the big four. Is it actually now any harder to get to KAT or the Pirate Bay than it was before the blocks were mandated? Completely ineffective, I'm with Virgin and it just means you need to use a proxy site.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Zephro posted:To change the subject briefly: I'm reading about the supposedly mandatory age verification that porn sites are going to require if they want to peddle their filthy anti-Christian smut to good God-fearing Britons: If you're on one of the big 4 you literally type "pirate bay proxy" or whichever into Google and click the first result. It's a completely ineffective order conjured up by people who have no idea what they're talking about but think they are "doing something".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Crashbee posted:Completely ineffective, I'm with Virgin and it just means you need to use a proxy site. I also assume that the (eventual) next step is network-level blocking of proxy sites, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
EDIT: Right, I see, there's basically no point talking to you about anything then, cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Theresa May is basically the creepy friendly torturer dude from 1984 so this doesn't surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
talking of the purging thing, has any Owen Smith fan come forward to talk about getting blocked from voting in the leadership election yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'll probably not vote for anybody, or a comedy candidate if one is available. why don't you run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:why don't you run. I'll give it some thought. VileLL posted:talking of the purging thing, has any Owen Smith fan come forward to talk about getting blocked from voting in the leadership election yet? I think only Corbyn has 'fans'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Is it actually now any harder to get to KAT or the Pirate Bay than it was before the blocks were mandated? It's a hell of a lot harder to get to KAT these days because the guy got arrested and the site shut down. Mirrors are being whack-a-moled as we speak. For anything else, a VPN will get round any block they can introduce.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
spectralent posted:EDIT: Right, I see, there's basically no point talking to you about anything then, cool. Not if you're going to debate ineffectively with straw man arguments, no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
VileLL posted:talking of the purging thing, has any Owen Smith fan come forward to talk about getting blocked from voting in the leadership election yet? VileLL posted:has any Owen Smith fan come forward to talk VileLL posted:Owen Smith fan DOES NOT COMPUTE
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Zephro posted:To change the subject briefly: I'm reading about the supposedly mandatory age verification that porn sites are going to require if they want to peddle their filthy anti-Christian smut to good God-fearing Britons: Like most government tech policy it's created by a bunch of people who use email & Word & maybe a couple of other programs but basically know diddly squat about computers or anything related to them. It's simultaneously unpleasantly Orwellian & also pointlessly easy to circumvent. spectralent posted:EDIT: Right, I see, there's basically no point talking to you about anything then, cool. Yes, well done on finally noticing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Zephro posted:To change the subject briefly: I'm reading about the supposedly mandatory age verification that porn sites are going to require if they want to peddle their filthy anti-Christian smut to good God-fearing Britons: Not really. I can't go straight to thepiratebag.io or whatever but I just use unblocked.li
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Just wondering how effective that's been for people who do use the big four. Is it actually now any harder to get to KAT or the Pirate Bay than it was before the blocks were mandated? I rarely use torrents these days, but 'marginally more irritating' would be my verdict. Typically it just involves doing a google search and finding a different mirror. Pissflaps posted:I currently intend to not vote at all. I care about Labour forming a government at the next general election, and the ones that come after it. I'm a little confused by why you wouldn't vote for a Corbyn-led Labour government though, in the absence of another party you want to support. From what I can tell, your reason for not supporting Corbyn is that you don't think he's the path to electoral success. However, as there is no other party you support, why not cast your vote for Labour in any case - if you were right all along, then you'll have done your bit for the turnout figures if nothing else, and if you were wrong, then you just enabled a Labour government. I'm not holding out much hope of a Corbyn victory in 2020, but if large numbers of Labour supporters follow your lead and simply 'sit out' the election in 2020 because you think Corbyn is not electable then it will just be a self fulfilling prophecy. Assuming you support the Labour ideals, it just looks a bit like withdrawing your vote from Labour due to spite. (You obviously don't have to justify your voting intentions to me of course, so feel free to tell me to piss off if you want)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Not really. I can't go straight to thepiratebag.io or whatever but I just use unblocked.li most of them redirect automatically without even requiring to do this these days
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Scikar posted:If you're on one of the big 4 you literally type "pirate bay proxy" or whichever into Google and click the first result. It's a completely ineffective order conjured up by people who have no idea what they're talking about but think they are "doing something". A large chunk of the population have never heard of a proxy and wouldn't know to google that. They're the target, not the technically literate like post on this nerd forum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Zephro posted:It mentions the use of content filters, which all the big four ISPs now use (after pressure from the government) and talks about the orders to block access to a whole bunch of file-sharing websites. I'm on a tiny little ISP that's far too small to have any of this stuff, and so I can still get to all the file-sharing sites in question. Just wondering how effective that's been for people who do use the big four. Is it actually now any harder to get to KAT or the Pirate Bay than it was before the blocks were mandated? dear god no, if you didn't have the site in your bookmark bar it's identical to the process before. Hit "Pirate bay" into the address bar, pick a mirror. Modern understanding of regulation doesn't work with the internet. You cannot stop people doing things, like you can by controlling the supply of anything else you would regulate, because they already have everything they need to do whatever it is you think needs to be regulated. My nieces and nephews are fairly comfortable using proxies and VPNs in a way I wouldn't consider myself familiar with, so an even harder content lock would see a diminishing of hits but doesn't control the flow of content itself. Nor would it make it small enough to realistically be cracked down upon; it's beyond the basic competencies of most police forces. Cerv posted:A large chunk of the population have never heard of a proxy and wouldn't know to google that. They're the target, not the technically literate like post on this nerd forum. if "technical literacy" renders the regulation obsolete, and technical literacy is something we should be aiming to develop in every oncoming generation, then the regulation should sit in the bin with the legal high ban. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Cerv posted:A large chunk of the population have never heard of a proxy and wouldn't know to google that. They're the target, not the technically literate like post on this nerd forum. The technically illiterate don't even type addresses into the address bar, they type them into search engines. And proxy lists are now higher in the search results than the sites themselves. So if you do that it's literally harder to get blocked than it is to end up at a working version.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:if "technical literacy" renders the regulation obsolete, and technical literacy is something we should be aiming to develop in every oncoming generation, then the regulation should sit in the bin with the legal high ban.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:It's far more likely the government will just criminalise technical literacy instead. I'm pretty sure they've already defined every teenager as a radicalist internet criminal and are telling schools to shop any kids showing any competence
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I rarely use torrents these days, but 'marginally more irritating' would be my verdict. Typically it just involves doing a google search and finding a different mirror. It's very strategic. Spangly A posted:if "technical literacy" renders the regulation obsolete, and technical literacy is something we should be aiming to develop in every oncoming generation, then the regulation should sit in the bin with the legal high ban.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I rarely use torrents these days, but 'marginally more irritating' would be my verdict. Typically it just involves doing a google search and finding a different mirror. It's okay flaps doesn't actually have opinions on anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Who is your MP? Probably the new shadow transport secretary. Pissflaps posted:I'll probably not vote for anybody, or a comedy candidate if one is available. Oh you get the pleasure of him as well. And the pleasure of the tory constituency, lucky you. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Such as the his failure to quit when he lost the support of his MPs. That's not parliamentary democracy, that's party politics. (you already know that though  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They are both terrible laws that belong in the bin, but what's the technical literacy equivalent for 'legal highs', scientific literacy? General critical thinking? Hardly any more thought than if the law breaks by thinking about it for three seconds it's probably a poo poo law, although addmitedly I can't see how banning legal highs directly contradicts the stated purpose of education the way the tories are cirminalising basic IT competence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Hopefully Blenkinsop loses out in boundary changes & Middlesbrough MP Andy McDonald (current Shadow Sec.State of Transport) becomes Pissflap's new MP to save him from that tough dilemma. I would be much happier having the inner boro MP rather than Tom, he's a bit wishy washy and spent a while during the ward elections whingeing about the liberal vote and how we need to appeal to it, which judging by the liberal candidate's manifesto means we need to stop building any houses because the countryside is TOO FULL and what about the house prices?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:10
|
|