Mr. Flunchy posted:

What about genuinely insightful and neat looking projects like this?

http://www.dougiewallace.com/harrodsburg/

crispix posted:

I hope he stops being quite so nice and asks why she won't be in the same room as him.

Namtab posted:

I've said this before, but if the far right you support with bollocks like bleating about "cultural Marxism" and "the regressive left" win, they will come after you. The autistic are no safer from the fash than the browns or Jews. You are advocating an ideology that ultimately hates you.

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

Both sides are wrong as they both seek to curtail my freedom

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

Both sides are wrong as they both seek to curtail my freedom

I'd never support the far right but that doesn't mean I don't think the far left are going to protect in the long run either

TACD posted:

And despite what you might expect from how Question Time has always been, May and Corbyn will be going on separately so that Theresa doesn't wee herself in fear.

jabby posted:

I've heard this argument a few times, but no-one has ever adequately explained what kind of 'who-knows-what' someone could do with a photograph of you. A picture taken in public rather than one taken privately, obviously.

Mr. Flunchy posted:

What about genuinely insightful and neat looking projects like this?

http://www.dougiewallace.com/harrodsburg/

Namtab posted:

I've said this before, but if the far right you support with bollocks like bleating about "cultural Marxism" and "the regressive left" win, they will come after you. The autistic are no safer from the fash than the browns or Jews. You are advocating an ideology that ultimately hates you.

SteelMentor posted:

Your freedom to scream the n-word and poo poo on Autistic people (despite allegedly being Autistic yourself, that's some good internalised hatred right there).

Please gently caress off.

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

Both sides are wrong as they both seek to curtail my freedom

I'd never support the far right but that doesn't mean I don't think the far left are going to protect in the long run either

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

Just because I have the freedom to do such an action doesn't mean I should morally make that choice nor would I want to.

TACD posted:

Way ahead of you.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/870621700152582145

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

Just because I have the freedom to do such an action doesn't mean I should morally make that choice nor would I want to.

Namtab posted:

I've said this before, but if the far right you support with bollocks like bleating about "cultural Marxism" and "the regressive left" win, they will come after you. The autistic are no safer from the fash than the browns or Jews. You are advocating an ideology that ultimately hates you.

Namtab posted:

There is no freedom without responsibility. Even anarchist principles involves consequences for your actions

Oberleutnant posted:

I used to know a woman who's an artist, and years ago she was working in a care home for the elderly while studying at university. While there one day she saw one of the residents who had just learned that her husband had died. This girl's first instinct was to take a photo, which I've seen. It shows a little old lady weeping, with her face mostly covered by her hands. The artist didn't ask permission before taking the shot.

I'm not sure it ought to have been taken at all.

learnincurve posted:

Don't forget our old friends sterilisation and castration.

It always amazes me that the kind of people who support the far right on the internet simply do not comprehend that they would either be seen as cannon fodder, or the very first under the knife if the real fash ever came into power.

forkboy84 posted:

TinTower, have a word with your political party, this poo poo is embarrassing

Chemicals in the water supply are feminising us, says candidate for dead political party.

quote:

But now scientists have found that ethanol oestradiol - a chemical used in the Pill which is between 50 to 100 times more powerful than natural oestrogens - is responsible for feminising fish.

Excreted in women's urine and passing through sewage works, it is causing the fish to develop eggs in their testes and, in some cases, creating female reproductive ducts.

Although scientists do not yet know whether this is affecting people, we do know that one-third of our drinking water comes from rivers - most of it

from stretches situated below sewage works. And we also know that sperm counts have been dropping alarmingly.

One study by the Medical Research Council found that Scottish men born since 1970 are 25 per cent less fertile than those born 20 years earlier - and that fertility is continuing to drop by two per cent a year.

NotJustANumber99 posted:

If you're working in a care home I think part of the duty of care to those patients/clients/whatever should probably include not taking photographs of them, yeah.

Mr. Flunchy posted:

What about genuinely insightful and neat looking projects like this?

http://www.dougiewallace.com/harrodsburg/

NotJustANumber99 posted:

If you're working in a care home I think part of the duty of care to those patients/clients/whatever should probably include not taking photographs of them, yeah.

Prince John posted:

There's a kernel of truth to this story I think, albeit I don't know whether the effects were ever observed in humans or just fish. Apologies for the Mail source but they are quoting the Environment Agency's scientists:

Trin Tragula posted:

The specific example I was thinking of is that I know someone who has a court order that prohibits anyone from taking photographs or video of them without their consent. This is to protect them from being found by a murderously abusive partner. Lots of people have abusive exes who could and would use a photo of them in a particular place at a particular time as a starting point for tracking them down.

Oberleutnant posted:

This reminds me of another personal incident.

I used to know a woman who's an artist, and years ago she was working in a care home for the elderly while studying at university. While there one day she saw one of the residents who had just learned that her husband had died. This girl's first instinct was to take a photo, which I've seen. It shows a little old lady weeping, with her face mostly covered by her hands. The artist didn't ask permission before taking the shot.

Today this woman is a very successful artist who lectures at major universities and has had pretty big exhibitions in the UK, China, Germany, the USA, and elsewhere. The photo she took is a powerful and moving one. But I can't help feeling that that the act of taking it was a callous and intrusive breach of privacy for no meaningful purpose. The photo didn't become famous, and for all I know only a handful of people ever saw it. I'm not sure it ought to have been taken at all. Would it have been better if it had become famous? Is art a self-justifying thing? What defines it?

Tories U-turn on plan to build more socially rented council housing posted:

Plan to build genuinely affordable homes ditched by housing minister

The Conservatives have U-turned on a flagship pledge to build “a new generation” of social housing announced in their manifesto just weeks ago.

Theresa May personally promised her policy would deliver “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”, but her housing minister has now admitted planned homes would be let at up to double normal social rent rate.

The embarrassing admission represents the second about-turn on a Conservative manifesto pledge, after the damaging furore around the “dementia tax”.

Tory officials played down the reversal, but Labour claimed it showed one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to help low-income families had “fallen apart”, while the Chartered Institute of Housing branded it “very disappointing”.

In mid-May the Conservatives announced they would build “a new generation of homes for social rent”, in a policy seen as critical to winning over the kind of working-class voters Ms May needs to steal seats off Labour.

The Tory manifesto spelt out a plan for “new council housing deals”, which would help councils "build more social housing”. And, in an intervention that spoke to the policy’s importance, Theresa May personally pledged it would create “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”.

But in an interview on Friday with trade magazine Inside Housing, minister Gavin Barwell admitted the party was planning to continue to build homes with higher rents and was not in fact reinstating traditional socially rented council housing.

Asked whether the homes would planned by his party would be let at low-level council rents, the minister said: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”

[Etc, etc]

learnincurve posted:

Don't forget our old friends sterilisation and castration.

It always amazes me that the kind of people who support the far right on the internet simply do not comprehend that they would either be seen as cannon fodder, or the very first under the knife if the real fash ever came into power.

R. Guyovich posted:

learnincurve posted:

May talking nonsense here.

Prince John posted:

There's a kernel of truth to this story I think, albeit I don't know whether the effects were ever observed in humans or just fish. Apologies for the Mail source but they are quoting the Environment Agency's scientists:


I remember reading something about this at uni, but don't know whether any link between fertility and the chemical has been proven since the article.

feedmegin posted:

I just made jam, in solidarity with Our Jezz. It's strawberry and raspberry with a dash of knockoff Grand Marnier.

It is v red.