|
Croc, if you are scared of saying something that lowers others impression of you, rest assured that this is impossible.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
croc suit posted:uhh 4chan or 8chan? You're really bad at this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
croc suit posted:i dont post in fyad
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:You're really bad at this. What is this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
To bring this thread back on track, Jeremy Corbyn is kinda bad IMO. He seems to care more about his pet causes like pacifism (like UK pacifism matters with the US being what it is), anti-nuclear, homeopathy, anti-globalism and whatnot else than actually fighting for concrete meaningful policies like banning zero-hour contracts, taking in more refugees, exposing 'budget responsibility' for the crock of poo poo it really is. I felt this way about him even back when he got elected and it's not like he's given me any reasons to change my mind. Then again I quit Labour over it's support for Brexit now, since that's something that really does matter for me, and I can't in good conscience support a party that would vote for it with a triple-whip, popular opinion be damned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
It's okay croc if you don't want to share too much about yourself, despite suggesting that you would. Can you share the thought process there though? I mainly wonder what the far right uk haunts are, these days. Is it just an extension of the US side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:You're really bad at this. Still getting responses though. A low bar in the thread that has spent years having the same arguments with the Flapster but none the less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Remind me, where was that chart of party support over time that showed the Dems mirroring Labour and UKIP mirroring the Tories?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Still getting responses though. A low bar in the thread that has spent years having the same arguments with the Flapster but none the less. Enh, I don't think there is really a worthwhile conversation being interrupted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
croc suit posted:white people not wanting to become a minority in their own country is a bad thing   spectralent posted:Also it's real freaky how many people in healthcare there are in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Namtab posted:And the other 90%¿ are not especially wont to become doctors. Only a third to half even go on to university at all, remember. Spangly A posted:This is an interesting topic but first we'd need to agree on number sources so nobody pulls the "49% of people are graduates" bollocks. *cough* a valid political position - but not one that Britain rebels at, you may have noticed. In another more socialist world, a government could seek to prevent expensively-trained intelligentsia from walking off by invoking the language of service to the revolution to straightforwardly revoke their right to leave the country. In the world we do live in, lifestyles are intensely commoditized and people expect the right to shop amongst them. As I said, it's hard to imagine a scenario where Jeremy Hunt can persuade the UKBA to revoke your right to emigrate. But conversely it's very easy to imagine a scenario where a young adult comfortably in the ABC1 group wants to be able to apply for a credit card. The rest follows. I want to point out that the argument you're putting forth here is, I think, unfortunate, since "investment in = value-added out" is about one of the simplest things that a national planner would want, and that is exactly what is being pursued here. And then there's pearl-clutching about ~indentured servitude~ and then advocating national planning to allocate graduates to industries in the next breath.  Of course you're not necessarily going to get your dream job under Actually Capitalist Britain either, but this is acceptable to Britain whilst Umlenkung is not. Spangly A posted:Laffer curve is not real. Yup. But international tax competition is, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:/ That's mainly a function of how it is counted as a single organization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Remind me, where was that chart of party support over time that showed the Dems mirroring Labour and UKIP mirroring the Tories? There was a way more useful chart that actually showed flows to and from parties so you could see exactly how voters were moving. I don't know the name for that kind of diagram though so I can't find it, anyone got any idea? It was like solid blocks that peeled apart like cheesestrings curving into the next set of blocks for the following election
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
jabby posted:All of this will speed up the development of a critical doctor shortage and the collapse of the NHS, which is the game plan here. Unless you think Hunt genuinely wants to save the NHS with this plan. as with a lot of Tory policies, it's stuff that was bubbling up in Conventional SPAD Wisdom Land (i.e. deferred tuition fees rising around the developed world creating more imaginative ways to evade them) given a more Tory slant, aka holding down the NHS bill writ large my guess is that he pays closer attention to whether the Tories are close to losing doctors as a group again than to the abstractions we've been mumbling about here
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
ronya posted:as with a lot of Tory policies, it's stuff that was bubbling up in Conventional SPAD Wisdom Land (i.e. deferred tuition fees rising around the developed world creating more imaginative ways to evade them) given a more Tory slant, aka holding down the NHS bill writ large Given that we've had the first doctors strike in years over Tory doings he's not doing a great job of retaining doctors as a group imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
There is a kind of subtle trap that happens in these debates. Asuume the U.K. remains a democracy, wars remain overseas, global warming remains manageable, diseases remain curable, and so on. Then it seems to be the case, according to the relevant experts, that for the meaningful future the best prediction of the number of visible minorities is around 20%. Which means if someone reverses that, and comes to believe It won't be, then that's a statement that one of those assumptions is false, that one of the things that could cause a 30% demographic shift in decades will happen. As those things are all pretty bad, that would not be good. Now, quite often people only believe those false facts because of racial bias; that's what 'bias' means, getting things wrong. But then what happens is people arguing against them, sensing the racism, think there must be something _morally_ wrong with them. When, given their choice of facts, their morality is pretty unremarkable. Sure, you can easily disagree with it, take the moral high ground. But to do so is to put yourself on the losing side in a popularity contest. TLDR; racism cause people to believe false facts, not to become moral monsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
It's a good point but I'm not sure that's what bias means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
ronya posted:
Jeremy hunt may have some ideas. Your points on east Germany are valid enough, I question whether you believe what Hunt is doing constitutes national planning. His aim is rather nakedly not to provide the NHS with the human resources it needs, and his actions side clearly and demonstrably to the opposite. We can discuss whether this is malice or incompetence but I'm not sure whether the point needs to be made. You can argue about the "pearl clutching" of indentured servitude but given the current depression risk, I rather feel it's an appropriate claim. Do you disagree that as things stands he wishes to disuage people from leaving a job where suicide is a comparable risk to loss of resources as emigration? radmonger posted:
if you don't default to thinking of all humanity as a blank and awful slate that requires strong intervention to stop genociding each other then I'm not sure whose history you're watching. The absence of any constructive understanding, relation and positive interaction with the world is what makes a monster. This is what a racist is. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
ronya posted:as with a lot of Tory policies, it's stuff that was bubbling up in Conventional SPAD Wisdom Land (i.e. deferred tuition fees rising around the developed world creating more imaginative ways to evade them) given a more Tory slant, aka holding down the NHS bill writ large Oh, you're under the delusion that the Tories want to hold down the NHS bill. They don't. That's the excuse they're using. They want to institute policies that worsen the financial crisis, destroy it, and then give as much public money as possible to private healthcare companies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Given that we've had the first doctors strike in years over Tory doings he's not doing a great job of retaining doctors as a group imo an important thing to remember about politics is that the people who come out with the placards are especially unlikely to be people who can actually be swung by some policy or another, and it is the latter who decide whether or not one keeps one's seat or cabinet post anyway as far as I know doctors at large are still disproportionately Tory (which may go some way towards explaining the BMA's initially cautious attitude to the JD strike). This is a very high-earning demographic, whilst at the same time Labour is unable to mobilise support for substantively higher health spending and the Tories are unable to mobilise around substantively lower health spending, so partisanship gets to be decided by everything else, from foxes to council budgets to Europe. Which makes it a sitting duck for sideways attacks on health spending. The accursed logic of demography means that political capital unspent here is a demographic not gained elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
ronya posted:The accursed logic of demography means that political capital unspent here is a demographic not gained elsewhere. I think I've asked you something along these lines before but how exactly did you stomach internalising this? You're like hope is a lie on steroids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I think I've asked you something along these lines before but how exactly did you stomach internalising this? hope is a lie, comrade I find succour in remembering that Britain had something like tripartism once and then the labour left destroyed it in fit of excess Hope
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I think I've asked you something along these lines before but how exactly did you stomach internalising this? "gently caress yours got mine"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
radmonger posted:There is a kind of subtle trap that happens in these debates. I personally believe in a combination of Racism is caused by moral monsterism Racism is moral monsterism Racism leads to moral monsterism But maybe we are splitting hairs over what moral monsterism is, than anything. Like I would see creating false facts to back a belief to be part of the process of evil, not an alternative to it. Generally speaking the 'demographic' argument is based around the supposition that brown people genetically outbreed white people, or that they are complicit in a conspiracy to outnumber white people some how, not theories about global warming - that these people don't believe in any way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
ronya posted:hope is a lie, comrade tripartism is crap but we broke the wrong bit. Don't you dare scando-quote me. Their tripartism has hosed up perfectly fine on its own. Namtab posted:"gently caress yours got mine" this thread needs Ronya, since we turned PJ among others we're running dangerously short on non-flaps devils advocates. In related news, the poo poo Milliband thinks lurching to the left is a bad idea because he thinks it doesn't work. You can't blame the PPE sorts for their multiple choice exams. David's even supposed to be the smart one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
It amuses me that David Milliband thinks a lurch to the left has actually happened. Labour has barely begun to limp out of the centre.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It amuses me that David Milliband thinks a lurch to the left has actually happened. His ability to get a well regarded masters at MIT as a scholar is an exemplary demonstration of how poo poo political philosophy is if you pretend class doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Never understood the fascination with David Miliband. A guy more gormless than Ed Miliband who's already been found out for endorsing and trying to cover up extraordinary rendition and torture. Pretending he holds some secret key to electoral victory is just weird and feels like a leftover from Tony Blair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:In related news, the poo poo Milliband thinks lurching to the left is a bad idea because he thinks it doesn't work. You can't blame the PPE sorts for their multiple choice exams. David's even supposed to be the smart one. Nah he's always been the one saying whatever 'sounds right'. And on the right-side of the duo obviously. I think he's just trying to set himself up as opposition to Corbyn, that's what the moving left is code for. Because you see Corbyn is considered an old commie by everyone despite not actually being much of one anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Never understood the fascination with David Miliband. A guy more gormless than Ed Miliband who's already been found out for endorsing and trying to cover up extraordinary rendition and torture. Pretending he holds some secret key to electoral victory is just weird and feels like a leftover from Tony Blair. His education was really really good. I mean genuinely world class. I'm envious. He uses it to justify torture. e; also the number of politicians who have degrees that aren't 2;1 history or 2;1 PPE is really really small
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Never understood the fascination with David Miliband. A guy more gormless than Ed Miliband who's already been found out for endorsing and trying to cover up extraordinary rendition and torture. Pretending he holds some secret key to electoral victory is just weird and feels like a leftover from Tony Blair. "Hello, The News? It's me, David Miliband. I have a hot take I think should be your headline story" and so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
I mean if a young Tony Blair had been forced out after Billy Blair had taken the leadership and also New Labour never happened I might be able to understand it but David Miliband has a Win/Loss ratio only slightly better than Nigel Farage when it comes to Media hype Vs Actual success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I mean if a young Tony Blair had been forced out after Billy Blair had taken the leadership and also New Labour never happened I might be able to understand it but David Miliband has a Win/Loss ratio only slightly better than Nigel Farage when it comes to Media hype Vs Actual success. Nigel Farage is the most effective politician Britain has had since Thatcher
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:There was a way more useful chart that actually showed flows to and from parties so you could see exactly how voters were moving. I don't know the name for that kind of diagram though so I can't find it, anyone got any idea? I'm not certain but is this the kind of thing you''re after?  No idea what the correct term is but was trying to find it via 'voter flow'.  E:vv Cheers - I knew someone here would help out. 
Laradus fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Laradus posted:I'm not certain but is this the kind of thing you''re after? They're called "Sankey" charts and probably one of the hardest things to google if you don't know what they're called. Because googling terms like "flow" throw up basically tons of irrelevant poo poo. I only discovered what they are really called by pure chance one day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:
What I meant by it is that there is a clear spectrum from 'would never kill anyone' to 'would kill the innocent for fun', with'would kill to defend their family' in between. If you were an amoral mad scientist, you could find out where someone is on that spectrum with an apparatus involving tram tracks, switches, family members, strangers, and candy bars. A 'moral monster' is someone that scientist would count as in the bottom 0.5% on that spectrum. The thing is, such people are a problem for the police, not politics, because 0.5%. So when you see a mass of people voting for the tram to crush the child, the problem must be something else. Either their children genuinely are on the other track, or they have been fooled into thinking they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Laradus posted:I'm not certain but is this the kind of thing you''re after? Yeah! The one I was thinking of had three elections (so two sets of flows) but that's the same style Although looking around that seems to be poll data instead of the actual outcome, like here:  See how the LAB>CON / CON>LAB crossover is about equal, like on the left one? But yeah, doesn't look like many Labour voters went Lib Dem Lord of the Llamas posted:They're called "Sankey" charts and probably one of the hardest things to google if you don't know what they're called Cheers guy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
radmonger posted:What I meant by it is that there is a clear spectrum from 'would never kill anyone' to 'would kill the innocent for fun', with'would kill to defend their family' in between. If you were an amoral mad scientist, you could find out where someone is on that spectrum with an apparatus involving tram tracks, switches, family members, strangers, and candy bars. I really can't get on board with the idea of internal moral absolutes. Your argument isn't substantiable and doesn't make much internal sense. Where do you fit the slave trade? what about forced national starvations? general nazi members? Murder is not a good example of where to set morality. People will kill for a wide variety of reasons but most of them are contextual, sure. Nowadays people murder by vote, why is this somehow different to an equal bodycount when "legitimised" by democracy? If you want to take about the totally amoral you start with the police themselves, not those they deal with. They're supposed to be this way, and so we're supposed to forgive their racism and sexism and murder because society made them do it. How do you rationalise this to anywhere between 1-10% of people being unable to experience conventional empathy? The world is monstrous and so is mankind. We can't pretend we are good people inside; this devalues why we even have a government, or a rule of law. It begs the difference between law and justice. We have governments because we are not good people and we are also not good at understanding the world. Arguing hope can beat this is a problem because hope is the lie; we as a society have to beat this, so perhaps we agree here. But I flatly don't agree with the idea that Tories really believe their kids are on the other track. UKIP maybe, but the tories are far worse, and far more dangerous, because they are disproportionately educated. They are, supposedly, competent. They have been given every chance to realise they are evil (in the sense of their actions) and they flatly refuse to acknowledge the fact. Karma is a far better heuristic explanation for human behaviour. You need to actually do and become things through effort and will. The garden state is corrupted, not pure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
haakman posted:New Labour took lots of their ideology from Giddens - fair enough. It's third way stuff (really though I shouldn't say ideology because third wayism is defined by its lack of ideology). I did not see this post for the unacquainted, Murray is a deeply dishonest weathervane who exists to provide intellectual cover for Republican anxieties du jour - in 1984 at the height of Reaganite tax panic he blames poverty on the welfare state, in 1994 post-DLC-triumph he switches to blaming poverty on racial intelligence, and in 2012 he blames poverty on the poor adopting decadent liberal lifestyles. the invocation of competing explanations does not appear to worry him unduly. (which sort of complicates trying to pin any form of intellectual descent on him, I think. But it's certainly true that New Labour tried to co-opt the urban crime moral panic, albeit influenced by the popularity of Thatcherite visible-police-presence-and-ring-of-steel approaches to crime - the public was just not receptive to the invocations of civil rights and the supposedly-impending police state traditionally favoured in the party. But the attitude that there are causes of crime that can be tough-ed through policy upon does stem from liberal responses to the Murrayite mood of the Anglospheric right during this period, I think - tacitly discarding the community empowerment and organisation rhetoric popular in the 1970s) I also don't think third wayism is actually ideology-free, inasmuch as positioning itself as ideology-free, but I suspect we don't disagree on that
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:But I flatly don't agree with the idea that Tories really believe their kids are on the other track. UKIP maybe, but the tories are far worse, and far more dangerous, because they are disproportionately educated. They are, supposedly, competent. They have been given every chance to realise they are evil (in the sense of their actions) and they flatly refuse to acknowledge the fact. I'm not going to link it and they can gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 20:08
|
|
