sinky posted:

Dead Goon posted:

That's not heroin.

The Perfect Element posted:

I've always found this GIF so fascinating. I guess that like, in my heart of hearts, I still can't really believe that an MP, let alone a minister, let alone a front bencher, let alone the loving CHANCELLOR, would go into a session completely off their tits. But I literally can't imagine that anyone sober or not incredibly poorly could ever look like that.

I guess we shall never know.

forkboy84 posted:

I dunno, used to be incredibly common for them to come in pished out of their gourds. Less so since they let TV cameras in though.

The Perfect Element posted:

I've always found this GIF so fascinating. I guess that like, in my heart of hearts, I still can't really believe that an MP, let alone a minister, let alone a front bencher, let alone the loving CHANCELLOR, would go into a session completely off their tits. But I literally can't imagine that anyone sober or not incredibly poorly could ever look like that.

I guess we shall never know.

therattle posted:

I totally agree with that (and with the assessment of prison officers. I have always wondered who the hell becomes one, unless people are just desperate for work) . But I wasn't the one asking for non-Western sources. That's why I mentioned first-0hand accounts in the NYer piece and the report referred to in the ALJ article which was based on scraping publicly-available Chinese sources.

I guess so. it appears that they have since acknowledged that there was a coup in Bolivia. Even if you think they are biased that doesn't automatically disqualify their reporting. It just means it should be taken with a pinch of salt. But if they are so untrustworthy and biased I suppose you therefore also discount their characterisation of Israel's policies towards Palestinians as apartheid?

ThomasPaine posted:

I think the reason people get so defensive on this subject is that if feels like 95% of the time everyone has clearly made up their own mind already and is just trying to spin whatever new 'evidence' comes out to suit their own ends. One side thinks criticising sources that have almost all been produced by rabidly anti-communist US think tanks and insane weirdos like Zenz makes you a genocide apologist, the other thinks saying 'oh hey china might be doing a bad thing' makes you a CIA-funded psyop. It's a pointless argument honestly because it's just people yelling at each other and, weirdly enough, is very very rarely actually about the welfare of Uyghurs. It's pure ideological grandstanding.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the sequence of events:

1. China is an authoritarian country doing authoritarian country things
2. Chinese policy is disproportionately affecting Uyghur Muslims, because they as a group have become associated with separatist politics
3. There is a broad cultural trend of Han chauvinism which means most people don't much care about 2
4. Some people speak out about 1, China responds by doing more of 1, because 1.
5. The USA, which could not give a drat about 2 but very much wants to cultivate hostility towards China senses an opportunity to manipulate popular opinion.
6. US think-tanks produce research that uses selective evidence to massively exaggerate the extent of the issue.
7. This encourages the anti-china crowd to go balls to the wall, social media is filled with disturbing footage and photographs allegedly from Xinjiang. Some of this is real, some of it trivial to discredit.
8. 4 find 6 very receptive to their genuine stories about 1, are happy someone is listening.
9. 6 discovers that many of 4 don't much like China either, and are more than happy to co-operate, while others are so desperate to be heard that they are easy to manipulate into saying whatever the interviewer leads them to.
10. 6 is now comfortable claiming that China is now literally doing a Holocaust, using a variety of 'evidence' from 4 and 7 to back up this conclusion. Some of their sources are legit, many are not, or are highly exaggerated - often because 6 deliberately manufactured the most highly inflammatory testimonies they could.
11. The Western media and institutions eat up 10 because 6 are highly influential, and it becomes an accepted truth within some international organisations. Going against it is perceived as outright genocide denial, dissuading much mainstream criticism and reinforcing the story.
12. Some people realise that certain pieces of evidence and testimony are completely full of holes.
13. Most people steer well clear because 6 is now a self-evident truth and they don't want to be ostracised.
14. Tankies, being no strangers to ostracism, take this to mean that the whole thing is a fabrication and insist China is a utopia among other insane tankie things.
15. This actually benefits the the narrative of 10, because the only people rejecting the conclusion are utter weirdoes.
16. China also uses 12 to cover itself, claiming that 10 is bullshit (probably correct), and that following on from that 1, 2, and 3 are also bullshit (probably very much incorrect).
17. 16 being a dumb claim, Western institutions take it as further proof of 10.
18. We are stuck in a stupid rut where there are basically no good faith actors whatsover.

Hey, maybe years down the line I'll have my own Noam Chomsky moment, but right now I see no reason to just swallow what the PR wing of a country known for pulling this poo poo time and time again when they want to manufacture consent to intervene in foreign affairs tells me wholesale.

Gonzo McFee posted:

Having worked in a posh addictions' hospital, Tories are well into their drugs. It's just they all can afford the £5000 a week addiction therapy that absolutely nobody else will get.

quote:

The individual programme designed for each patient, together with hospitality services, has a cost of CHF 45’000 per week. For any more details, please refer to our Admissions department.

Private apartment and suites – price available upon request.

Price does not include medical treatment which does not relate to the patient’s reason of hospitalisation.

OwlFancier posted:

You can just be an anarchist and put your sunglasses on while saying all states are bad and they can all gently caress off.

knox_harrington posted:

Posh addiction hospital you say? Check out

https://cliniclesalpes.com/

Gonzo McFee posted:

Just thinking back to a guy telling me that he was actually saving money because his coke habit was more than the bed, and realizing how the other half live.

OwlFancier posted:

If it were a choice between the NHS and states then I would probably suggest that the NHS does not seem to protect or offset very well the problems that states cause. If I have to live in a state I would rather live in one with a healthcare service, but I can't say that on the whole I find that situation very pleasant.

ThomasPaine posted:

I mean the state didn't kill them by virtue of being a State, the state killed them because it was governed by people who wanted them dead (or didn't care)

Lady Gaza posted:

St Thomas’ Hospital in Westminster are doing boosters for anyone who had last dose more than 3 months ago, if any of you are round that way.

kecske posted:

over 40s still isn't it? I'm working round the corner from there tomorrow but am only a sprightly 35.

ThomasPaine posted:

This is just standard anarchist-ML beef lol, I guess we're not going to resolve the schism on this dead gay comedy forum

goddamnedtwisto posted:

You know you're truly internet-poisoned when the only thing you take away from a discussion about a man with an artillery shell up his arse is "Huh, I didn't know they had sabot rounds back then".

Borrovan posted:

I thought we did resolve it & the stalinists were wrong. Maybe I'm misremembering

A Chomsky Boi posted:

I met with a very lively anarchist movement in Buenos Aires, and with other anarchist groups as far away as northeastern Brazil, where nobody even knew they existed. We had a lot of discussions about these matters. They recognize that they have to try to use the state—even though they regard it as totally illegitimate. The reason is perfectly obvious: When you eliminate the one institutional structure in which people can participate to some extent—namely the government—you’re simply handing over power to unaccountable private tyrannies that are much worse. So you have to make use of the state, all the time recognizing that you ultimately want to eliminate it.

Some of the rural workers in Brazil have an interesting slogan. They say their immediate task is “expanding the floor of the cage.” They understand that they’re trapped inside a cage, but realize that protecting it when it’s under attack from even worse predators on the outside, and extending the limits of what the cage will allow, are both essential preliminaries to dismantling it. If they attack the cage directly when they’re so vulnerable, they’ll get murdered.

OwlFancier posted:

It is, at present, over 40's or by invitation if you have a condition. I imagine they will drop the age limit again soon though if they are planning to hit the target in february.

namesake posted:

Nope it's all adults now if you had your second shot more than 3 months ago but it's being done by your GP and they are working their way through their list so you might not have been invited yet. However if there's a walk in centre around you and you qualify (the walk ins do 6 months apparently) then you can get it done there.

OwlFancier posted:

I just think it's a bit silly that all over the world and all across time we have these big hierarchical organizations running countries and corporations and churches and it turns out the people at the top of them use their power to do utterly horrific poo poo literally all the time, and apparently there are still people going "hey now maybe it's just that we have the wrong people in charge, you can't just write off the system"

Guavanaut posted:

I think Chomsky is right about the state, it's bad lol

State bad, alternative worse at present, but state definitely tries to protect itself from having to do any of the things that might make it less bad unless forced. Same often goes for other structures like unions once they get large enough.

Guavanaut posted:

State bad, alternative worse at present, but state definitely tries to protect itself from having to do any of the things that might make it less bad unless forced. Same often goes for other structures like unions once they get large enough.

Borrovan posted:

(disclaimer: I'm drunk, apologies if I was being a dick TP it's been a long day)

ThomasPaine posted:

I think the reason people get so defensive on this subject is that if feels like 95% of the time everyone has clearly made up their own mind already and is just trying to spin whatever new 'evidence' comes out to suit their own ends. One side thinks criticising sources that have almost all been produced by rabidly anti-communist US think tanks and insane weirdos like Zenz makes you a genocide apologist, the other thinks saying 'oh hey china might be doing a bad thing' makes you a CIA-funded psyop. It's a pointless argument honestly because it's just people yelling at each other and, weirdly enough, is very very rarely actually about the welfare of Uyghurs. It's pure ideological grandstanding.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the sequence of events:

1. China is an authoritarian country doing authoritarian country things
2. Chinese policy is disproportionately affecting Uyghur Muslims, because they as a group have become associated with separatist politics
3. There is a broad cultural trend of Han chauvinism which means most people don't much care about 2
4. Some people speak out about 1, China responds by doing more of 1, because 1.
5. The USA, which could not give a drat about 2 but very much wants to cultivate hostility towards China senses an opportunity to manipulate popular opinion.
6. US think-tanks produce research that uses selective evidence to massively exaggerate the extent of the issue.
7. This encourages the anti-china crowd to go balls to the wall, social media is filled with disturbing footage and photographs allegedly from Xinjiang. Some of this is real, some of it trivial to discredit.
8. 4 find 6 very receptive to their genuine stories about 1, are happy someone is listening.
9. 6 discovers that many of 4 don't much like China either, and are more than happy to co-operate, while others are so desperate to be heard that they are easy to manipulate into saying whatever the interviewer leads them to.
10. 6 is now comfortable claiming that China is now literally doing a Holocaust, using a variety of 'evidence' from 4 and 7 to back up this conclusion. Some of their sources are legit, many are not, or are highly exaggerated - often because 6 deliberately manufactured the most highly inflammatory testimonies they could.
11. The Western media and institutions eat up 10 because 6 are highly influential, and it becomes an accepted truth within some international organisations. Going against it is perceived as outright genocide denial, dissuading much mainstream criticism and reinforcing the story.
12. Some people realise that certain pieces of evidence and testimony are completely full of holes.
13. Most people steer well clear because 6 is now a self-evident truth and they don't want to be ostracised.
14. Tankies, being no strangers to ostracism, take this to mean that the whole thing is a fabrication and insist China is a utopia among other insane tankie things.
15. This actually benefits the the narrative of 10, because the only people rejecting the conclusion are utter weirdoes.
16. China also uses 12 to cover itself, claiming that 10 is bullshit (probably correct), and that following on from that 1, 2, and 3 are also bullshit (probably very much incorrect).
17. 16 being a dumb claim, Western institutions take it as further proof of 10.
18. We are stuck in a stupid rut where there are basically no good faith actors whatsover.

Hey, maybe years down the line I'll have my own Noam Chomsky moment, but right now I see no reason to just swallow what the PR wing of a country known for pulling this poo poo time and time again when they want to manufacture consent to intervene in foreign affairs tells me wholesale.

ThomasPaine posted:

I think the reason people get so defensive on this subject is that if feels like 95% of the time everyone has clearly made up their own mind already and is just trying to spin whatever new 'evidence' comes out to suit their own ends. One side thinks criticising sources that have almost all been produced by rabidly anti-communist US think tanks and insane weirdos like Zenz makes you a genocide apologist, the other thinks saying 'oh hey china might be doing a bad thing' makes you a CIA-funded psyop. It's a pointless argument honestly because it's just people yelling at each other and, weirdly enough, is very very rarely actually about the welfare of Uyghurs. It's pure ideological grandstanding.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the sequence of events:

1. China is an authoritarian country doing authoritarian country things
2. Chinese policy is disproportionately affecting Uyghur Muslims, because they as a group have become associated with separatist politics
3. There is a broad cultural trend of Han chauvinism which means most people don't much care about 2
4. Some people speak out about 1, China responds by doing more of 1, because 1.
5. The USA, which could not give a drat about 2 but very much wants to cultivate hostility towards China senses an opportunity to manipulate popular opinion.
6. US think-tanks produce research that uses selective evidence to massively exaggerate the extent of the issue.
7. This encourages the anti-china crowd to go balls to the wall, social media is filled with disturbing footage and photographs allegedly from Xinjiang. Some of this is real, some of it trivial to discredit.
8. 4 find 6 very receptive to their genuine stories about 1, are happy someone is listening.
9. 6 discovers that many of 4 don't much like China either, and are more than happy to co-operate, while others are so desperate to be heard that they are easy to manipulate into saying whatever the interviewer leads them to.
10. 6 is now comfortable claiming that China is now literally doing a Holocaust, using a variety of 'evidence' from 4 and 7 to back up this conclusion. Some of their sources are legit, many are not, or are highly exaggerated - often because 6 deliberately manufactured the most highly inflammatory testimonies they could.
11. The Western media and institutions eat up 10 because 6 are highly influential, and it becomes an accepted truth within some international organisations. Going against it is perceived as outright genocide denial, dissuading much mainstream criticism and reinforcing the story.
12. Some people realise that certain pieces of evidence and testimony are completely full of holes.
13. Most people steer well clear because 6 is now a self-evident truth and they don't want to be ostracised.
14. Tankies, being no strangers to ostracism, take this to mean that the whole thing is a fabrication and insist China is a utopia among other insane tankie things.
15. This actually benefits the the narrative of 10, because the only people rejecting the conclusion are utter weirdoes.
16. China also uses 12 to cover itself, claiming that 10 is bullshit (probably correct), and that following on from that 1, 2, and 3 are also bullshit (probably very much incorrect).
17. 16 being a dumb claim, Western institutions take it as further proof of 10.
18. We are stuck in a stupid rut where there are basically no good faith actors whatsover.

Hey, maybe years down the line I'll have my own Noam Chomsky moment, but right now I see no reason to just swallow what the PR wing of a country known for pulling this poo poo time and time again when they want to manufacture consent to intervene in foreign affairs tells me wholesale.