|
Bobby Deluxe posted:TLDR: They're dickheads, but they want to sound clever. If you point out they're not clever, that's mean and you're mean for making them think about things. This is true. It ties into their resistance to examine anything as a systemic thing, rather than the actions of individuals (problems bad, causes good etc). Strangely, it reminds me of a thing my primary school teachers used to say when they wanted silence. It literally translates as "everyone holds their own mouth", and implies that everyone should take responsibility for their own silence (as opposed to shushing others, telling teacher etc), and then their will be silence. May or may not work in a classroom, but it seems analogous to the anti-systemic sentiment, where if every [racist/sexist/...] just stopped, then there would be no more [racism/sexism/...], which definitely doesn't work. But I think fundamentally, as someone said upthread, it comes down to being comfortable in the current system, or at least comfortable enough that they don't want to rock the boat.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The problem with liberalism being the dominant ideology is it attracts the utterly incurious and stupidest people around, because you don't have to think, you just babble things you heard somewhere else and ape the tone of others and everyoe nods along like an idiot. To be fair that's just what humans do by default. Because things have been fine for me thus far, they'll continue being fine as long as nothing changes, so anyone who wants to change anything is bad. Thinking only makes you upset.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
French journalist (google translate) quote:In the twisted journalism genre, pro-Brexit pit bull Daily Mail protests against EU "new rules" "banning" Britons from their homes in Europe 6 months / year https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1333414117663715329?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
therattle posted:Thanks for taking the time to respond. I am not entirely convinced by the racism argument, as the law applies to all foreign nationals, and discriminating on the basis of nationality is similar to but not quite the same as racism. The law applies to Americans, Canadian, Australians etc (i.e., English speakers) as well as Poles, Nigerians etc (i.e., those against whom the State traditionally discriminates). Put it this way - if an English person and a Syrian refugee commit the same crime (say unprovoked murder), and you deport the Syrian, shouldn't you also deport the English person? Where to? The policy gives an inherent exceptionalism to people who happen to have been born in the UK, or in Priti Patels's version people who's parents were born in the UK. So you have a government deporting English born kids to countries they've never been to because one of their parents was born there. It stinks of the idea of people being 'where they belong' because they happen to have been born there. Russell Howard did a great bit about this (that I can't look up because I still don't have WiFi) which ends in him yelling "Mother, aim your fanny north of Dover - I'm quite the bigot." It boils down to the fact that nobody chooses where they were born, so it's ridiculous to make policy that essentially puts beople 'back where they belong' - essentially worsening the racist idea that Africa is full of murderers and rapists. And right wingers can split hairs about if it's bigotry or racism, but it doesn't matter - you're applying a law to migrants, but excluding people who by accident of birth were born here. There's an essentialism there that's bigoted by nature, and in it's general application as applying to people who look and act 'foreign' is definitely based on racial and race-cultural factors. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Put it this way - if an English person and a Syrian refugee commit the same crime (say unprovoked murder), and you deport the Syrian, shouldn't you also deport the English person? Where to? Well exactly. You can't because nowhere will take them. But yes ideally deport all murderers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
the nazi starmer listened to lol https://twitter.com/redflareinfo/status/1338453892661714945?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Well exactly. You can't because nowhere will take them. But yes ideally deport all murderers. That's incompatible with a universal sense of justice, particularly globally. You either invent prisons again, do the death penalty or create a wilderness which is beyond your law which is a tricky proposition ethically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's racist because you deport everyone who's not British. Yes, British is not a 'race' but the dogwhistle here is that the people who support this policy generally mean that people who look or act 'foreign' are the ones who should be deported. Divy the English person up into pieces and send them back pro-rata to their place of origin as the British Isles were completely devoid of human occupation for around 20000 years at some point, every person in the UK is either an immigrant or descendant of immigrants. So it'll be an arm to France, a leg to Denmark, an ear maybe to Syria, maybe another arm to Italy.....
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Strangely, it reminds me of a thing my primary school teachers used to say when they wanted silence. It literally translates as "everyone holds their own mouth", and implies that everyone should take responsibility for their own silence (as opposed to shushing others, telling teacher etc), and then their will be silence. It would not surprise me at all to find out that their parents raised them to be obediant and not question anything, which is why it scares them at such a fundamental level when people on twitter try to get them to think for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
Burchill deleted her Twitter account  namesake posted:create a wilderness which is beyond your law which is a tricky proposition ethically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Burchill deleted her Twitter account lmao that post about her publicist being all "Hey Julie stir some poo poo up on social media to get some eyes on your book..... NO NOT LIKE THAT WHAT THE gently caress" was on the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's racist because you deport everyone who's not British. Yes, British is not a 'race' but the dogwhistle here is that the people who support this policy generally mean that people who look or act 'foreign' are the ones who should be deported. I don't think that the argument you are making here is very different from what I was saying: that its application is racist. The law as it stands gives a lot of weight to where somebody was born, when balancing the "public interest" in deporting against the individual's rights. But yes, absolutely, it is interpreted and implemented by the government in the worst possible way, and I agree that is a persuasive reason for opposing it. Your post focused a lot on people who were born here being deported, which I would never countenance. But what if, say, a white American murders someone? I am not in principle opposed to deporting them. That said, I recognise the law and implementation thereof that would lead to that result are generally racist in their application and so we shouldn't deport anyone, as in most cases it is unfair (even if in some cases it is not).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
It's been a fact for a long time yes but it doesn't make it ethical, only practical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Well exactly. You can't because nowhere will take them. But yes ideally deport all murderers. By extension, the people who tend to support the policy are people who want to apply it particularly to people who look / culturally act 'foreign,' and that is racist. E: therattle - I think the problem with you and I arguing the finer points of the policy is meaningless because generally, the people supporting and implementing it are doing it from a place of wanting to justify their own racism / bigotry. Neither you or I are at heart racist, so trying to devil's advocate it is not really reflective of the real issues around the policy. You and I can argue until the sun comes up if we think white american should be deported, but that's not really representative of the problem. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I find a lot of Guardian lib thinking is based around infantalising themselves, or falling back on the sort of rules kids learn to stop them fighting. "The grownups are back in the room," "agree to disagree," "be nice," "find a middle ground" etc. Also, "it doesn't matter who started it". Quietly sitting, being enlightened and non-racist, waiting for everyone else to catch up. "I've done my bit"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:My point was that the policy specifically makes the distinction between UK born and immigrant, and targets only foreigners. That's bigoted. Lots of policies make that distinction. Because racists support a thing doesn't necessarily make the thing racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aaronwjohn/status/1338466929841942530?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Lol at the plea regarding home learning materials. Yeah they pretty much did fall out of your apparently collective arseholes. Released on sunday evening with about 30 mins top spent on formulating the a4 sheet of hyperlinks to shite online games. Much the same every week. Total shite. I hope Brexit fucks you over specifically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
Grape posted:I hope Brexit fucks you over specifically. Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
Angepain posted:I still don't know what the best way to actually stay informed is, to be honest. Get exhausted each day on twitter discourse? Take everything posted in d&d and c-spam as gospel? Drop out of life and exclusively read in-depth histories of the russian revolution? Less flippantly: there’s nothing wrong with being uninformed about something, the important part is being willing to learn if necessary and being aware of the narrative being pushed by whoever is doing the teaching.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
The idea that you need to Know What's Going On all the time is, IMO, one invented by people who want to sell you information. Not useful information either, just information for you to consume. It's the same idea as junk food really. You aren't hungry, but you must consume the junk food, you want to consume the food, consume the food and pay us in the process. If you do not consume you will be afraid that you are missing out, you don't want to be missing out, so consume. If it's published or trending it must be important and you must know about the important things, you must be current lest you be cast out to the desolate wastes of not being up to date where you will be shamed and scorned by your peers. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a huge difference between not knowing, and actively resisting knowing. Nobody can know everything in advance, so when something you don't know comes up, research from places you trust, admit you don't know, ask, learn. Do what seems like a reasonable amount based on how connected you are to the thing- we probably don't need to understand the finer points of infection control, but if if you're PM during a pandemic and it's your loving job, then yeah, not doing the reading is absolutely damning. E: same applies to graun journalists wanting to be seen as the authority on things they vaguely recall from middle school. The worst people in the world are those who think they already know it all. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
wait this is true? https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1338475184949506049?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
Aphex- posted:https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1338445662590029829?s=20 'words hurt' I say while defending the legitimisation of racism
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Jose posted:wait this is true?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
this is the same person who was whining that starmer has stfu about brexit lol https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1338485799675981824?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that you need to Know What's Going On all the time is, IMO, one invented by people who want to sell you information. Not useful information either, just information for you to consume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This seems to be the real drive of conspiracy theories in the Q format, you get to know all about everything while actually knowing gently caress all about anything. And yet hilariously they are also stuck in an endless cycle of media consumption about their conspiracy theory that is supposed to give them universal understanding 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Yeah, there's a huge difference between not knowing, and actively resisting knowing. I know multiple philosophers who would disagree. But then you ask what it's good for and the answer's mostly "knowing useful knowledge is mostly either a posteriori or pulled out of your rear end".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
How can they know everything? How would you confirm it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
I'm sure they can confirm it and they would know, knowing everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This seems to be the real drive of conspiracy theories in the Q format, you get to know all about everything while actually knowing gently caress all about anything. I was wondering earlier whether the conspiracy theories are tuned to their audiences in the same way as the old advance fee frauds are. They seem completely stupid to the "sensible reader" but that's maybe kind of the point the theories have to be sufficiently stupid to isolate the target audience who can then be pounded with belt-fed FACTS until their brains turn to hummus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
I think the decentralized nature of conspiracy theories means that they are perhaps less tuned to their audience but that because they are massively products of their audience the accelerated, multimedia communication format of the internet has allowed them to evolve to be perfectly suited to a latent section of the population that thinks in a way that is very abberant to us. Turns out a lot of people really do believe in magical thinking and cannot parse the idea that the world can be the way it is because of the interaction of blind, distributed forces that nobody really controls, so they find the idea of a vast, intelligent conspiracy steeped in mythic imagery and fairytale logic to be very appealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Jose posted:wait this is true? https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1338462001991979012 Like clockwork...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:I was wondering earlier whether the conspiracy theories are tuned to their audiences in the same way as the old advance fee frauds are. They seem completely stupid to the "sensible reader" but that's maybe kind of the point the theories have to be sufficiently stupid to isolate the target audience who can then be pounded with belt-fed FACTS until their brains turn to hummus. So you get people like David Icke who seems to have made it a mission to have the wrongest takes on every single issue and seems to genuinely believe it all, you wouldn't have a meltdown on Wogan just to sell some books years later, or the Black hip-hop culture being huge fans of Bill Cooper, or Cooper himself believing his own hype enough to pull a gun on a cop; there's a uniting thread of delusion that just so happens to benefit a few of the loudest in a seemingly organic way. The people benefiting most from that are probably the ones writing the algorithms. OwlFancier posted:I think the decentralized nature of conspiracy theories means that they are perhaps less tuned to their audience but that because they are massively products of their audience the accelerated, multimedia communication format of the internet has allowed them to evolve to be perfectly suited to a latent section of the population that thinks in a way that is very abberant to us. Turns out a lot of people really do believe in magical thinking and cannot parse the idea that the world can be the way it is because of the interaction of blind, distributed forces that nobody really controls, so they find the idea of a vast, intelligent conspiracy steeped in mythic imagery and fairytale logic to be very appealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm sure they can confirm it and they would know, knowing everything. drat it
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I suppose the meta-conspiracy here is that it also has been created by people trying to monetize the interaction of blind, distributed forces that nobody really controls through algorithms. You could also view that as just another part of the evolutionary process though, there is a latent desire for that kind of poo poo, people create algorithms that drive engagement, many forms of engagement are harmful to society and to individuals but when has the drive for profit ever cared about that? So more effective algorithms are created and better ways to bombard people with content and people who believe the poo poo create more content in more ways and refine their methods further and you end up here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could also view that as just another part of the evolutionary process though, there is a latent desire for that kind of poo poo, people create algorithms that drive engagement, many forms of engagement are harmful to society and to individuals but when has the drive for profit ever cared about that? So more effective algorithms are created and better ways to bombard people with content and people who believe the poo poo create more content in more ways and refine their methods further and you end up here. You end up here, says man, halfway down the swirl in the toilet bowl.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Put it this way - if an English person and a Syrian refugee commit the same crime (say unprovoked murder), and you deport the Syrian, shouldn't you also deport the English person? Where to? The sea (you finned oval office) in true Paul Nuttals style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:You end up here, says man, halfway down the swirl in the toilet bowl. It would be nice if english had a version of "here" that carried the implication of a point and vector rather than a static point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 15:45
|
|