|
It’s absolutely ridiculous that leaseholds are a thing that still exists. It’s a stupid throwback to feudal times that only ever benefits large capitals and should be abolished with the greatest prejudice 106 AD - earliest surviving record of the usage of the term “Catholic Church” in some letter. It has since made a lot of people unhappy and widely considered as a bad move Pochoclo fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Apr 6, 2019 |
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Miftan posted:There's a limit on the number of houses you can own in Sweden? Can you elaborate? I'd love to bring this up for the 'scandis are so successful because they embraced capitalism with some minor safety nets!' crowd. housing is complicated To be very brief, almost all "owned" apartments in Sweden are what you'd call co-ops I think? You own a part of a cooperative, which in turn owns the property, which means you own the right to live in the apartment, not the apartment itself. It's in the Swedish word for it, bostadsrätt, meaning something like 'right to live in' or 'right to residence', but does not imply ownership. Almost all such cooperatives have restrictions on membership stating that the owner must be officially registered as resident in the apartment, or you can be refused or expelled as appropriate. So, there are probably rules for people who work in different parts of the country different parts of the year, and there will usually be rules allowing you to sublet your apartment for shorter periods of time (normally when moving because of new job or relationship) but there's no buy-to-let economy as such, or at least, not a legal one. Sweden's got almost no social housing, in the sense you use it I believe? We have municipal landlords that let property, and private landlords competing with them, but it's not like we've got apartments specifically built for low-income people. You're also not entitled to rent an apartment unless you live in it, this is according to law I believe--you're certainly not allowed to rent multiple apartments (except temporarily and/or because of specific circumstances, like above). Also if you let second hand, you're expected to let it to the same rent that you pay as tenant, with maybe a 10-15% extra if it's furnished. The restrictions don't apply when renting out rooms in your owned or rented apartment as long as you yourself live in it, that's fine, as long as you or they don't gently caress things up, and you can take whichever rent your conscience allows you to. Rules on property that you own outright are different, you're entitled to let that other house on your land, or if you own an entire building or something you can be a private landlord, without the restrictions above. However, you're not allowed to set rent freely, it will be negotiated with the renters' association or something, in the grand ol' Swedish corporatist tradition. It's not like we've solved exploitation or housing or any of that, plus the restrictions on market rents give incentive to a thriving 'black' renting market in larger cities. But it's not a commodity to the extent you've got in the UK I think Tijuana Bibliophile fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm eyeballing you very hard right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:when they see another video about how they shouldn't ban racism in schools I didn't see this among the ones I watched, though I was only picking out stuff on Brexit and Trump. Miftan posted:That's fine, but then you have to bring up specific points he made that you feel are worth discussing as opposed to asking about the man himself. Well I poked the id politics stuff and use of labels. Nothingtoseehere posted:Furthermore, complaints of "identity politics" and "shutting down debate" often occur simply because previously marginalized groups have just enough of a voice to demand that rich white straight men stop talking about their groups like they don't exist or are not worthy of consideration or entering into the debate. A refusal to coexist with people who offend your very sense of self is reasonable, and their anger often justified? Where's the line though? I'm measurably middle class economically, does that mean I'm not to have an opinion on the plight of the poor in the UK? I don't see how dismissing someone's view purely based on their class/sex/gender/ethnicity is helpful to either side of the argument. I'm trying to get my head around the notion that things seem to be either extremely bad, or extremely good and the level of assumptions made and I think equating privilege with malice is a dangerous avenue. You certainly don't bridge divides by staying on either side of them and I guess my naive utopia is that everyone is indeed equal. I genuinely don't know what the solution is. I think it's to the left somewhere but I'm just a programmer that's gravely uncomfortable with the current state of play, frustrated that I have to tactically vote Labour whomever the candidates in the hope mine will be the vote that breaks the Tory stronghold. I enjoy buckets of privilege right now, I am guaranteed turbofucked the second I am too old to work or become too ill to work. Some would argue I've made poor financial decisions in the past to lack security now and I'd probably agree. Others would argue it's a failure of the state lacking safety nets in those situations and I'd agree there too and more so. No one's world should fall apart just because they fell on hard times. I'm not looking for a team to be on, I want to better understand what's going on and the personal views of those that don't necessarily share anything or much in common with me on any identity or economical front. What can I do? What can we do? As is obvious now, my current social and media exposure to a lot of this is very middle of the road. When I bring it to the thread, it's because I've found the subject matter interesting, rather than the presenter of it. The argument, for example, that the people giving Farage and Trump et al their support aren't doing so because they're racist misogynists, but because the incumbent political elite have utterly loving abandoned them and you know what? When you're poor and desperate, principles don't put food on the table and fuckheads prey on those people. Now, there's a lot of poor and disenfranchised people that currently hold loving highly racist views. Do we shut them down? Or do we recognise that those views are formed from the fact they're poor and disenfranchised and have had who is really to blame (loving johnny foreigners) pummelled into them every lovely day of their lives. gently caress the source, James O'Brien said "contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned" and I agree with the statement regardless of what you think of the man. I'm not incapable of empathy for a homeless person just because they think the Polish are to blame any more than I am someone with a house but living paycheque to paycheque. Nothingtoseehere posted:Oh, if you want more left-wing takes from outside the thread that might challenge you, read through the back pages of Current Affairs, an american left-wing magazine. It's got a lot of takes on american issues you might not care about, but also some wider criticism worth reading. Thank you for this. So I guess a point formed out of all of that, somewhat addressing why I took an interest in UKMT again after more than five years (last posted around the time Thatcher finally died up to finally losing all hope in politics in 2010) and I guess also: UKMT, do you think there's a fundamental problem in how we engage with people with whom we disagree politically right now? brian posted:jonathan pie's writer is a writer for noted alt right/kinda libertarian right propaganda site spiked and both are genuinely awful people you should be very cautious about taking at face value Well my vote certainly isn't influenced by anything that is clearly supposed to be entertainment (Pie). I guess it could be more constructive if I simply present the thought that the source has provoked, rather than the source material that provoked it. I recently became aware of his co-writer's politics but haven't picked up on any sort of dogwhistle right in the Pie stuff I've watched however I keep an eye out for it. Appreciate the responses, apologies if I missed anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
immersion in a certain mindset inevitably makes you conform to some extent to that mindset. a good example of this is toblerone triangular, who stopped his magnificent trolling project because it was leaking back into his normal cognitive processes, an utterly terrifying prospect this isn't to say that you shouldn't engage with stuff, but that one must always remain critical and vigilant whilst doing so, and interrogating underlying premises and consequences of what's being said. a lot of the time, what's being said isn't even the problem, it's what's not being said - so e.g. john oliver's john oliver show for reasonable liberals normally has ok social diagnoses, but just stops for some inexplicable reason and veers into some non-solution based on how society would be better if we were all nicer to each other
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Current Affairs is very good if wordy and you are doing yourself a disservice if you don't read their nuclear annihilation of Jorp "the Meaty Professor" Jordan Peterson
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:immersion in a certain mindset inevitably makes you conform to some extent to that mindset. a good example of this is toblerone triangular, who stopped his magnificent trolling project because it was leaking back into his normal cognitive processes, an utterly terrifying prospect hi, i'm permabanned poster politicalcorrectnessstomper58,
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
Illuyankas posted:Current Affairs is very good if wordy and you are doing yourself a disservice if you don't read their nuclear annihilation of Jorp "the Meaty Professor" Jordan Peterson Do you have a link? I don't see a search on their site and not found that name on the first few pages of articles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
This is my best way of explaining why backs are up.  It's pretty obvious what they're using any logic against identity politics for. Regardless of how solid that logic is, which I'll leave to others. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Apr 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:yeah jon pie can gently caress off There's a video on youtube where Jonathan Pie talks to Owen Jones and Owen makes this point very well. I find Pie interesting because it's a mix of positions that are valid with some stuff that while we've thankfully binned, a lot of people haven't. I come across older left leaning people who hold similar views to Pie. He's the ragescream of people who went to Rock Against Racism in 1978 but fear the transgendered. Hearing those points of view articulated compellingly is helpful to understand how to effectively disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks. That's certainly a long way from the UK system, and also sounds very different to the rental market here in Norway, at least insofar as I've experienced it. Actually renting across Northern Europe seems to vary a lot. Certainly the Dutch also have their own interesting take with antikraak and the influence of the squatters movement in Amsterdam in particular, Germany is different again and from the saga I've been following of a friend trying to rent in Berlin that's even its own ecosystem within the country. If we have any other posters from places where the rental market differs significantly it'd be cool to know more, especially topical right now with some of our comrades in cat jail for crimes against landlordism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Bundy posted:I genuinely don't know what the solution is. I think it's to the left somewhere but I'm just a programmer that's gravely uncomfortable with the current state of play, frustrated that I have to tactically vote Labour whomever the candidates in the hope mine will be the vote that breaks the Tory stronghold. Not trying to set you up for a gotcha (and I don't wish to ignore the rest of your post, I just don't have time to go through it properly right now), but if you feel vaguely on the left but are having to tactically vote Labour who would you ideally prefer to be voting for?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:This is my best way of explaining why backs are up. I think it's a wrecking ball and clearly nothing to do with the point my metaphor was trying to make. Though to carry on with that, as said it's a wrecking ball and therefore considered as such. loving dangerous? Playing the sports metaphor ball considers immediate impact/environment and positions of other players so er, yeah it holds, if somewhat tenuously at times. That's the trouble with metaphors, they're a tool to make a specific point, not one to be used liberally as a justification for all other extremes of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Bundy posted:What's the thread's view on Tom Walker/Jonathan Pie stuff? Not necessarily for his politics but for his views on how labels and identity politics dominate discourse and steer/shut down debate now. After the LBC misstep I don't want to end up with a deluge of exactly why he's bad. They're the worst kind of Trots, and that's why his (and Spiked Online and Living Marxism's) definition of 'freedom of speech' is exactly the same as the worst kind of Trots: "I deserve a pulpit for my terrible ideas and if anyone doesn't give me one or, worse, uses their speech to contradict mine, they're Stalinist McCarthyists." That said it doesn't mean everyone who finds him amusing deserves the gulag, he should just be taken with a mountain of salt and many  , like all their lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Bundy posted:gently caress the source, James O'Brien said "contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned" and I agree with the statement regardless of what you think of the man. I'm not incapable of empathy for a homeless person just because they think the Polish are to blame any more than I am someone with a house but living paycheque to paycheque. So one of the reasons why people hate wishy-washy liberals like JOB so much is that they come out with lines like this, but they have no room in their political spectrum for concepts which will actually harm the ones manipulating society and help the disenfranchised. In some respects it's worse than the ones who just say "yeah well they deserve to starve on the streets, the thickos" because it gives a screen for lovely people to hide behind while still doing all the same lovely things that the more blatantly evil people also do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Bundy posted:I think it's a wrecking ball and clearly nothing to do with the point my metaphor was trying to make. Though to carry on with that, as said it's a wrecking ball and therefore considered as such. loving dangerous? Playing the sports metaphor ball considers immediate impact/environment and positions of other players so er, yeah it holds, if somewhat tenuously at times. That's the trouble with metaphors, they're a tool to make a specific point, not one to be used liberally as a justification for all other extremes of the argument. I've also made a metaphor. Care to address it instead of insisting on your own?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Not trying to set you up for a gotcha (and I don't wish to ignore the rest of your post, I just don't have time to go through it properly right now), but if you feel vaguely on the left but are having to tactically vote Labour who would you ideally prefer to be voting for? I wager fifteen quatloos the Lib Dems
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Bundy posted:Do you have a link? I don't see a search on their site and not found that name on the first few pages of articles. Best of 2018 list for lack of search on recent articles Jordan peterson takedown About disillusioned peterson fans
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Bundy posted:I didn't see this among the ones I watched, though I was only picking out stuff on Brexit and Trump.  He sums himself up perfectly in that video when he incredulously asks "who is this helping?" and decides the answer is "nobody" rather than "non-white children".
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Not trying to set you up for a gotcha (and I don't wish to ignore the rest of your post, I just don't have time to go through it properly right now), but if you feel vaguely on the left but are having to tactically vote Labour who would you ideally prefer to be voting for? Right now I'd be voting for Labour, my point was more along the lines of FPTP giving me no other choice at all in this constituency ever than to vote Labour even if I thought the Labour candidate was a loving lunatic. There have been solid Lib Dem candidates in my constituency over the years that had absolutely no chance whatsoever. Remember MPs aren't delegates, they're representatives, it's a loving poo poo position to be in, on that basis, when you know you're guaranteed a typical poo poo Tory unless you vote for the Labour candidate who has over the years varied between little other than Blairites or idiots. Especially when the LD or Independent would probably vote in the house in a manner you agree with, but they've got no loving chance at winning and I know that first and foremost the Tories must not govern at all costs. So I vote Labour. Because I must not necessarily because I want to. That's the problem, the system is broken. We're supposed to elect whichever MP best represents the views of a constituency, so that parliament as a whole acts in the best interests of the collective, but the North/South divide and loving about with electoral borders seems to have utterly hosed that system. That and the fact a lot of MPs with ministerial aspirations are there for the contacts they'll get for after they've been kicked the gently caress out and onto much, much higher earning tickets. Other factors obviously of course, a poorly educated public is an easily controlled public, break the spirit then blame The Other etc. Guavanaut posted:I don't think anyone mentioned this, but Pie's the stand up comedy arm of the Revolutionary Communist Party/Living Marxism. So like...some form of fascist left?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Bundy posted:Appreciate the responses, apologies if I missed anything. Honestly the best thing you can do is hang out here, ask questions and try not to take the responses personally. You've sounded pretty defensive in your last few posts (which is probably why people got a bit  and thought you might be trolling) - I'm not saying that as a criticism, just that you might be taking stuff the wrong way. The people you're bringing up have a history with the thread and it's at the point where they get criticised and mocked a lot - for good reason, really - but it's not an attack on you for engaging with them, y'know? Most of us have been there at some point!As far as discussions with people you don't agree with go... this is a very leftist thread, people are less neutral and more outspoken than they would be in other situations, especially situations where you're trying to bring someone round. But most people here will totally engage with you in good faith But the other thing is there's a definite backlash against  and agreeing to disagree, empty centrism and so on. People have strong opinions on what is right and wrong, how things need to change, and they're sick of seeing good and important things sidelined by people who put more value in compromise (with the people who don't want the good things), or politeness (don't upset the people who don't want the good things), or simplistic principles that don't take into account privilege, real world power imbalances, the actual effects on people etc. And y'know what, being honest and assertive about calling stuff out isn't just cathartic, people are having fun with it, so expect to see more of that
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Listen to Thread Ambassador Baka Kaba, Bundy, he's got the right of it
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Bundy posted:So like...some form of fascist left? There's nothing left left in spiked, they're an anti-environmentalist cult now. E: also Azza that is one of the greatest cartoons of all time
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
 It's about time to get my balls out for someone to attack: my point is that it's not just all academic consideration of the point. It's obvious what people espousing these supposedly harmless-in-isolation views intend to do with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
This is all good poo poo, thanks.Azza Bamboo posted:I've also made a metaphor. Care to address it instead of insisting on your own? Apologies, it seemed like you were just ridiculing my use of "ball". I'm not sure what else I can add to my response though, since you seem to have built a strawman? That's not what I said and since the specific metaphor was pertinent to my point in context of the metaphor itself, you in spite of that seem to be extrapolating that I am therefore advocating for destructive arguments? If that's it, well I'm not, if that's not it, well I guess I've misunderstood what your metaphor is supposed to mean. What I am saying is I think it's more likely to succeed to point out a view as a racist view and debate why, than just point a finger at the utterer and call them a racist. Or whatever the contentious thing is. Perhaps this is privilege showing on my part because I've not been angry enough to feel the need to do that. e: ^^ well that's just a loving nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Debating racists who are racist in public doesn't make them stop being racist in public. Calling them racist and publicly shaming them for it does. Funnily enough, same with fascists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Bundy posted:What I am saying is I think it's more likely to succeed to point out a view as a racist view and debate why, than just point a finger at the utterer and call them a racist. Debating with an opponent who isn't constrained by the need for truth is a fool's errand. Rather than try to delve into the argument about idpol I seek to show people how it looks when someone tries to delve into the argument in a situation where the argument simply is not the problem with the wider situation. I'm not suggesting you advocate for their side of the argument, just that trying to isolate the debate from everything around it looks, as you say, nonsensical when you can see all that is around it. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Apr 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
I can understand your frustration, our parliamentary election system is not good. At great risk to my thread cred I will admit to having voted Lib Dem in a council election because the candidate appeared especially good. But I'd never consider it in a GE even for a hypothetical LD candidate who appeared personally outstanding because the parliamentary party is shite, its candidates implicitly support its manifesto and policies by standing under a yellow rosette, and I'd generally expect them to follow the whip. I'm actually not really sure who I'd vote in the next GE because my incumbent SNP MP is Mhairi Black, who I think is personally very good, and the Labour candidate might well be another parachuted Scotlab Blairite (hi Douglas Alexander). But her party is not great and generally has very few voting rebels, the race could be pretty close, and I'd very much like to see a Labour majority nationwide. I don't have any smart advice for you, but I do sympathise. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Apr 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Bundy posted:So like...some form of fascist left?
Sometimes this is mostly harmless, like Posadists believing in psychic dolphins and nuclear aliens. Other times they become indistinguishable from the alt-right as they believe that it has to win to accelerate the proletariat to revolution, and don't notice that it's mostly libertarian edgebros sharing their stuff. RCP are the latter, although due to their many spinoffs like the Institute of (Bad) Ideas and appeal to the petroleum industry with their rampant anti-environmentalism (that they sometimes still justify by appeal to Marxist Man dominating nature rhetoric when their wider audience isn't looking) they have an oversized voice in the media scene. Provided they can stop themselves from doing genocide denial (that's why Living Marxism got sued into the ground, and you still get banned if you mention it in the comments on Spiked. Very free speech.  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Wait Jonathan Pie is a trot? I obviously haven't paid enough attention I thought he was just another tedious centrist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Wait Jonathan Pie is a trot? I obviously haven't paid enough attention I thought he was just another tedious centrist. Apparently being a trot is something that can afflict basically any political persuasion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
good thing we've had nigel farage on question time every other night for the last 5 years to rebuke his lovely idiot opinions or we might be stuck in some kind of infinite brexit hell
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Wait Jonathan Pie is a trot? I obviously haven't paid enough attention I thought he was just another tedious centrist. Member of ex-Trot group currently making the usual migration from Trotskyism through right-libertarian to fascism. So, kind of like a centrist but angrier and cultier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Wait Jonathan Pie is a trot? I obviously haven't paid enough attention I thought he was just another tedious centrist. So now they mostly scream about free speech because ITN sued them for libel when they said that the news fabricated the genocides in former Yugoslavia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
I had no idea Walker was in with that lot. It's even worse than I had imagined. Aren't most people who call themselves trots these days closet libertarians?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Debating with an opponent who isn't constrained by the need for truth is a fool's errand. Rather than try to delve into the argument I seek to show people how it looks when someone tries to delve into the argument in a situation where the argument simply is not the problem with the wider situation. So I think we can agree then, context matters and it can matter while still dealing with the immediate "ball" whether it's one in a trivial sports event, or something more destructive; in your drawing, first and foremost the wrecking ball must be dealt with right? In my dumb sports metaphor I now wish I hadn't made, you attempt to play the ball with the idea of what's going on around you in mind, taking out the player instead doesn't end up constructive. Obviously, if two sides of an argument agree that a view is racist or one side can't agree on why it isn't when it plainly is but they're going to hang onto it anyway, they're either a moron or a racist, move on. I just don't like hearing something I disagree with and dismissing it because I've spotted a trait or label about the espouser that I can use to explain/assume/dismiss whatever they're saying with. Again I'm talking largely about the majority here, it's pretty loving obvious I'm not going to have much luck debating a KKK gathering. The people I'm talking about are the ones they start recruiting because forty something white man Bob is mad because he can't loving afford anything anymore and the NHS is poo poo and he's told it's all Europe's fault and any time he says that the racist/white/male/combo/boomer gets rolled out first before any attempt to point out that actually, no, you've been sold a lie. big scary monsters posted:I can understand your frustration, our parliamentary election system is not good. At great risk to my thread cred I will admit to having voted Lib Dem in a council election because the candidate appeared especially good. But I'd never consider it in a GE even for a hypothetical LD candidate who appeared personally outstanding because the parliamentary party is shite, its candidates implicitly support its manifesto and policies by standing under a yellow rosette, and I'd generally expect them to follow the whip. I'm actually not really sure who I'd vote in the next GE because my incumbent SNP MP is Mhairi Black, who I think is personally very good, and the Labour candidate might well be another parachuted Scotlab Blairite (hi Douglas Alexander). But her party is not great and generally has very few voting rebels, the race could be pretty close, and I'd very much like to see a Labour majority nationwide. Yeah and the half arsed referendum around changing the vote system was loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:good thing we've had nigel farage on question time every other night for the last 5 years to rebuke his lovely idiot opinions or we might be stuck in some kind of infinite brexit hell Well my thoughts on the subject sort of require that people are called on their bullshit, which is where the house of cards falls down. I am vehemently against Farage having an unchallenged platform but he was given one in the name of impartiality. You can be impartial and still point out a loving lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Oh an ex-trot turned lovely centrist/right winger. That's pretty normal, I thought people were saying he was currently a trot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Bundy posted:Well my thoughts on the subject sort of require that people are called on their bullshit, which is where the house of cards falls down. I am vehemently against Farage having an unchallenged platform but he was given one in the name of impartiality. You can be impartial and still point out a loving lie. Not by any commonly used definition of impartiality. When was the last time you saw anyone call out Farage on a lie successfully?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
The frequent tendency of trots to skip centrism and go straight to the far right (although they usually find some way to collect £200 en route) is one of the reasons behind horseshoe theory. I think it’s because if when you really get down to it, your core belief isn’t “society should be fair, violence is a lovely but maybe necessary part of changing that” but “I’m a hero who will violently overthrow the current order and it’s gonna be awesome”, fascism’s gonna have a lot of appeal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 15:27
|
|
